The Joe Rogan Experience - December 05, 2019


Joe Rogan Experience #1393 - James Wilks & Chris Kresser - The Game Changers Debate


Episode Stats

Length

3 hours and 42 minutes

Words per Minute

180.83276

Word Count

40,172

Sentence Count

3,420

Misogynist Sentences

7

Hate Speech Sentences

8


Summary

In this episode, James and Chris debate whether or not the Gladiators in Game Changers are vegan. James argues that the film is based on cherry-picking, while Chris argues that there is no evidence to suggest that the gladiators were in fact vegan. They also discuss the role of evidence in the film, and how it can be used to make a case for or against the premise of the film. In this episode of the podcast, James is joined by Chris, who is the producer of the new documentary, "Game Changers". This is the fourth time Chris has appeared on the show, and it's his fourth appearance on The Late Show with Stephen Colbert, which is a show that James has been a long time supporter of. This episode was recorded on October 6th, 2019. If you haven't watched the film yet, be sure to do so before listening to this episode. We hope that you enjoy it and that you find it entertaining, informative, and entertaining. Thank you so much for listening and supporting the show. Cheers, James, Chris, Stephen, and Caitie. XOXO. - Caitie and James Music: "Goodbye Outer Space" by Zapsplat - "Space Junk" by Jeff Kaale and "Outer Space Blues" by Ian Dorsch (feat. The Good Fight" by Fountains of Calidor & "Good Morning America" by The Good Morning Folks "Good Luck" by Suneaters (featuring the Good Fight Crew , "The Good Fight Team by The Badass Crew and The Good Life Project of the Good Morning Goodbye, Good Luck is released on November 15th, 2020, 2019, we hope you enjoy this episode! We are looking forward to seeing you all in 2020! - The Good Luck Project, Caitie Goodspeed and Good Luck! (Good Luck, Goodbye! ) Thank You, Jon & Good Luck, Jonathon Come Back, Jon, Jonothan, Jonothans, Kristian, James, Chris, Sarah, and Sarah, - Sarah, Rachel, and Katie, Michael, and Kacie, , Chris Thanks for listening to the podcast! Jonathon, Jake, and Christian


Transcript

00:00:02.000 Alright, here we go.
00:00:03.000 First of all, welcome, James.
00:00:06.000 Good to see you.
00:00:06.000 I really appreciate you having me on.
00:00:08.000 My pleasure.
00:00:09.000 And welcome again, Chris.
00:00:12.000 So, this is essentially giving you an opportunity to refute some of the things that Chris has said about your film.
00:00:19.000 We should tell everybody that you're the producer of Game Changers.
00:00:22.000 Yeah, I'm one of two producers.
00:00:24.000 One of two producers.
00:00:25.000 I know you also, of course, from The Ultimate Fighter, UFC. And Chris, this is your, what, fourth appearance here?
00:00:32.000 Fourth or fifth.
00:00:34.000 Did you get a chance to see what Chris had said?
00:00:38.000 Yeah, I've watched it.
00:00:39.000 I've made a bunch of notes.
00:00:40.000 Excellent.
00:00:41.000 Let's start from the beginning.
00:00:43.000 The beginning of the show, the beginning of your film, you talked about the gladiators and all that stuff and the fact that you were shocked to find out that they had eaten a vegetarian diet.
00:00:55.000 Yeah.
00:00:56.000 I mean, you know, that's been misrepresented, right?
00:00:58.000 So even before the film came out, people were like, oh, there's this vegan film coming out.
00:01:02.000 It's vegan propaganda.
00:01:03.000 People were judging the film before they'd seen it, right?
00:01:06.000 And the vegan sort of community really pushed it like, hey, look at this documentary.
00:01:10.000 So there's been things saying they claimed that the gladiators were vegan, right?
00:01:14.000 And if we can just prove they think the whole film is based on this premise.
00:01:18.000 That was just like an inciting incident for me to start digging into it.
00:01:20.000 First of all, Fabian Kant said they were predominantly vegetarian, and I said they ate mostly plants, and that is what I couldn't believe, right?
00:01:28.000 So we didn't claim that they were vegan, didn't even claim that they were vegetarian, they were just fueled mostly by plants.
00:01:33.000 You know, and people say, oh, you cherry-picked one location.
00:01:35.000 It was the only known gladiator burial site in the world based on archaeological and anthropological data at the time.
00:01:42.000 At the time where you read the study?
00:01:44.000 Because there have been other studies.
00:01:45.000 Well, there's been some that have been questioned.
00:01:47.000 So, like, there's one in York.
00:01:48.000 There was one in York at the time that had a few gladiator skeletons.
00:01:51.000 And it was questioned whether that was the thing.
00:01:53.000 But I'm happy to address every critique.
00:01:55.000 But if you wouldn't mind, I just want to make sure that Chris is on the same page about how evidence is evaluated.
00:02:00.000 Sure.
00:02:01.000 So, Chris, would you consider yourself a nutrition expert?
00:02:06.000 No.
00:02:07.000 I would consider myself someone who is adept at reading the literature and learning from experts in nutrition, medicine, anthropology, etc.
00:02:20.000 Although I do have master's level training in nutrition.
00:02:24.000 Okay.
00:02:25.000 So, is it fair to say that any one study cannot show what, you know, the human race should be eating?
00:02:31.000 Is that fair?
00:02:32.000 Any one study?
00:02:32.000 Absolutely.
00:02:33.000 So basically, any time you show a study, if you say something, you have to give a citation for it, right?
00:02:37.000 Yeah.
00:02:37.000 Is that fair to say?
00:02:38.000 And then someone can claim that that's cherry-picked.
00:02:41.000 Because you've got to show a study or some studies, and then someone can claim it's cherry-picked, right?
00:02:44.000 So what we have to do in order to understand nutrition is look at the totality of the evidence.
00:02:48.000 And I just want to make sure that we're on the same page, and then we can address each critique, if that's okay.
00:02:52.000 Is that okay?
00:02:52.000 Sure.
00:02:52.000 That is the core of my argument.
00:02:54.000 Right, exactly.
00:02:55.000 So you would say, is it fair to say like there's three main areas?
00:02:58.000 So there'd be like preclinical data, which would either be in animals or in test tubes, petri dishes, right?
00:03:03.000 There'd be observational data, where you look at people and see how they're doing.
00:03:08.000 And obviously there's the healthy user bias potential.
00:03:11.000 And there's interventional trials, right?
00:03:13.000 So let's just take trans fats, for example, right?
00:03:15.000 You look in a petri dish at endothelial cells and trans fats and you can see that it creates vascular inflammation in those cells, right?
00:03:25.000 And then you look at people who eat more trans fats and they have higher levels of inflammation.
00:03:28.000 And then you can actually do interventional randomized controlled trials and you can tell that trans fats cause inflammation.
00:03:35.000 So we basically all agree that trans fats are bad based on all of those data points.
00:03:38.000 Is that fair?
00:03:39.000 Okay.
00:03:40.000 So therefore, again, if you start any one study, someone can just claim that you're cherry-picking, right?
00:03:45.000 You can just say cherry-picking.
00:03:46.000 Everyone can say that.
00:03:47.000 I can say that you're cherry-picking, you can say that I'm cherry-picking.
00:03:49.000 Not necessarily, because there are meta-analyses and reviews that are built for this purpose to look at the totality of evidence.
00:03:57.000 So if you're in the film, for example, pointing to many meta-analyses that Fair enough.
00:04:09.000 I agree with that.
00:04:16.000 Right?
00:04:17.000 But in the real world, you know, you have to look at experts that are specialists in their field.
00:04:21.000 So if I, you know, I just got shoulder surgery not long ago, right?
00:04:24.000 So I went to a shoulder surgeon.
00:04:25.000 I didn't go to a dentist.
00:04:26.000 If I want to learn about comedy or, you know, fight announcers, I might come and talk to you, right?
00:04:30.000 If I want to learn about acupuncture or understand chi more, I might come to Chris because you've got a master's degree in traditional oriental medicine.
00:04:39.000 You're a licensed acupuncturist, right?
00:04:40.000 So if I want to learn about that, Chris is someone that I might want to go to.
00:04:44.000 So what I'm saying is the World Health Organization, the FAO, the American Heart Association, the 2015-2020 Dietary Guidelines, are all suggesting to eat predominantly plant-based diets, right?
00:04:57.000 And they're saying that vegetarian and vegan diets are helpful for all life stages, including for pregnancy, childbirth, breastfeeding, adolescents, athletes, and so on.
00:05:08.000 That's the general consensus.
00:05:10.000 Can I just finish?
00:05:11.000 Sure.
00:05:14.000 And I've got a bunch of slides.
00:05:15.000 If you don't believe anything, I've got a bunch of slides showing the position papers for all of these.
00:05:19.000 That's okay.
00:05:19.000 Go ahead.
00:05:19.000 So we'll skip through that.
00:05:20.000 So you'd agree that those...
00:05:22.000 No, I wouldn't necessarily agree on the recommendations.
00:05:27.000 Okay, so can we go to slide one?
00:05:28.000 Those recommendations change over time.
00:05:30.000 No, they do change over time.
00:05:31.000 And I would also say that I'm on a predominantly plant-based diet.
00:05:35.000 Well, exactly.
00:05:36.000 So then what are we arguing about?
00:05:38.000 If you look at two-thirds of my plate is plants.
00:05:40.000 Well, this was my point.
00:05:42.000 Yeah, but no, you're being unfair.
00:05:44.000 That's really, really unfair because last time you pointed out that the totality of coverage of the plate is not reflective of the calories.
00:05:50.000 You said that on...
00:05:51.000 Yeah, but that has nothing to do with what he's saying.
00:05:52.000 He's not talking about calories.
00:05:53.000 He's talking about what is predominantly his diet.
00:05:56.000 It's mostly plants.
00:05:58.000 You've got to base it on calories.
00:05:58.000 You can't base it on the amount of food.
00:06:01.000 Why would we need to base it on calories?
00:06:02.000 If you're saying that your diet is predominantly plant-based, then either one, we're on the same page, right?
00:06:07.000 No, we're not.
00:06:09.000 Because the main question here, in my mind, is whether there is evidence that supports Being on a 100% plant-based diet with no animal products versus a diet that includes a lot of plant foods and some animal foods.
00:06:25.000 I thought you were critiquing the film which was talking about plant-based diets.
00:06:29.000 So plant-based diets means getting the vast majority of your calories from plants and limiting or excluding animal foods.
00:06:35.000 But the film, essentially, was all about only eating plants.
00:06:39.000 No.
00:06:40.000 Okay, so there was no recommendation whatsoever about eating animals.
00:06:44.000 No, there's not.
00:06:44.000 How animal products will kill you, dairy products will kill you, all kinds of different animal foods.
00:06:49.000 Meat is like cigarettes.
00:06:50.000 No, no, that claim was never made, see?
00:06:52.000 But there was a connection.
00:06:53.000 No, there was not.
00:06:54.000 There was an inferred connection.
00:06:55.000 No, there was not.
00:06:56.000 What was the connection to cigarettes then?
00:06:58.000 The connection to cigarettes was the way, the playbook that is being used by the...
00:07:02.000 See, that's people are conflating like what the hell...
00:07:04.000 The playbook is the same playbook that they use...
00:07:05.000 The playbook is the same way that they're using athletes and they're using advertising.
00:07:08.000 We never made the claim...
00:07:10.000 Explain that then.
00:07:11.000 Be clear.
00:07:12.000 So, the playbook that was used by the smoking industry, so they pay for studies, right?
00:07:19.000 And we know, even with food, this has been done with cigarettes, it's been done with drugs, it's been done with food, research shows that industry-funded studies are four to eight times more likely I've seen this in articles Saying,
00:07:50.000 you know, they connected meat.
00:07:51.000 We didn't do that.
00:07:52.000 Like, if you watch the film, we never said...
00:07:54.000 Well, what did you?
00:07:54.000 Why did you have that in there, though?
00:07:56.000 If you're not saying...
00:07:57.000 Because they're using the same playbook.
00:07:58.000 If you're not saying that meat causes cancer, you're saying...
00:08:01.000 Wait, wait, wait a sec.
00:08:02.000 They're using the same playbook.
00:08:03.000 There are some specific claims that chicken eating chicken and fish causes cancer, eating dairy causes cancer, there are quotes from doctors, vegan doctors in the film.
00:08:11.000 No, they're not vegan.
00:08:12.000 That's the other misrepresentation.
00:08:13.000 So, can I just go back?
00:08:14.000 Can we just finish the evaluating evidence and then get to each point?
00:08:16.000 Because I'm happy to do every critique.
00:08:18.000 So, basically, the consensus, and you're saying they're changing over time, they are changing, because as we get better at science, the recommendations are becoming more plant-based, despite industry influence from studies and marketing and people being paid off.
00:08:30.000 Industry influence goes both ways.
00:08:32.000 The sugar industry in the 60s was a big expose, pointing the finger at fat.
00:08:37.000 As the culprit.
00:08:38.000 I don't think fire is the culprit.
00:08:39.000 So that's a straw man argument.
00:08:41.000 No, but he's not saying you are saying that.
00:08:43.000 No, no, I'm saying the industry is...
00:08:44.000 I agree.
00:08:45.000 The sugar industry is terrible, and I would agree that...
00:08:47.000 But can I just...
00:08:48.000 Can we just finish the evaluating evidence?
00:08:49.000 But the thing about this section of the film was you were making some sort of a correlation between cigarettes and...
00:08:58.000 The way that it was marketed.
00:08:59.000 The way they're marketed, and then the way meat is marketed.
00:09:02.000 Correct.
00:09:03.000 It's the same company's exponent.
00:09:05.000 But you would never do that about carrots or kale or things that are predominantly healthy, right?
00:09:11.000 Because they didn't do it.
00:09:12.000 But if you're saying that you're connecting the two things, you're connecting something that clearly causes cancer, Cigarettes.
00:09:20.000 And these studies that were made to show people that it didn't.
00:09:24.000 They were paid off.
00:09:25.000 These studies were fake.
00:09:27.000 They were essentially cherry-picked fake studies that were financed by the tobacco industry in order to get people to buy more cigarettes.
00:09:34.000 You're making this same sort of claim about meat, which means you think that meat is bad for you.
00:09:40.000 I do.
00:09:43.000 No, we can disagree about that, but I'm almost finished with the evaluating evidence.
00:09:48.000 So basically, what we did when we interviewed the experts is we chose leading experts in their individual fields, collectively with thousands of articles in the peer-reviewed literature, right?
00:10:00.000 And this is one of the bummers about making a documentary.
00:10:03.000 You put the lower third on, people don't get to read it.
00:10:05.000 So we had the Chair of Nutrition at Harvard, the President of the American College of Cardiology, the Lead Delegate of Urology for the American Medical Association, the Chair of Anthropology at Harvard, the Director of Energy, Environment and Resources at Chatham House, really respected...
00:10:18.000 Talking about vegan doctors, I saw some of them involved in hunting, some of them involved in animal testing.
00:10:25.000 I saw one of them eating a chicken sandwich at lunch.
00:10:28.000 So let's not say that this was a vegan bias coming into it, because that's just not true.
00:10:34.000 We're stretching out here.
00:10:35.000 We were talking just about this one section where you're connecting cigarettes and meat.
00:10:41.000 So you're saying that the same playbook, but there's no evidence that meat is bad for you.
00:10:46.000 No, we can get into that, and I'm happy to.
00:10:48.000 But this is something that's actually recently been established by mainstream medicine.
00:10:51.000 You understand that, right?
00:10:52.000 That they've released new studies, releasing these new studies saying that there's no longer this concern that red meat causes cancer, or that even...
00:11:02.000 It's also an appeal to an authority, because I can find many illustrious doctors and experts who are highly qualified that will disagree with your point of view that a diet must be 100% plant-based in order to be healthy.
00:11:15.000 Can you clarify your position?
00:11:18.000 I want to know what we're actually debating here.
00:11:21.000 I do.
00:11:22.000 But this was the connection that you made with cigarettes in the film.
00:11:26.000 No.
00:11:26.000 I think they're both promoting something bad because there's a profit incentive.
00:11:31.000 So you think that meat is bad for you?
00:11:32.000 100%.
00:11:33.000 You think that they're promoting it knowing that it's bad just for profit?
00:11:36.000 Okay, so all Chris has to do to debunk the film is convince the people watching and listening that he knows more about the consensus and the experts in their field I would understand if this is what you talked about.
00:11:48.000 No, I'm not interested.
00:11:49.000 I'm actually not that interested in consensus of experts.
00:11:52.000 I'm looking at the research that is published, the peer-reviewed research that is published, including meta-analyses and even reviews of meta-analyses that have been done.
00:12:01.000 A perfect example is the whole dairy and cancer section that we talked about, where you had...
00:12:06.000 Walter Willett argued that dairy products cause cancer, and I pointed to a meta-analysis that looked at over 150 different reviews, and 84% of those found no association.
00:12:19.000 So how is that not part of this discussion where we're talking about hundreds of scientists across different continents, different countries that are using peer-reviewed science to show this?
00:12:33.000 But in the movie, just one...
00:12:35.000 Expert is pointing to, you know, one group of studies without mentioning that.
00:12:41.000 That seems disingenuous.
00:12:42.000 That's a fair point, right?
00:12:42.000 So this is the 2018 meta-analysis.
00:12:44.000 Have you got a slide for that?
00:12:47.000 If not, I've got your slide.
00:12:48.000 107. Slide 107. No, this is a 2019 meta-analysis.
00:12:53.000 153 studies, right?
00:12:54.000 Yeah, and we can get a lot further into it, because that's not the only one.
00:12:59.000 I'd love to, because at 9 o'clock last night, until 9 o'clock last night, I thought Chris just made a bunch of mistakes interpreting the data, and I'm going to show you how he is misleading people on this study, okay?
00:13:10.000 So, if you can bring up slide 107, Jamie?
00:13:14.000 Can we see the slide?
00:13:15.000 Yeah, yeah, put it up.
00:13:16.000 Okay.
00:13:22.000 Is this it?
00:13:23.000 Okay, so you see what he's put in quotes?
00:13:26.000 Okay, 84% of meta-analyses on dairy consumption showed either no association or an inverse association between dairy and cancer.
00:13:34.000 And then you go on to point out what an inverse means is that people that ate more dairy get lower rates of cancer.
00:13:39.000 That's what he's implying.
00:13:40.000 When you put something in quotes, what does that mean to you?
00:13:45.000 It means that's what he said.
00:13:46.000 Yeah, but that quotation is quoting the study.
00:13:50.000 Right?
00:13:50.000 Fair enough?
00:13:51.000 Is that what they said in the study?
00:13:52.000 No, that's not what they said in the study.
00:13:55.000 That was my summary of the evidence of the study.
00:13:59.000 Right, thank you.
00:14:00.000 But when you put something in quotes, that's misleading.
00:14:02.000 But that's his quote.
00:14:03.000 Okay, fine.
00:14:03.000 Okay, let's go with that.
00:14:05.000 But he's not putting things in quotes saying that someone else said it.
00:14:08.000 Totally.
00:14:09.000 I mean, anything you do in literature, when you put something in quotation marks, you're quoting the study.
00:14:14.000 But let's just bypass that.
00:14:16.000 I'll agree.
00:14:17.000 Okay, so can you bring up slide 109 and see what they actually said?
00:14:23.000 Okay, this is the actual quote.
00:14:25.000 Okay.
00:14:26.000 Out of 153 reported meta-analyses comparing highest versus lower dairy consumption, 109, 71%, showed no evidence of a statistically significant association between dairy consumption and incidence of cancers.
00:14:38.000 20 showed a decreased risk of cancers with dairy consumption, and 24 showed an increased risk of cancers with dairy consumption.
00:14:46.000 Now this is actually, until last night at like 9 o'clock, I realized what he was doing.
00:14:51.000 Okay?
00:14:52.000 If you want to go to, I mean, just to sum it up, if you go to slide 110. Wait, can we stay on here for a second?
00:14:57.000 What's your interpretation?
00:14:59.000 Do you agree that that was the quote from the study?
00:15:02.000 Absolutely.
00:15:03.000 Okay, good.
00:15:03.000 But I'm asking you what your interpretation, does that in your mind show a strong connection between dairy and cancer?
00:15:11.000 Okay, Joe, you're going to really realize here what Chris is doing.
00:15:14.000 Okay, this is really, and I'm glad that you brought it up.
00:15:16.000 Please answer what he's saying.
00:15:17.000 Okay, so can I just say, the reason you brought this up is because Walter Willett said there was a strong connection between prostate cancer and dairy, correct?
00:15:23.000 Yeah.
00:15:24.000 So you brought up something about all cancers.
00:15:27.000 And in this study, about half of the study showed a connection between prostate cancer and dairy and half didn't.
00:15:34.000 That's still not a compelling argument that dairy is associated with cancer.
00:15:40.000 You got a coin flip, basically.
00:15:43.000 That's not actually true.
00:15:44.000 I'll explain why that's not true.
00:15:46.000 You still haven't answered my question about this data here.
00:15:47.000 I will.
00:15:47.000 I'm trying to tell you.
00:15:48.000 I'm trying to tell you.
00:15:49.000 Slide 110. Well, let's stay with this.
00:15:52.000 Explain this first, and then we'll move to the next slide.
00:15:54.000 No, no.
00:15:54.000 Slide next 110 is explaining this.
00:15:56.000 Okay.
00:15:56.000 It's just breaking that down.
00:15:57.000 Okay.
00:15:58.000 So there were statistically significant associations between dairy consumption and incidence of cancers.
00:16:02.000 71% showed no evidence.
00:16:04.000 13 showed a decreased risk, and 16% showed an increased risk.
00:16:08.000 So you see what Chris did to represent this?
00:16:10.000 He added 71 and 13 to make 84. Right?
00:16:15.000 You follow?
00:16:15.000 This is how you got it, right?
00:16:17.000 So you added 71% and 13% to get 84. So his statement from this study was, 84% showed no evidence or a decreased risk.
00:16:27.000 That's what he made you believe.
00:16:29.000 Well, 71% shows no evidence.
00:16:31.000 13% shows decreased risk.
00:16:33.000 If you add the two of them together, that's 84% shows no evidence or a decreased risk.
00:16:38.000 Exactly.
00:16:39.000 But what he could have said...
00:16:41.000 Is 71% plus 16%.
00:16:42.000 That's 87%.
00:16:44.000 He could have said 87% show no evidence or an increased risk.
00:16:49.000 It's 84. How are you getting 87?
00:16:51.000 No, 71 plus 16. Oh.
00:16:54.000 So I could make the claim.
00:16:55.000 No evidence or a decreased risk?
00:16:57.000 No, no.
00:16:58.000 We're getting really into semantics here.
00:17:00.000 No, we're not.
00:17:00.000 The burden of proof.
00:17:02.000 You were claiming in the film was claiming dairy causes cancer.
00:17:06.000 My claim was there's no, the bulk of the evidence suggests there is no association or inverse association.
00:17:13.000 That's true.
00:17:14.000 70% shows no evidence.
00:17:17.000 I agree.
00:17:17.000 13% shows decreased risk.
00:17:19.000 But hold on a second.
00:17:21.000 The decreased risk and the increased risk are almost the same.
00:17:24.000 Which is higher.
00:17:27.000 3% shows increased risk on this one study.
00:17:29.000 The point of this study is that his study that he brought up showing this is very strong evidence.
00:17:35.000 His statement was very misleading.
00:17:37.000 He added up those two, and then he finished it up by saying, so basically there's an inverse correlation.
00:17:43.000 But he did not show, he could have said 87% showed no risk or an increased risk.
00:17:48.000 Instead, he chose to summarize it to saying 84%.
00:17:51.000 But no risk and an increased risk, it's a very different thing.
00:17:55.000 Because you're talking about something causing cancer.
00:17:58.000 No, exactly.
00:17:59.000 And so there wasn't strong enough things to find that total cancer was increased, right?
00:18:03.000 But we just...
00:18:04.000 We know that, as research shows, this included, did it not, industry-funded research?
00:18:10.000 Two-thirds of research is industry-funded, James.
00:18:12.000 Right, and we know that...
00:18:13.000 Yeah, and research shows that...
00:18:14.000 Are you proposing that we throw out every study?
00:18:17.000 Because one of the main studies in your film was sponsored by the Haas Avocado Board, the one that claims that animal products contribute to inflammation.
00:18:26.000 I'm not suggesting we throw them out.
00:18:28.000 I'm not suggesting we throw them out.
00:18:29.000 I'm saying that industry-funded studies...
00:18:30.000 And by the way, industry...
00:18:32.000 Funded studies, they typically only put them out when it shows in their favor.
00:18:36.000 There's no obligation for industry when they do a study to release it.
00:18:41.000 Yeah, I'm familiar with that.
00:18:42.000 I've written a lot about that myself.
00:18:43.000 So Joe, do you think that the industry and the meat and dairy industry has far more money than the plant-based industry, right?
00:18:49.000 You'd agree with that?
00:18:51.000 Actually, we can look at some statistics on that.
00:18:55.000 I don't know who's spending more money.
00:18:58.000 Would you disagree that industry-funded research has a four to eight times increased risk compared to non-industry-funded research in finding collusions in their favor?
00:19:08.000 I think industry research is definitely a problem, but I see it as a problem across the board, and I have some statistics we can talk about.
00:19:16.000 Do you not admit that you here led the audience to believe That there was a potentially decreased risk overall.
00:19:23.000 You made it sound very high because you didn't split between the no difference.
00:19:26.000 No, that was not my intention.
00:19:27.000 It was just to summarize the data, not to spend 10 minutes, as we're doing now, talking about one study.
00:19:34.000 Right, because you made a very misleading claim.
00:19:36.000 But no, it's misleading if you said it the other way.
00:19:39.000 My claim is completely accurate.
00:19:40.000 If you said showed no evidence or showed an increased risk, 84%, or 87%, that seems like it's misleading.
00:19:47.000 I don't think that would be misleading also.
00:19:48.000 I'm just saying he could have said that.
00:19:50.000 But we're talking about something causing cancer, James.
00:19:53.000 Exactly, so he shouldn't be making that claim.
00:19:55.000 But increased risk is what we're looking for.
00:19:57.000 What we're looking for is evidence of it causing cancer.
00:20:00.000 71%, the bulk of the evidence shows no evidence.
00:20:02.000 That's exactly my point.
00:20:04.000 If you're claiming that something increases, then I'm saying here's all this research that doesn't show that.
00:20:13.000 You honestly don't think that that statement...
00:20:14.000 Instead of just putting that 71% showed no evidence, 13% showed...
00:20:18.000 That would have been the fairest, most...
00:20:36.000 It's true.
00:20:37.000 It's true.
00:20:40.000 That's the relevant point.
00:20:41.000 That's the relevant point.
00:20:42.000 The relevant point is, does the study show that dairy causes cancer?
00:20:46.000 The primary evidence, most of the evidence says it shows no evidence or it shows a decreased risk.
00:20:52.000 That's the bulk of it.
00:20:53.000 That's 84%.
00:20:54.000 Versus 87%.
00:20:55.000 It doesn't.
00:20:56.000 No, no, no.
00:20:56.000 87% shows increased risk is only 16%.
00:20:59.000 You're adding no evidence to increased risk to get 87%.
00:21:04.000 That's illogical.
00:21:05.000 Let's throw out the no evidence.
00:21:07.000 Let's throw that out.
00:21:08.000 Let's throw out no evidence.
00:21:09.000 Why would we throw that out?
00:21:10.000 The burden of proof is to show evidence that indicates that dairy causes cancer.
00:21:16.000 If you do a study and it shows that it doesn't, Then that's not in support of the claim that dairy causes cancer.
00:21:23.000 I'm agreeing that the meta-analysis could not find an association.
00:21:26.000 But I'm also pointing out that industry-funded studies were included in it, and they are more likely to find no connection.
00:21:33.000 Okay, so there's 153 studies.
00:21:36.000 You're claiming that all of them are industry-funded, and we should throw out this huge review of 153 meta-analyses because of industry funding?
00:21:45.000 What is the basis for that claim?
00:21:48.000 No, I'm saying that it sways the results.
00:21:51.000 You can't see that?
00:21:53.000 I don't accept it.
00:21:57.000 I have 153 studies that were in this meta-analysis that they're going to sway the results to the point where these findings aren't valid.
00:22:07.000 And we could do the same thing with all of the studies that you have done.
00:22:12.000 Link to in the film.
00:22:13.000 And we can also look at other studies on dairy and cardiometabolic outcomes.
00:22:18.000 I've got lots of large reviews that we can look at.
00:22:22.000 And again, anyone can bring up...
00:22:23.000 This is a pointless discussion to have if you're just going to sit there and say industry funding makes these results invalid.
00:22:30.000 That's not my only point.
00:22:31.000 You're saying it makes them suspect.
00:22:33.000 Correct.
00:22:33.000 Yes.
00:22:34.000 And it could have swayed it in the other direction.
00:22:35.000 It has in the past.
00:22:36.000 In that sense, I do agree with you about the cigarette thing.
00:22:38.000 How many of the 153 meta-analyses, which each also had individual studies in them, are so biased by industry funding that we can't count on the findings?
00:22:50.000 Well, I would hope that you would know more than I. We can't get very far in this discussion if you're going to claim that we can't even talk about studies in the peer-reviewed literature because industry funding completely biases the findings.
00:23:08.000 No, I'm not saying that's the case.
00:23:10.000 I'm saying just because they couldn't, even though there were more showing an increased risk than showed a decreased risk, right?
00:23:15.000 I am saying that it's possible that the industry funding...
00:23:19.000 That's a misleading statement.
00:23:20.000 More showed increase than decrease.
00:23:23.000 That's correct.
00:23:23.000 No, but there's 71% showed no change at all.
00:23:27.000 No, I agree with that.
00:23:27.000 I agree.
00:23:27.000 So that's a wash.
00:23:29.000 No, it's not a wash.
00:23:30.000 It's not even close to a wash, James.
00:23:32.000 No, it's not a wash.
00:23:33.000 If you have a hypothesis, this thing causes cancer, and then you do a ton of studies and there's no association, that hypothesis is no longer correct.
00:23:43.000 It's not a wash.
00:23:44.000 No, that's actually not true based on epidemiology.
00:23:46.000 If you have 10 studies that show no association and 10 that show an association, the net outcome is an association.
00:23:52.000 But you don't have that.
00:23:52.000 You don't have that at all here.
00:23:53.000 But I'm not, again, I'm not arguing.
00:23:55.000 What he said, you have 84% that show nothing or a decreased risk, which is the opposite.
00:24:01.000 You could say 84% showed no evidence and then, forget about decreased risk, just say 84% showed no evidence.
00:24:08.000 Forget about decreased risk.
00:24:09.000 Right.
00:24:10.000 You still have only 16% showed an increased risk.
00:24:13.000 When you do an epidemiology study, you have to take into account all the other factors in this person's lives.
00:24:18.000 You have to take into account whether they drink, whether they smoke, whether they exercise, sedentary lifestyle.
00:24:24.000 There's a lot of factors.
00:24:26.000 If you had something that was causing cancer, you would expect the results to be flipped.
00:24:32.000 You would expect the results to be 16% showed...
00:24:36.000 So it showed no evidence, 71% or 84% showed an increase.
00:24:41.000 That would be something you'd say, hey, this is causing cancer.
00:24:44.000 This is more likely.
00:24:45.000 That's not how epidemiology works, though.
00:24:47.000 Well, epidemiology is slippery.
00:24:49.000 No, I agree.
00:24:50.000 Wait, wait, wait.
00:24:50.000 How is that not how epidemiology works?
00:24:52.000 If you had 10 studies showing no evidence, just because you don't find something doesn't mean that it exists.
00:24:58.000 The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence.
00:25:01.000 Okay, but let's say this.
00:25:02.000 If you had 100 studies, and 70 of those studies showed an increased risk of cancer, wouldn't you say that thing causes cancer, most likely?
00:25:10.000 Well, if it was all epidemiology, then it's a question.
00:25:12.000 Wouldn't you say that, right?
00:25:13.000 Okay, so let's do 100 studies, and 70% now show no evidence.
00:25:18.000 Wouldn't you say it's most likely that there's no evidence?
00:25:20.000 No, that's not how it works.
00:25:22.000 Oh, how does it work?
00:25:23.000 So if you've got 70 studies that couldn't show a correlation, and 30% that did, that is still in favor of showing that there is a correlation.
00:25:32.000 No, no, no.
00:25:34.000 Now we're doing 70 studies.
00:25:36.000 70% of the people in these studies, if you have all these studies, you have 100 studies, and 70% of the people in all these studies are showing an increased risk of cancer.
00:25:44.000 We would agree.
00:25:45.000 Right.
00:25:46.000 Well, you can't prove causation based on observational, but sure.
00:25:49.000 But you would agree there's most likely a connection.
00:25:51.000 Most likely, yeah.
00:25:51.000 Right.
00:25:51.000 Now, if it's reversed.
00:25:53.000 Now, 70% of these studies show there's no increased risk of cancer.
00:25:57.000 Or 84%.
00:25:58.000 Or 84%, which is because you add in the decreased risk.
00:26:02.000 We're not even adding the decreased risk, which shows that you're less likely to get cancer, which is almost the same as an increased risk of cancer, which in my eyes is a wash.
00:26:10.000 You would assume that we're talking about something that doesn't give you cancer.
00:26:14.000 Well, I agree that this study found that they couldn't prove a causation, right?
00:26:19.000 They couldn't prove a link between cancer and...
00:26:21.000 But you made it out like he was being deceptive.
00:26:23.000 He is being deceptive.
00:26:24.000 I don't agree with that.
00:26:25.000 I don't agree with that because you're trying to show that these studies...
00:26:30.000 We are proving or at least making this correlation between consumption of dairy products and cancer.
00:26:36.000 But the evidence doesn't show that.
00:26:38.000 If you want to look at it in its entirety, the evidence shows that most of the 71% showed no evidence of it causing cancer.
00:26:46.000 13% showed it's actually better for you.
00:26:49.000 You have less risk of cancer than not eating dairy.
00:26:53.000 And then 16% showed increased risk of cancer.
00:26:56.000 And again, when you're talking about epidemiology studies, when you're talking about, you know, 16 out of 100, you have to throw in all the other factors in these people's lives.
00:27:05.000 I agree.
00:27:06.000 That's why they didn't find it.
00:27:07.000 But can I just, the reason you point this up is prostate cancer, right?
00:27:11.000 And so if you look at slide 113...
00:27:14.000 Prostate cancer, that's disturbing.
00:27:16.000 So it's 50-50.
00:27:17.000 With dairy consumption versus...
00:27:19.000 Wait, that's not...
00:27:20.000 Sorry, 113. But a lot of people get prostate cancer too.
00:27:24.000 Isn't that also an issue?
00:27:25.000 That's a high risk.
00:27:27.000 Isn't that a high risk for males?
00:27:30.000 Prostate cancer?
00:27:31.000 It's a high one.
00:27:33.000 Sorry, 112. Whether they consume milk or not.
00:27:37.000 So, in this meta-analysis that you point to, the highest connection that they could find between dairy and any type of cancer was prostate cancer.
00:27:44.000 So, if you look at the black line, that shows no association.
00:27:47.000 If you look at the green line, that's decreased association, and the red line was increased association.
00:27:52.000 That was the meta-analysis that you provided.
00:27:54.000 Yeah.
00:27:55.000 So you brought this study up because Dr. Walter Willett, who is the chair of nutrition at Harvard, he's one of the most published nutrition scientists of all time, if not the most published.
00:28:05.000 No disagreement there.
00:28:06.000 Right?
00:28:07.000 And so he is coming to the determination that prostate cancer is linked and it's likely that it's causal.
00:28:12.000 And this very study...
00:28:14.000 Whoa, whoa, whoa.
00:28:14.000 Back up.
00:28:15.000 Half and half.
00:28:16.000 That's no evidence of a causal relationship, James.
00:28:20.000 There's no evidence of a causal relationship.
00:28:22.000 Okay.
00:28:23.000 Dr. Walter Willett.
00:28:25.000 Let's talk about this study rather than appeal to authority.
00:28:29.000 You just said yourself that's a rhetorical fallacy.
00:28:32.000 No, it's...
00:28:32.000 It's a fallacy unless it's the appeal to valid authority.
00:28:37.000 Because literally, if I want to know about, are you saying like, so if I want, let's say we look at mixed martial arts, and Chris goes, well, I've never done mixed martial arts, but I think I know more about anthropology, nutrition, like, I know more about boxing, kickboxing, jiu-jitsu, and wrestling.
00:28:52.000 So we're talking about the consensus.
00:28:54.000 We're talking about leading experts in their field with thousands of peer-reviewed There is no consensus.
00:28:59.000 There are experts who are very illustrious who would disagree and would look at this study and reach the same exact conclusion that I did.
00:29:08.000 There's no reliable proven connection between dairy and prostate.
00:29:15.000 You have half studies showing an association, half studies showing no association, not to mention the fact that that's, as you just said, that even if there was A strong correlation.
00:29:26.000 That doesn't prove causation.
00:29:28.000 You said you like this because it included also randomized controlled trials.
00:29:33.000 Yeah.
00:29:33.000 And I'm saying, should we trust Walter Willett, who at the time was the chair of Nutrition at Harvest?
00:29:37.000 Let's trust the studies.
00:29:38.000 The studies is what we need to look at.
00:29:41.000 We're way off here.
00:29:42.000 The question was still, you know, there are a lot of inferences made in the film Whether they were intentional or not on your part, that dairy, people are hearing, oh, dairy is going to cause prostate cancer.
00:29:58.000 They're going to extend that to cancer.
00:30:00.000 There are other claims in the film made about dairy and metabolic issues and saturated fat and metabolic issues.
00:30:07.000 So, the operative question that I'm trying to answer is, do the data support that?
00:30:12.000 Not does Walter Willett think that, or any other expert in the film, do the data support that conclusion?
00:30:18.000 And even in that study, The data don't strongly support that.
00:30:24.000 If you have half studies saying yes, half studies saying no, that's not a clear signal, and it's definitely not evidence of a causal relationship.
00:30:31.000 So having Walter Willett or anyone say there's a strong relationship and we know the mechanism and it's causal, that happens.
00:30:40.000 Can I pause here?
00:30:42.000 Didn't you tell me that two-thirds of people have an intolerance towards milk and towards dairy?
00:30:50.000 And I have a study here.
00:30:52.000 Is that what the number is?
00:30:53.000 It's two out of three people in the world.
00:30:56.000 Okay.
00:30:58.000 Because this is actually To your point.
00:31:00.000 So two out of three people have an intolerance towards dairy in the world.
00:31:04.000 And if you're talking about a study that shows 50% of the people in these studies that are consuming dairy, there's a correlation between prostate cancer and dairy.
00:31:15.000 Wouldn't you assume that maybe the same thing that we're talking about, where two-thirds of people are intolerant to something, they consume this thing that's intolerant, it causes inflammation in the body, and that inflammation in the body could possibly be leading to cancer?
00:31:30.000 Correct.
00:31:31.000 No, not correct.
00:31:32.000 Dairy is inversely associated with inflammation.
00:31:36.000 But if people are irritated by dairy, if they have an intolerance to dairy, and you said two-thirds of people.
00:31:47.000 Here's what I would suspect there, that if we segmented those people out and said, let's do a study, find out who's intolerant of dairy and find out who isn't, you would see even better results for dairy.
00:31:59.000 Because despite the fact that some people are lactose intolerant, we're still seeing in that meta-analysis that there's no association in most cases and an inverse association in other cases.
00:32:15.000 But this prostate cancer thing is not most.
00:32:17.000 This is 50-50, right?
00:32:19.000 I know.
00:32:19.000 50-50 is disturbing.
00:32:21.000 So imagine what you're saying.
00:32:22.000 You're saying if dairy gives half people cancer and doesn't give the other half cancer, then I can just drink dairy.
00:32:27.000 Second of all, do you see what Chris just did?
00:32:29.000 That's not what that said.
00:32:30.000 These are epidemiology, James.
00:32:33.000 It's not dairy gives anyone cancer.
00:32:35.000 It's association.
00:32:35.000 No, that's not.
00:32:36.000 Your meta-analysis included randomized controlled trials.
00:32:39.000 This is actually to you.
00:32:40.000 Can I stop this, though?
00:32:43.000 If someone's intolerant of something, that means your body is irritated by it, means it causes some sort of disturbance, right?
00:32:49.000 Whether it's inflammation or gastrointestinal disorder, you start farting.
00:32:54.000 That's what happens when people are lactose intolerant, right?
00:32:57.000 That irritates the body.
00:32:59.000 Wouldn't you assume that something your body is intolerant to would possibly be the cause of disruption or disease?
00:33:07.000 Certainly could be.
00:33:08.000 Right.
00:33:08.000 But if you're looking at two-thirds of the population, But why would that cause prostate cancer and no other cancers?
00:33:18.000 I don't know.
00:33:19.000 That doesn't make sense.
00:33:20.000 That's why when you see that kind of thing in the data, it's a red flag.
00:33:26.000 Because there's no logical explanation for why it would cause prostate cancer but no other cancers.
00:33:32.000 Can you start to think about why is there more of an association there with that?
00:33:37.000 Jamie, just Google dairy products and inflammation review of the clinical evidence.
00:33:42.000 This is a systematic review of 52 clinical trials and they found that dairy products were inversely associated with inflammatory markers, which means that people who consume dairy actually had lower levels of inflammatory markers.
00:33:57.000 So the hypothesis that dairy is inflammatory and that's why it's causing cancer doesn't seem to hold up.
00:34:03.000 So can I just say...
00:34:04.000 Go ahead.
00:34:35.000 No, there are many experts who would agree with me.
00:34:38.000 You just didn't choose to interview them in the film.
00:34:40.000 No, actually, we did interview some that I can tell you about in a second, on the other side, and I'll tell you why we didn't include them.
00:34:45.000 But you're asking people, I would understand it if suddenly Chris has figured out this NutriVore diet, that he figures out something about nutrition, that he knows more about the consensus and more about the majority of leading experts, But to believe that Chris knows more about anthropology,
00:35:01.000 urology, heart disease, environment.
00:35:03.000 Why include anthropology?
00:35:05.000 Because you tried to debunk some of the anthropology in the film.
00:35:09.000 And successfully, because the majority of anthropologists agree with what I said.
00:35:14.000 You chose probably one of the few that would agree with the idea that humans primarily ate exclusively plant-based diet for most of human evolution.
00:35:25.000 We can go into that again.
00:35:26.000 I'm actually representing the consensus viewpoint in anthropology, James.
00:35:31.000 No, you're actually not.
00:35:32.000 You'd be hard-pressed to find a consensus group of experts that agree with that idea.
00:35:38.000 So you're saying that Richard Rang, the chair of anthropology that we interviewed, does not represent the scientific consensus of anthropology?
00:35:45.000 If you're arguing that he is saying that humans primarily ate plant-based diet and animal products were not a significant part of our diet through evolution, then yes, that's what I'm saying.
00:35:57.000 It depends.
00:35:58.000 We came from the equator, right?
00:36:01.000 I want to go back a second.
00:36:03.000 Are you arguing that there's a dominant consensus among nutrition experts in the U.S. that everyone should be on a vegan diet?
00:36:13.000 No.
00:36:16.000 So, what's the argument here?
00:36:19.000 That people should eat plants?
00:36:22.000 And my argument is, yes, they should.
00:36:24.000 And animal products can also be part of that Nutrivore healthy omnivorous diet.
00:36:30.000 And I think you would find a dominant consensus of nutrition experts that agree with that.
00:36:36.000 But that's not the way this film is being interpreted.
00:36:39.000 Right, because there was a bias going into it.
00:36:42.000 So, for example, when you go to the US military, right, the Game Changers is the first documentary that has ever been accredited by the Defense Health Agency for the Department of Defense.
00:36:51.000 It's the first documentary that has ever been supported by the Special Operations Medical Association.
00:36:56.000 They didn't come into it looking at the science.
00:36:58.000 This has been evaluated by hundreds of PhD researchers to come to that conclusion, okay?
00:37:03.000 Wait a minute, how so?
00:37:05.000 They've been evaluated how so?
00:37:07.000 You can't get an accreditation.
00:37:08.000 Your film is being evaluated by...
00:37:11.000 The Defense Health Agency of the Department of Defense, which decides what the military is eating, they don't give a crap about, oh, let's base our diets on evolution.
00:37:21.000 They care on what is the science.
00:37:23.000 And Game Changers is the first documentary that's ever been accredited by the Defense Health Agency.
00:37:27.000 They didn't look at this and go, okay, this is a vegan propaganda film.
00:37:32.000 Why are you saying that hundreds of PhDs have reviewed this and reviewed all the data in it to come to this conclusion?
00:37:39.000 And is this proven?
00:37:40.000 Is this printed?
00:37:41.000 Is this some published paper where it shows that hundreds of people have reviewed this film and found all the claims to be credible and that all the debunkings of it are not?
00:37:50.000 The Defense Health Agency has reviewed this film In detail, digging into each of the studies...
00:37:56.000 Right, but you're saying, again, called to authority, you're saying hundreds of PhDs have studied this.
00:38:01.000 Who are these people?
00:38:02.000 Well, there's a lot from the Defense Health Agency.
00:38:04.000 There's a lot of people at the Special Operations and Medical Association that came to the decision, and these are master's degrees in nutrition, PhDs in nutrition, to get that accreditation.
00:38:14.000 That just hasn't happened before.
00:38:16.000 Because they didn't come into it thinking, this is a vegan propaganda film.
00:38:19.000 That was the bias going into it.
00:38:21.000 We're, again, talking a lot about experts and their opinions.
00:38:26.000 Experts, right.
00:38:26.000 Experts and their opinions and not Chris Kresser and his opinion.
00:38:29.000 It's not.
00:38:30.000 That's a misrepresentation, James.
00:38:32.000 No, we're talking about studies.
00:38:33.000 No, this is not about my opinion.
00:38:35.000 And we can fill the room with experts who agree with me.
00:38:39.000 You had a debate with a doctor in the UK on a TV show who disagreed with you.
00:38:46.000 We can always find people who agree and disagree with all kinds of different credentials.
00:38:53.000 It's disingenuous to claim, like I said, that I'm not here to argue that plants are unhealthy and that we shouldn't be eating a lot of plants.
00:39:03.000 This is the fallacy that gets created with these kinds of films.
00:39:07.000 It's not a choice between a standard American crappy processed food diet that contains meat or a vegan diet.
00:39:15.000 There is a possibility of a plant-based diet, a diet that has a lot of plants that also contains animal products, and comparing that with a 100% plant-based diet, that is the operative question here.
00:39:30.000 I believe that meat and dairy are bad for you.
00:39:34.000 The film talked about plant-based diet.
00:39:36.000 Why do you believe that?
00:39:37.000 I think there's sufficient evidence.
00:39:38.000 Yeah, well, let's talk about that.
00:39:39.000 Because that's what we already started talking about.
00:39:42.000 If you look at our website, and people want to know the resources on what to eat, we say it's all or something.
00:39:48.000 It doesn't have to be all or nothing.
00:39:51.000 So we were talking about...
00:39:52.000 Okay, but that's nice.
00:39:53.000 But what you just said, you think that meat is bad for you.
00:39:56.000 Yeah.
00:39:56.000 Meat and dairy and, you know...
00:39:58.000 Well, I can see the argument if we're talking about two-thirds of people being lactose intolerant.
00:40:03.000 I would see the argument that for two-thirds of people, dairy is probably not good for you.
00:40:08.000 The research doesn't support that, though.
00:40:11.000 But if you're saying, what is lactose intolerant?
00:40:14.000 If you're intolerant of something, that means your body's not enjoying it.
00:40:16.000 And that's not the only issue, by the way.
00:40:18.000 That's not the only issue with milk.
00:40:19.000 But let's just concentrate on that, because that's a giant number.
00:40:22.000 Two-thirds of people are lactose intolerant.
00:40:25.000 Your body's intolerant of something, but you keep consuming that thing that your body's intolerant of.
00:40:30.000 I would naturally assume, as an absolute admitted non-expert, that that's not good.
00:40:35.000 So, two things here.
00:40:36.000 Number one, I've always, for years, have written that dairy is very individual and depends on your tolerance.
00:40:42.000 Number two, there are a lot of dairy products with virtually no lactose in them.
00:40:46.000 So, cheese, for example, hard cheeses, no lactose, you know.
00:40:50.000 Cream, very little lactose.
00:40:53.000 Butter, no lactose.
00:40:54.000 Ghee, no lactose.
00:40:56.000 Yogurt, fermented dairy products like kefir, no lactose.
00:41:00.000 So while I agree with what you're saying, if someone is lactose intolerant, they should avoid dairy products that contain lactose.
00:41:07.000 When you look at the studies on dairy and connections with conditions like cancer, inflammation, which I just pointed out with this study, And you look at cardiometabolic outcomes, which I'd like to cover because that includes heart disease and diabetes and overweight,
00:41:23.000 obesity, etc.
00:41:25.000 There is not any strong evidence that dairy contributes to those conditions.
00:41:29.000 So let's look at those actual studies.
00:41:32.000 Chris, you talk really badly against epidemiology, saying it can't prove causation.
00:41:37.000 And then when you like it, you cite it.
00:41:39.000 So you'll give epidemiological evidence...
00:41:40.000 It's the same way with you, James.
00:41:42.000 I mean, you can't have it both ways.
00:41:44.000 Exactly.
00:41:44.000 You can't have it both ways either.
00:41:45.000 That's right.
00:41:47.000 The burden of proof, if you're claiming that something is bad for you, the burden of proof is on you.
00:41:53.000 Sure.
00:41:54.000 So you can't say it's bad for you, and then I show epidemiological studies and RCTs, by the way, that were included in that meta-analysis that don't support that, and then you say, oh, we can't trust the research.
00:42:06.000 I'm pointing out your hypocrisy is saying that you said that epidemiology, that's observational studies, just looking at people.
00:42:13.000 You have said that we can't rely on those, and then you then cite them yourself.
00:42:19.000 I didn't say we can't rely on epidemiology.
00:42:21.000 I say you have to consider the caveats with epidemiology.
00:42:25.000 But again, the burden of proof, if you're claiming that a food is bad for you, the burden of proof is on you to show research that it is.
00:42:33.000 So for example, first of all, there's inflammatory mediators, for example, like heme iron.
00:42:43.000 Second of all, we look at population data and we show increased causes of morbidity and mortality.
00:42:49.000 For people that eat less meat.
00:42:50.000 Or that eat no meat.
00:42:53.000 Increased causes of morbidity.
00:42:55.000 You just said it the wrong way.
00:42:58.000 Decreased risk of morbidity and mortality.
00:43:01.000 Let's just be real clear on that because you said it wrong.
00:43:05.000 Let's look at two randomized controlled trials.
00:43:07.000 See, these are not observational studies.
00:43:10.000 The first found that increasing red meat consumption by replacing carbohydrates in the diet of individuals without anemia actually reduced markers of inflammation.
00:43:21.000 Sorry, replacing what, sorry?
00:43:23.000 Carbohydrates?
00:43:25.000 Yeah.
00:43:25.000 That's what you said, sorry.
00:43:26.000 So, Jamie, if you want to pull this, I mean, these are all on the website, cressor.co slash gamechangers, but that study is called Increased Lean Red Meat Intake Does Not Elevate Markers of Oxidative Stress and Inflammation in Humans.
00:43:43.000 I believe the study exists.
00:43:45.000 So these are RCTs, randomized.
00:43:48.000 So they're actually controlling it.
00:43:49.000 Instead of just looking at observational data, which is subject to healthy user bias, these are two RCTs.
00:43:57.000 So that's one study.
00:43:59.000 And then there's another RCT in women with anemia inflammation markers on a diet high in red meat or not significantly different from those on a diet high in oily fish.
00:44:11.000 And then there are also numerous studies of paleo diets which contain meat and other types of animal protein and show that they decrease markers of inflammation including CRP. There's randomized controlled trials showing reductions in interleukin-6 and also in tumor necrosis factor alpha.
00:44:29.000 In these diets.
00:44:31.000 So all of this suggests it's not the meat, it's what you eat with the meat that makes the difference.
00:44:37.000 We have studies of chlorophyll, eating chlorophyll-rich green vegetables decreases the formation of N-nitroso compounds with meat.
00:44:45.000 We have lots of studies showing that when you eat plants along with the meat, then you don't see the effects that you might see if you're just eating...
00:44:56.000 A crap standard American diet.
00:44:58.000 I agree.
00:44:59.000 So if an animal food creates oxidative stress, you have it with the plant foods, and that would have the antioxidants, and that would offset it.
00:45:07.000 Is that basically?
00:45:08.000 It's a little more complicated than that.
00:45:09.000 Yeah, I think it is more complicated than that.
00:45:12.000 But that's one mechanism.
00:45:13.000 As I said last time, and as I've always argued, I'm not a proponent of the carnivore diet.
00:45:20.000 I'm not a low-carb guy.
00:45:21.000 I'm not a keto guy.
00:45:24.000 My fundamental argument is just that the optimal human diet contains both plant and animal foods.
00:45:31.000 And this focus on individual food components or macronutrients like protein or fat or carbohydrate, we've gotten too much...
00:45:41.000 It's called nutritionism.
00:45:43.000 It's just focusing on these individual elements and ignoring the overall pattern of diet quality, which is the most important thing.
00:45:50.000 And that's what a lot of the more recent studies are showing.
00:45:53.000 When you look at the diet pattern and diet quality on its...
00:45:58.000 Overall, that's what actually makes a difference in terms of health and lifespan, not how much of this fat, how much of that fat, whether there's red meat or white meat or fish or whatever.
00:46:10.000 It's the pattern.
00:46:10.000 Let me pause here because this is one of the primary misconceptions that people have about consuming meat.
00:46:15.000 When they hear studies that say that meat is associated with mortality or high cholesterol or heart disease or all these different factors, We are talking about these kinds of studies where people fill out a form, tell us what you eat.
00:46:29.000 How many days a week do you eat meat?
00:46:31.000 How many days a week do you eat this?
00:46:33.000 What they don't take into account is whether or not these people are going to Wendy's, whether or not they're eating a grass fed steak and broccoli.
00:46:43.000 Something healthy.
00:46:44.000 There's a giant difference between those two things, but they're lumped in together because this is meat consumption.
00:46:49.000 Yeah, the studies aren't perfect for sure.
00:46:52.000 But you were saying that basically you're saying we should look at outcomes and not just look at individual markers, right?
00:46:56.000 Is that basically...
00:46:58.000 No, I'm saying we should look at the diet quality, the overall diet pattern.
00:47:04.000 So, for example, Christopher Gardner did a study at Stanford a couple years ago, and he took, instead of saying, you know, low-fat, low-carb, he took two groups and he advised them all to basically eat a healthy diet.
00:47:19.000 And then one group ate a low-fat, healthy diet, and the other group ate a low-carb, healthy diet.
00:47:24.000 They all lost weight.
00:47:25.000 But there wasn't that big of a difference between the two.
00:47:27.000 I agree.
00:47:27.000 I agree.
00:47:28.000 So first of all, in terms of health, my opinion would be I'm pretty much macronutrient agnostic.
00:47:35.000 So I'm not advocating high-carb or low-carb.
00:47:39.000 I think that people can do healthy and well.
00:47:40.000 I think for athletes, they need a lot more carbs, which, of course, is getting those from plants.
00:47:43.000 I think there are certain athletes that can, if it's a slow and steady state where you're getting more fat oxidation, I think that, you know, stone steady state athletes can do, but like an MMA fighter, a soccer player, a basketball player, more carbs.
00:47:56.000 We all agree on that.
00:47:57.000 But you just said that you were not low carb, right?
00:48:00.000 You said you're not low carb.
00:48:02.000 I'm not.
00:48:03.000 I'm not a low carb advocate.
00:48:04.000 I've written articles called Seven Reasons You Should Be Cautious.
00:48:09.000 I'm not saying I'm not a low carb advocate.
00:48:12.000 I don't believe everyone should be on a low carb diet.
00:48:15.000 I've never believed that.
00:48:17.000 But the thing is, Chris doesn't have the consensus definitions of carbohydrate levels.
00:48:22.000 You've made up your own definitions, right?
00:48:24.000 When did I make up my own definitions?
00:48:26.000 Slide 80. Jamie, if you could do that, please.
00:48:31.000 Let's just point out that Zach Bitter, the man who I had on the podcast yesterday, who holds the world record in running 100 miles in 11 hours, and I think it's 18 minutes, he's on a low-carbohydrate diet.
00:48:43.000 Yeah, and again, in a slow and steady state, you can certainly do well.
00:48:48.000 So, Chris, your definition of low-carb is 10 to 15%.
00:48:53.000 If you can go to the next slide, Jamie, 81%.
00:48:57.000 So if you look at the peer-reviewed literature, it's either less than 30% or, in the next slide, Jamie, less than 40%.
00:49:02.000 Like, if you look across all the literature, it's less than 30% or 40%.
00:49:05.000 Moderate carb, according to Chris, next slide, Jamie, would be 15% to 30%.
00:49:10.000 Peer-reviewed literature, next slide, 40% to 65%.
00:49:15.000 And then high carb, Chris calls, more than 30%.
00:49:18.000 And the peer-reviewed literature, high carb, more than 65%.
00:49:22.000 And the next slide, more than 70%, depending on the peer-reviewed literature.
00:49:25.000 So, you've come up with your own definitions of what is low, moderate, and high carb.
00:49:29.000 Yeah, just for the purpose of my work with people.
00:49:34.000 I wasn't trying to represent research there.
00:49:37.000 That's what I consider to be...
00:49:40.000 Low-carb, moderate-carb, and high-carb in my work with patients and in my recommendations.
00:49:45.000 Joe, did you not just hear him say...
00:49:47.000 He did, I mean, that is what you said.
00:49:50.000 I mean, when you wrote this out, you did have a different definition than the peer-reviewed literature.
00:49:56.000 So you go slide 88. You do, by his definition, have your own idea of what high-carb and low-carb is.
00:50:01.000 And he said no.
00:50:01.000 You heard him say no.
00:50:03.000 Yes.
00:50:04.000 And so slide 88, please, Jamie.
00:50:07.000 So I just want to sum this up.
00:50:09.000 But what's the point here?
00:50:10.000 Because I've never said that everyone should be on a low-carb diet.
00:50:15.000 No, I agree.
00:50:16.000 And I've always argued that it depends on everything from your genes to your exercise, pattern, activity.
00:50:22.000 But Chris, where are you getting your numbers from?
00:50:24.000 Like when you write low-carb, moderate-carb, and high-carb?
00:50:27.000 He made them up.
00:50:28.000 This is a clinical recommendation from my experience working with patients.
00:50:33.000 I'm not representing the scientific literature here.
00:50:36.000 I'm not trying to make arguments about what's safe or not safe.
00:50:38.000 We're talking about nutrition.
00:50:39.000 That's madness.
00:50:41.000 That's absolute madness to come up with your own definitions.
00:50:44.000 And this is what I feel that Chris does.
00:50:45.000 And when you have people like Chris on multiple times, it throws people's perception off as what is a healthy diet because Chris misrepresents the data.
00:50:53.000 He comes up with his own definitions of things.
00:50:55.000 He misrepresents things that we said in the film.
00:50:58.000 What did I misrepresent in the film?
00:51:00.000 Hold on.
00:51:00.000 We're going to get into the woods.
00:51:02.000 We're going to get into the woods here.
00:51:03.000 Let's just talk about this real quick.
00:51:04.000 So when we're talking about low carb, moderate carb, or high carb, when you're recommending to your patients low carb, moderate carb, or high carb, these definitions, how are you coming to these conclusions?
00:51:18.000 Just made them up.
00:51:19.000 No, based on...
00:51:20.000 So there are a lot of people, James, that disagree with the ranges...
00:51:26.000 The scientific consensus.
00:51:27.000 Yeah, there are.
00:51:28.000 But when you say scientific consensus, how many different scientists were...
00:51:33.000 We're polled on this.
00:51:34.000 How many different studies were shown?
00:51:36.000 Well, I don't know.
00:51:37.000 Just consider...
00:51:38.000 But is this something that...
00:51:39.000 But hold on a second.
00:51:40.000 Is this something that you just found that disputes his position?
00:51:44.000 Or is this like a large group of people?
00:51:47.000 No, this is...
00:51:47.000 Okay, so slide 89. Well, consider Virta Health, who uses...
00:51:51.000 You know the folks at Virta, who are all scientists, MDs.
00:51:54.000 They use a ketogenic, very low-carb diet to...
00:51:57.000 To address diabetes.
00:52:00.000 You will not be in ketosis at 30% carbohydrate, or 25%, or 20%, or even 15%.
00:52:09.000 It's going to be 7%, probably less than 10%.
00:52:14.000 And then 40% to 65%, You're not even in the ballpark.
00:52:26.000 So if you're thinking about using low carbohydrate diets, for example, for weight loss or for diabetes or metabolic issues like Virta Health is doing, then low carb is not going to be 30% to 40%.
00:52:41.000 That's not going to work.
00:52:42.000 So that's where my recommendations are coming from.
00:52:45.000 Your recommendation is based on ketosis?
00:52:47.000 Based on the optimal range, if you look at the rest of the article, it's going to be like, if you've got diabetes, you're overweight, you're obese, you're trying to lose weight, this is the range that I've found and other experts like the people at Virta Health have found will be most effective.
00:53:05.000 And these are the ranges?
00:53:07.000 There's no representation that this is the range that is defined as low-carb in the scientific literature.
00:53:12.000 Right.
00:53:13.000 So you're calling it low-carb because if someone's on a ketogenic, low-carb diet, in order to get into ketosis, you have to have a low number of carbohydrates.
00:53:21.000 It's actually probably even below 10%.
00:53:23.000 And not even just to be in ketosis, like just to get the maximal weight loss.
00:53:29.000 You know, someone could be at 15% and still get great weight loss without being in ketosis.
00:53:33.000 I've got to interrupt because just like in the last five minutes, you showed a study from trying to prove your own point That low-carb and low-fat people had equivalent fat loss.
00:53:45.000 You just said that.
00:53:46.000 So why are you now all of a sudden advocating only low-carb diets for losing body fat?
00:53:50.000 I'm not advocating only low-carb diets.
00:53:53.000 I said that they can both work for different people in different situations.
00:53:58.000 But James, you're misrepresenting what he was saying.
00:54:00.000 What he was saying is getting people to go on a healthy diet versus the standard American diet.
00:54:05.000 So he's not just talking about low carb versus high carb.
00:54:09.000 What he's talking about is getting off bullshit like processed foods and sugar and eating healthy.
00:54:14.000 I totally agree with that.
00:54:14.000 And when you do that, people, no matter what, low carb or high carb, lose weight.
00:54:18.000 But I think you will agree, as well as almost anybody would, that getting on a low carbohydrate diet and forcing your body into ketosis makes your body burn fat.
00:54:27.000 It's one way, yeah, sure.
00:54:28.000 But it's proven, right?
00:54:30.000 The other piece of this is most of the studies aren't comparing a healthy omnivorous diet with a plant-based vegan diet.
00:54:43.000 They're comparing a vegan diet with a standard American diet that contains animal products.
00:54:47.000 What we're talking about is not a fair comparison.
00:54:49.000 Same with the paleo diet or its neutrovore diet.
00:54:52.000 Yes.
00:54:52.000 Which, by the way, has any of your work or your ideas been published in the scientific literature?
00:54:56.000 No.
00:54:56.000 I've never claimed that it has.
00:54:58.000 I just wondered.
00:55:00.000 You didn't wonder.
00:55:01.000 No, I did wonder.
00:55:02.000 I couldn't find anything.
00:55:04.000 But that's not why you were saying that.
00:55:05.000 You were saying that to try to make it seem that he's less of an expert.
00:55:08.000 Well, he is.
00:55:08.000 I'm not an expert either.
00:55:10.000 So what's the point?
00:55:12.000 Why are you here?
00:55:13.000 Why am I here?
00:55:14.000 Well, actually I did ask if I could bring my chief science advisor who has a double master's degree in exercise physiology and nutrition.
00:55:20.000 He's a registered dietitian.
00:55:21.000 I've read all of his papers and we can talk about them.
00:55:24.000 Yeah, totally.
00:55:25.000 But I think we should...
00:55:27.000 So first of all, we just...
00:55:28.000 We still haven't come to this understanding of why you think meat is bad for you.
00:55:33.000 You were basing it...
00:55:34.000 Well, okay, so there's the individual components like heme iron, for example.
00:55:39.000 We talked about that last time.
00:55:41.000 The heme iron is only associated with poor outcomes in the U.S. That's actually not true.
00:55:46.000 It's not in other countries.
00:55:49.000 That's not true.
00:55:50.000 Let's let him and then we can refute it.
00:55:51.000 That's not true.
00:55:52.000 You can refute it.
00:55:53.000 In the FAANG meta-analysis, which looks at most of the studies that have been done on that, and then if you also consider that when you add...
00:56:03.000 Green vegetables and other plant foods, spices, and all of that, it reduces the oxidative capacity of heme iron and reduces the absorption of heme iron.
00:56:14.000 And, you know, again, we're talking about diet pattern, not just are you eating red meat in McDonald's and fast food restaurants, but are you eating it in the context of an overall healthy diet, and does that have the same effect?
00:56:29.000 Right.
00:56:29.000 Do you know how to read a forest plot?
00:56:34.000 Yes or no?
00:56:35.000 I don't.
00:56:37.000 What does that mean?
00:56:38.000 That's basically looking at the competent intervals.
00:56:40.000 What's it called, a forest plot?
00:56:41.000 Forest plot.
00:56:42.000 Plot, okay.
00:56:43.000 Yeah, because it kind of looks like a bunch of trees, right?
00:56:44.000 Okay.
00:56:45.000 So, you don't know how to read a forest plot.
00:56:47.000 So, have you actually looked at the study that you referenced?
00:56:49.000 I have looked at the study.
00:56:50.000 Okay, so, you don't know how to read it, so it's kind of...
00:56:54.000 So, get a microphone on you, James.
00:56:57.000 Just pull that sucker over.
00:56:59.000 So, you see the...
00:57:02.000 First of all, he said that what he put up on the screen, I don't know if you've still got the slide, but you said that the heme-iron association was only in Americans, right?
00:57:11.000 But the conclusion of that study said that heme-iron was associated with cardiovascular disease.
00:57:18.000 That was the conclusion of the study which he didn't put up on the screen.
00:57:22.000 The quote I put up was, with respect to heme iron intake, we found a significant association only in the studies that were based on American cohorts.
00:57:30.000 Right.
00:57:31.000 So there's two things about that.
00:57:32.000 That was from the study.
00:57:33.000 Okay.
00:57:34.000 First thing, I can't link to my slide.
00:57:36.000 I don't know where it is.
00:57:37.000 But basically, can you just read the conclusion of that study?
00:57:42.000 Because I can't find my slide.
00:57:45.000 The conclusion is down here.
00:57:49.000 Higher dietary intake of heme iron is associated with an increased risk of cardiovascular disease, whereas no association was found between cardiovascular disease and non-heme iron intake or total iron intake.
00:58:03.000 And then I just read the quote just now.
00:58:07.000 Which was incorrect, by the way.
00:58:09.000 The authors made a mistake.
00:58:11.000 How did they make a mistake?
00:58:13.000 So if you look at this forest plot, for example, this Kipstein-Grohbush, And you can go and look at the, I've looked at the individual studies that they were referencing in the meta-analysis, as has my scientific team.
00:58:24.000 So basically you see this, this is a 1.86.
00:58:30.000 With the composite interval being 1.14 to 3.09.
00:58:35.000 That is statistically significant connection between heme and iron.
00:58:38.000 And you can look at the conclusions in three of the photos.
00:58:41.000 But you're saying that what he said about eating it with green leafy vegetables reduces the oxidation effects?
00:58:44.000 No, no, no.
00:58:44.000 But we have to point out that I don't think this one...
00:58:47.000 You don't think that's true?
00:58:49.000 First of all, unlike the dairy one where I think that he was being a bit misleading...
00:58:53.000 In this case, I don't think he was being misleading.
00:58:55.000 I think that you read...
00:58:57.000 There was no misleading.
00:58:58.000 It was summarizing.
00:58:59.000 We already went over this.
00:59:01.000 Yeah, I don't think he was being misleading in the dairy.
00:59:03.000 You would like to create that impression, but there was no misleading.
00:59:07.000 That's just my opinion.
00:59:08.000 I think you were being a bit misleading.
00:59:09.000 In this case, I do not think he was being misleading at all.
00:59:12.000 It did say what you said in the study, even though you didn't point out the conclusion.
00:59:15.000 You left out the conclusion of the study.
00:59:17.000 But what...
00:59:19.000 Wasn't your fault.
00:59:19.000 I think you read the study, but you admitted that you don't know how to read forest plots.
00:59:24.000 And the forest plots, if you did look at them and you knew how to read them, you'd show that there were three in the Netherlands and in Sweden that did show a significant correlation.
00:59:33.000 Because what you were trying to make out with this point, which I understand when you have a point of view and you're trying to work it backwards, what you end up doing is you try and find studies that suit your position.
00:59:44.000 And so...
00:59:45.000 You went and found the study, and you found a quote, even though you didn't like to put the conclusion of the study.
00:59:49.000 No, I did acknowledge that there was an association, but it was based on American cohorts, which was in there.
00:59:57.000 Yeah, but it's not.
00:59:57.000 And it's not your fault, because the people, whoever wrote the write-up for the study, made a mistake.
01:00:03.000 They were statistically significant, because 1.14 to 3 means that there was like a 14% to 300% increase in that one study of...
01:00:12.000 I think we're good to go.
01:00:33.000 Yes, it has been associated.
01:00:35.000 And we still have the studies that eating fruits and vegetables attenuate the oxidative capacity from heme iron, reduce absorption of iron in the gut.
01:00:44.000 And now we're focusing on a single mechanism rather than looking at the outcomes.
01:00:48.000 Right.
01:00:49.000 Again, I'm happy to look at the outcomes.
01:00:51.000 Do you agree with what he just said?
01:00:52.000 I do.
01:00:52.000 I think that plant foods offset the oxidation, offset in some regard the oxidation that you get from animal foods.
01:01:00.000 However, if you work out You have oxidative stress, okay?
01:01:05.000 So if you want to have a meal, do you want the plant foods in the meal to be dealing with the oxidative stress from the animal foods, or do you want the plants to deal with the oxidative stress, allow you to recover faster, and your next workout will be better?
01:01:18.000 I don't think we know that's true.
01:01:19.000 No, we do know that's true.
01:01:20.000 How do we know that's true?
01:01:23.000 This is nutritionism because we're not focusing on the nutrients in red meat and the highly bioavailable protein.
01:01:32.000 It's not like red meat is only there to cause oxidative stress.
01:01:37.000 I agree.
01:01:38.000 It's not the only thing.
01:01:39.000 There are some nutrients in meat.
01:01:40.000 So again, the question is, is there a place for animal foods in a diet that is healthy overall?
01:01:47.000 Not whether you should eat plant foods.
01:01:52.000 Right.
01:01:52.000 We both agree that you should probably eat a lot of plant foods, right?
01:01:55.000 Which is my position.
01:01:56.000 I think it would be difficult for me to argue 100% plants versus 50% plants.
01:02:01.000 I don't think it's argued to argue like 90-95% plants versus...
01:02:06.000 I think the argument would take hours and hours and hours to convince you why I think 100% plants is better.
01:02:11.000 I think there's definitely bio-variability.
01:02:13.000 And I think different people have different requirements.
01:02:16.000 Can we just go back a second?
01:02:16.000 I want to make sure I understood what you just said.
01:02:18.000 Can you repeat that?
01:02:19.000 So my position is that the literature...
01:02:22.000 I think it's an easier argument because we're talking about plant-based diets and plant-based diets would be either limiting or eliminating animal products, right?
01:02:33.000 So for plant-based diets in general, right?
01:02:36.000 So vegan, maybe some vegetarian, like if you eat turkey on Thanksgiving and then you eat fish once a month, I would say that's a plant-based diet.
01:02:43.000 You're getting the vast majority of your calories from plants, right?
01:02:46.000 I think most people, even if you're eating pasta, you're getting the vast majority of your calories from plants.
01:02:53.000 Well, yeah, but if we're talking about what's the healthiest diet...
01:02:56.000 But that's the problem, right?
01:02:56.000 I think whole plant foods, right?
01:02:58.000 But a lot of shitty American diet is plant-based.
01:03:00.000 You're talking about buns and bread and all the bullshit and peanut butter and jelly sandwiches.
01:03:05.000 That's all plant-based.
01:03:06.000 And a lot of vegans and vegetarians, just because you're vegan or vegetarian doesn't mean you're healthy.
01:03:09.000 Exactly.
01:03:10.000 Right?
01:03:11.000 My argument would be that you're getting the vast majority of your calories from whole plant foods.
01:03:15.000 Right.
01:03:16.000 Agreed.
01:03:16.000 Okay.
01:03:17.000 You agree?
01:03:18.000 Well, I don't think the vast majority is my position, but I think that's his position.
01:03:22.000 I agree with what he's saying.
01:03:25.000 Look, I eat animal products.
01:03:29.000 I have for a long time.
01:03:30.000 And I eat a lot of vegetables as well.
01:03:32.000 I think that...
01:03:33.000 An omnivorous diet is the key to health.
01:03:37.000 That's what I believe.
01:03:38.000 I believe that meat helps you recover faster.
01:03:41.000 I think it's more nutrient-rich.
01:03:43.000 I think there's things in meat that it's very difficult to get in plants.
01:03:47.000 And I think the quality of the amino acids and the quality of the protein content in meat is superior to that in plants.
01:03:53.000 Definitely we should get into the protein.
01:03:54.000 Let's talk about that because that's one of the things you brought up.
01:03:56.000 Can I just say that I agree with the type of meat that you eat.
01:03:59.000 We know that there's not studies done on the inflammation in elk, but there is studies on inflammation in kangaroos, for example, in Australia.
01:04:08.000 So totally wild caught.
01:04:09.000 So that's like their equivalent of elk, right?
01:04:11.000 And there is about half the inflammation coming from that as there is from beef.
01:04:16.000 Well, I would imagine.
01:04:17.000 I mean, you're talking about a much healthier, much higher protein.
01:04:20.000 The difference between the protein content in elk per ounce versus the protein content in beef is almost double.
01:04:26.000 It's a giant difference.
01:04:28.000 And we just had the randomized controlled trials I showed that showed less inflammation with eating red meat.
01:04:33.000 No, yeah, but the thing is, it's tricky, because when it's something healthy or something inflammatory, it's always compared to what?
01:04:40.000 So in some of these studies, what the industry does is they'll compare red meat to bacon, or they'll switch it up.
01:04:48.000 It works the other way around.
01:04:50.000 They compare a plant-based diet with a standard crop Western diet.
01:04:54.000 No, I agree.
01:04:54.000 That's not a good comparison.
01:04:57.000 But I still don't see why you're saying meat is bad for you.
01:05:02.000 I mean, we just showed with the heme iron.
01:05:04.000 But the heme iron, in conjunction with plant-based foods, is showing.
01:05:08.000 And he said it's because of the quote that you gave.
01:05:12.000 One of the primary reasons is because of oxidation.
01:05:15.000 Antioxidants deal with oxidation.
01:05:16.000 You get pro-oxidation from animal foods.
01:05:19.000 You also get pro-oxidation from exercise.
01:05:23.000 We're talking about, you know, isolated mechanisms instead of outcomes.
01:05:28.000 But Chris, you talk about mechanisms when you want to, and you talk about preclinical data when you want to.
01:05:33.000 I was talking about them in response to the claims made in the film, because mechanisms were mentioned.
01:05:39.000 New 5GC, TMAO, heme iron, and so I brought those up to respond to them.
01:05:44.000 No, but that's not when you use them, because if you go on your website, you actually...
01:05:47.000 I'm not saying we shouldn't ever talk about mechanisms, James.
01:05:50.000 I'm saying if you're talking about mechanisms but the outcomes don't support The mechanism, then what's the point?
01:05:59.000 Well, I think we can get into epidemiology and look at that, but I think we should definitely hit protein, because I think if everyone watching, that's the biggest myth, and it's the biggest sort of gripe, and I think we should definitely hit B12. Let's go with B12, because one of the things that you said that he disputed was, bring up that B12 quote that you said was complete horseshit.
01:06:17.000 I can read it out if you want.
01:06:18.000 Go ahead, please.
01:06:25.000 B12 isn't made by animals.
01:06:27.000 It's made by bacteria that these animals consume in the soil and water.
01:06:30.000 Just like with protein, animals are only the middlemen.
01:06:33.000 Before industrial farming, Farm animals and humans could get B12 by eating traces of dirt on plant foods or by drinking water from rivers or streams.
01:06:42.000 But now, because pesticides, antibiotics and chlorine kill the bacteria that produce this vitamin, even farm animals have to be given B12 supplements.
01:06:50.000 And you said, that's just all false, that's all just factually wrong.
01:06:55.000 So, first of all, B12 is made by bacteria, but animals don't get it from consuming soil and water.
01:07:01.000 First of all, you misrepresented what I said.
01:07:04.000 So I said, it's made by bacteria that these animals consume.
01:07:08.000 You went on to say, That animals didn't get bacteria from the soil.
01:07:15.000 That's not what I said.
01:07:16.000 I said they get it from the bacteria that they got from the soil.
01:07:18.000 So you misrepresented what I said.
01:07:21.000 The key claims you made, James, is that it used to be possible to get B12 by eating dirt on plant foods or from drinking water from rivers or streams.
01:07:31.000 I still have not seen convincing evidence that that is true.
01:07:35.000 And Jack Norris, a vegan dietician, has admitted as much in his article.
01:07:41.000 And then even more relevant than all of that is looking at B12 deficiency rates between vegans, vegetarians, and omnivores in the clinical literature.
01:07:53.000 Like, the other stuff...
01:07:55.000 It's not really relevant until you get to the clinical effect.
01:07:59.000 Can I address each of your critiques then?
01:08:01.000 Is that okay?
01:08:02.000 Yeah.
01:08:02.000 So, first of all, you said there's zero evidence that B12 is fed to cattle, right?
01:08:10.000 You said that.
01:08:11.000 And so, can I just, first, because I said even farm animals, can you put up slide 44, please, Jamie?
01:08:16.000 I said even farm animals have to be given B12 supplements.
01:08:20.000 That's what I said.
01:08:22.000 So did you mean all farm animals?
01:08:25.000 Okay, so do you see that?
01:08:26.000 That is a screen cap from the film.
01:08:28.000 That's a chicken.
01:08:29.000 And down at the bottom, there's the quote for the poultry, right?
01:08:33.000 So would you disagree that pigs and chickens and other farms...
01:08:37.000 No, I don't disagree that they sometimes get B12, but what about shellfish?
01:08:45.000 Shellfish are extremely high in B12. They're the highest, even higher than… That's a total non sequitur and it's a strong algorithm.
01:08:52.000 It's not actually because the implication in the film was the only reason you get B12 from eating animal products is because they're given B12 supplements.
01:09:00.000 Are you really suggesting that the population gets most of its B12 from shellfish?
01:09:08.000 No.
01:09:08.000 I'm saying that the claim that animals need to take B12 supplements in order to have B12 in their flesh is not accurate.
01:09:17.000 Where do you think chickens get it from?
01:09:20.000 James.
01:09:21.000 Where do you think chickens get their B12 from?
01:09:23.000 The point about the shellfish was, I never claimed chicken was a great source of B12. I said in the film, even farm animals have to be given B12. You said that it was absolutely false.
01:09:35.000 Everything that I said about B12, you said was absolutely false.
01:09:37.000 Those are your words.
01:09:38.000 Well, this is also you talking about that people used to be able to get it from consuming vegetables with bacteria and dirt on it.
01:09:43.000 And that the water is now because of pesticides and chlorine, the water no longer has B12 in it.
01:09:49.000 And then you claim that the same percentage of, you picked one study that showed equal rates of deficiency and ignored the huge amount of literature that shows big differences between vegans, vegetarians, and omnivores in terms of B12 deficiency.
01:10:06.000 I know all of your critiques because I've noted them and I've got a point for each one.
01:10:09.000 So can I just go?
01:10:11.000 Sure.
01:10:11.000 And then you can, if you disagree, you can.
01:10:12.000 So, could you just, Jamie, could you put up slide 45?
01:10:17.000 And rather than throwing off track going to about humans, we'll get to that in a second.
01:10:22.000 But that, I mean, B12 is just commonly fed to chickens, and you would agree with that, right?
01:10:26.000 Yeah.
01:10:27.000 And pigs and lambs, that can't, like, ruminants can create B12 in their gut from the bacteria that they eat.
01:10:33.000 Yeah.
01:10:33.000 Okay.
01:10:34.000 Yeah.
01:10:35.000 But you brought up cattle...
01:10:37.000 And bivalves and other...
01:10:38.000 Yeah, no, certainly.
01:10:39.000 There's some.
01:10:40.000 Yeah, but that's not...
01:10:40.000 Yeah, totally.
01:10:41.000 Okay, so since you brought up cattle, you said that cattle...
01:10:44.000 There's no evidence of cattle being Feb B12. So if you bring up Flight 46...
01:10:55.000 Vitamin B12 for sheep and cattle, that's what it says.
01:10:57.000 You said there's no evidence.
01:10:59.000 So, you said there's no evidence.
01:11:01.000 So, on the left, just because people might not be able to read the small print.
01:11:03.000 Well, listen, there's people just listening as well.
01:11:06.000 Okay, sorry, for people just listening.
01:11:07.000 There's a B12 injection for sheep and cattle.
01:11:10.000 There's three different products.
01:11:11.000 There's something that's added to feed on the left.
01:11:13.000 So, it says a liquid complementary feeding stuff containing the essential trace elements cobalt, selenium, For the treatment of B12 deficiencies, that's due to some soils being low in cobalt.
01:11:27.000 So now, if you just go to slide 47. This is the largest supplier of animal feed or supplements in the world.
01:11:42.000 Okay?
01:11:42.000 On their website.
01:11:43.000 Young ruminants require supplemental vitamin B12 prior to full rumen development.
01:11:48.000 They also say vitamin treatments sometimes administer parenterally to incoming feedlot cattle.
01:11:56.000 And also B12, by the way, has been shown to increase milk production.
01:11:58.000 You said there was no evidence that cattle are given B12 and you said that all my statements were absolutely false.
01:12:06.000 Do you at least admit that you were wrong there?
01:12:10.000 If I said that cattle, specifically that one portion of the statement, that there's no evidence that cattle ever get B12 supplements, then I was wrong about that.
01:12:21.000 Go ahead, read what he says.
01:12:23.000 Okay, first of all, when I made the full statement, this is what you first said, that's just all false, that's all just factually wrong, and then later on you said...
01:12:32.000 There's also zero evidence that B12 is fed to cattle.
01:12:35.000 That is flat out wrong, and I have just shown that.
01:12:38.000 Is that fair?
01:12:39.000 Yeah, I was wrong about that.
01:12:40.000 Okay, so we'll get to another point because you were wrong about many other things as well.
01:12:44.000 Okay, so let's see.
01:12:46.000 So you agree that, you know, it is fed to cattle, so you want to look at humans.
01:12:52.000 I'm just trying to see if there's any other points that you brought up.
01:12:55.000 They've been giving minerals and feed and different things to cattle forever, particularly because of the grain diets.
01:13:02.000 What is the point?
01:13:02.000 The point, if cattle are deficient because they're in a feedlot where they're not eating grass.
01:13:07.000 It's not only that.
01:13:08.000 And that's the primary reason.
01:13:10.000 It isn't only that?
01:13:11.000 Or because soils have become defeated.
01:13:12.000 So young cows, young cows.
01:13:14.000 Right, but these are young cows that are most likely being a feedlot.
01:13:17.000 And people have been getting meat, B12, from animals.
01:13:22.000 Do you dispute that...
01:13:24.000 The primary source of B12 for human beings has been eating animals and also fish and shellfish.
01:13:32.000 In history?
01:13:34.000 And from rivers and streams and dirt?
01:13:35.000 Both?
01:13:37.000 Wait, where is the evidence that rivers and streams and dirt has been a primary source of B12? I'm obviously going to give it to you.
01:13:44.000 Do you think I came here today?
01:13:46.000 Do you think I made claims in the film that I couldn't back up?
01:13:49.000 Perhaps.
01:13:51.000 There are actually quite a few claims.
01:13:53.000 We went over those in the last show.
01:13:56.000 Yeah, so can we stick with the B12? Sure.
01:13:59.000 Okay, so can we just go to slide 48?
01:14:07.000 Hold on a second, please.
01:14:10.000 B12 concentration fluctuated between 100 and 2,000.
01:14:12.000 So this is in levels of water in the English Lake District.
01:14:15.000 If you want to go to slide 49...
01:14:20.000 The vegetables were eaten without being carefully washed, thus strict vegetarians who do not practice hand washing or vegetable cleaning may be untroubled by vitamin B12 of deficiency.
01:14:31.000 And by the way, the retained vitamin D12 for soil was adequate to prevent B12 deficiency.
01:14:36.000 So what you're essentially saying is that we're dealing with B12 that was in soil and then in water and that by the chlorination and filtration systems that we use today, that's what's ruining the water and the water does not have the B12 in it anymore.
01:14:51.000 We sanitize water now, which is a good thing.
01:14:53.000 Yes, but that also takes out the B12. So that makes your statement correct.
01:14:58.000 So he was wrong again.
01:14:59.000 That's not the consensus view, that you can get enough B12 from eating unwashed vegetables.
01:15:05.000 He didn't necessarily say that was the consensus view.
01:15:08.000 What he said in the statement was that the reason why we no longer have B12 in the water and in the soil is because of the fact that they add chlorines and pesticides, and it seems like there's evidence to back that up.
01:15:18.000 So again, people have questioned, did I spend a thousand hours?
01:15:23.000 Now that I'm giving you the facts, Do you question that I spent a thousand hours and I've spent another two thousand hours looking at peer-reviewed research since then?
01:15:31.000 If you say you have, I have no reason to disbelieve.
01:15:33.000 It's a lot of time.
01:15:35.000 It's a lot.
01:15:35.000 A thousand hours is a lot of time.
01:15:37.000 Like, what was it?
01:15:38.000 Lane Norton said that you should probably have gotten a PhD.
01:15:42.000 Well, I don't think that's the case.
01:15:44.000 I think there's people a lot smarter than me that are making these scientific tests.
01:15:47.000 But I mean, that amount of hours of research.
01:15:50.000 I've estimated that I've done, conservative estimate, I've done since then about 3,000 hours because once I started making the film and doing that, then I didn't.
01:15:57.000 Anyway.
01:15:57.000 I believe you.
01:15:58.000 There are also B12 analogs in the soil that aren't absorbed and utilized like true B12. Can we admit the two things that you touched on so far, you got wrong.
01:16:11.000 Absolutely that it's proven that cattle do receive B12 under whatever circumstances.
01:16:18.000 I don't know whether it's because they're grass-fed or grain-fed.
01:16:20.000 I'm assuming they're feedlot animals that don't get proper nutrients from soil, don't get proper nutrients.
01:16:26.000 I mean, if you're getting these grain-fed, soybean-fed cattle and they're just pouring this dried-out shit into a bucket, these animals are not grazing and they're likely deficient in a lot of different things.
01:16:37.000 And that's why...
01:16:39.000 There's also, they've always been supplementing their diet with minerals, supplementing their diet with vitamins.
01:16:43.000 Right, and that's the funny thing.
01:16:44.000 People are like, oh, well, let's just take the extreme end of a plant-based diet, vegans, right?
01:16:49.000 So people say, oh, well, vegans have to take a supplement.
01:16:51.000 Well, guess what?
01:16:52.000 You're supplementing anyway.
01:16:54.000 You're just doing it indirectly.
01:16:55.000 If you are eating that kind of animal.
01:16:58.000 99% of the beef, for example.
01:17:00.000 Yes, somewhere around there.
01:17:01.000 97 to 99. Yeah, whatever.
01:17:03.000 So the vast majority.
01:17:04.000 So...
01:17:05.000 People are getting it.
01:17:06.000 You're supplementing.
01:17:07.000 You're not just supplementing by B12, you're supplementing D. You're getting it from someone who supplements it in the feed of the animal, and then you get it that way.
01:17:16.000 Generally, not if you're eating grass-fed beef, not if you're eating shellfish, not if you're eating fish.
01:17:21.000 Grass-fed beef, again, is 1-3%.
01:17:25.000 But let's just admit that you made a mistake.
01:17:28.000 Can you just admit that you made a mistake there?
01:17:30.000 About B12. Both of those things.
01:17:32.000 B12 in cattle and then you have a third point.
01:17:35.000 So we had the B12 in cattle.
01:17:37.000 You said there was zero evidence about that.
01:17:40.000 You said there was no evidence about being able to get it from water and from dirt, which again, I proved you to be wrong.
01:17:47.000 And the third thing that you said...
01:17:48.000 I said that there's no evidence that humans primarily got their B12 from eating from soil and water, which is what you said in the quote.
01:17:57.000 No, no.
01:17:57.000 That's actually not what you said.
01:17:58.000 No, I didn't.
01:18:00.000 Again, he's misrepresenting and he's wrong, Joe.
01:18:03.000 You've got to admit that in this case.
01:18:05.000 Well, he's clearly wrong about B12 being given to cattle.
01:18:08.000 I mean, we showed three different supplements.
01:18:11.000 So it says, before industrial farming, farm animals and humans could get B12 by eating traces of dirt on plant foods or by drinking water from rivers or streams.
01:18:20.000 So you don't think that people will get the idea from hearing that?
01:18:23.000 That we never needed to consume animal products to get B12. We didn't need to consume.
01:18:30.000 We could get plenty from eating soil.
01:18:33.000 Correct.
01:18:33.000 So where is the evidence for that other than the one study that you showed there?
01:18:39.000 That's because most evidence of vegans, even vegans who are supplementing...
01:18:45.000 These are modern vegans, right?
01:18:47.000 He's talking about something...
01:18:48.000 But you see what?
01:18:48.000 He's going off on a track here because he's got two things wrong.
01:18:50.000 I agree with you on this, because his statement is essentially saying that the reason why we don't get it today is because of chlorination and fluoridation of water.
01:18:59.000 We sanitize and we pesticize.
01:19:00.000 So your third point, I said this, you took issue with my claim.
01:19:04.000 And up to 39% of people tested, including meat eaters, are low in B12. As a result, the best way for humans to get enough B12, whether they eat animal foods or not, is simply take a supplement.
01:19:14.000 Then you said he didn't provide a reference for that, so it's hard to check.
01:19:18.000 But again, it contradicts, you know, mounds of evidence on B12 efficiency.
01:19:22.000 So, can you bring up slide 50, please, Jamie?
01:19:25.000 You said that I didn't provide a reference, okay?
01:19:29.000 But in the bottom left, where we put all of the references, and whenever I made a claim about the scientific research...
01:19:34.000 Oh, well, it's covered by the...
01:19:36.000 It'll go away in a second.
01:19:38.000 Okay.
01:19:39.000 Okay.
01:19:40.000 Allegedly.
01:19:41.000 There you go.
01:19:42.000 So, first of all, there's the reference.
01:19:43.000 You claim you didn't have a reference.
01:19:44.000 Would you admit that you were wrong?
01:19:46.000 Yeah, I missed that.
01:19:46.000 Okay.
01:19:46.000 Three times wrong about B12. Okay.
01:19:49.000 So, can we just go into your study?
01:19:51.000 Sorry, your ebook on B12. You basically said, I don't know where you got that study from.
01:19:57.000 Your B12 ebook opens with the exact same study.
01:20:01.000 So, can you put up slide 51?
01:20:04.000 Please, Jamie?
01:20:05.000 Okay, is that your e-book on the left?
01:20:07.000 Yes.
01:20:08.000 Okay.
01:20:08.000 You rounded up to 40, but I kept it at 39, okay, because I was being specific.
01:20:14.000 B12 deficiency is far more common than most healthcare practitioners and the general public realize.
01:20:19.000 Data from the Tufts University Framingham Offspring Study suggests that 40% of people between the ages of 26 and 83 have plasma B12 levels in the low normal range, a range at which many experience neurological symptoms.
01:20:34.000 That was the opening statement of your B12 ebook, and you claimed that you couldn't find the evidence of that study.
01:20:43.000 No disagreement that B12 deficiency is an issue.
01:20:47.000 I've talked about that on my website.
01:20:49.000 That's not what you said on the last time you were on Joe's podcast.
01:20:52.000 You said, I don't know, he didn't provide a reference for that, so it's hard to check, but it contradicts the evidence.
01:20:58.000 If that's not reflective of the preponderance of evidence, why did you open your ebook with it?
01:21:04.000 It's not...
01:21:04.000 Okay, so there's two different issues here.
01:21:07.000 One is, do omnivores get B12 deficiency?
01:21:10.000 Right, do they?
01:21:10.000 Yes, they do.
01:21:11.000 Okay, and 40% of people test it.
01:21:13.000 In this study...
01:21:14.000 Which is the one that you referenced.
01:21:15.000 That's right.
01:21:16.000 And there are many...
01:21:17.000 I'm not saying the study is bad.
01:21:19.000 I'm just saying, let's look at all of the other...
01:21:21.000 You said that I didn't provide a reference, but do you write your own e-books, by the way?
01:21:24.000 I do.
01:21:25.000 And you don't remember that study?
01:21:27.000 No.
01:21:28.000 I write a lot.
01:21:29.000 James, do you have any idea how many articles I've written over the years?
01:21:33.000 Do you remember every study from every article?
01:21:36.000 I don't know if you write.
01:21:37.000 No, I don't, because I'm a combatives trainer, and that's the thing.
01:21:41.000 Do you not feel like, I'm a combatives trainer, you yourself recognize that you're not a nutrition expert, right?
01:21:46.000 You said that at the beginning.
01:21:47.000 I'm not a nutritionist.
01:21:50.000 I have master's level training in nutrition.
01:21:53.000 So you've got a number of things wrong about B12. What does that specifically mean, like master's level training in nutrition?
01:22:02.000 Right.
01:22:02.000 Thank you, Joe.
01:22:03.000 Well, in California, acupuncturists have a four-year master's program, which includes a lot of medical sciences and nutrition research methodology, etc., because we're considered primary care providers in the state of California.
01:22:17.000 So the training is a lot different than it is in other places.
01:22:22.000 So...
01:22:24.000 There's the question of can omnivores develop B12 deficiency?
01:22:28.000 Yes, they can.
01:22:29.000 If you go and look at the rest of the e-book, it's because of things like SIBO, bacterial overgrowth, and small intestine.
01:22:35.000 You'll actually accept higher ranges of what would be considered potentially deficient, right?
01:22:41.000 You'll say like three, four hundred might be deficient.
01:22:43.000 So that would mean that even more people were deficient, right?
01:22:46.000 Now I'm not arguing that vegans can be more deficient than omnivores, but can I just go to slide 52?
01:22:53.000 Can I go to slide 52?
01:22:55.000 So what is the question here if you're not arguing that B12 deficiency is more common in vegans and vegetarians?
01:23:04.000 Because that is what clinically makes the difference.
01:23:07.000 If someone is B12 deficient, then they develop.
01:23:11.000 You think I'm not prepared to get to that?
01:23:12.000 I will get to that.
01:23:14.000 You said that the four or five claims that I made about B12 were patently false.
01:23:20.000 I've already pointed out three of the things that you got wrong out of the five.
01:23:26.000 And you are the one that, like, is recommending and telling people what to eat.
01:23:30.000 I am a combatives trainer, and my facts in this case are the facts.
01:23:34.000 This doesn't change anything about the facts.
01:23:36.000 I'm recommending...
01:23:38.000 No, it does, because it's really dangerous.
01:23:39.000 ...is still that people get enough B12, and that they are less likely to do that on a vegetarian and vegan diet.
01:23:47.000 And there's lots of studies showing that.
01:23:49.000 Can an omnivore develop B12 deficiency?
01:23:54.000 Absolutely.
01:23:54.000 I see it in my practice.
01:23:56.000 Not the vast majority.
01:23:58.000 No, no.
01:23:59.000 I didn't say that.
01:24:00.000 The vast majority of that 40% were meat eaters.
01:24:02.000 You didn't reference the study, by the way.
01:24:04.000 That's only because there are more meat eaters in the general population.
01:24:07.000 No, I agree.
01:24:07.000 That has nothing to do with the fact that meat eaters are getting more B12 deficient.
01:24:12.000 I'm not arguing that.
01:24:13.000 We've got all of these studies about homocysteine, 9 out of 10 reviews that have shown higher homocysteine levels in vegans and vegetarians.
01:24:20.000 Joe, can we stick to the point that he made last time?
01:24:23.000 I'll never get to ribbutt.
01:24:24.000 Okay.
01:24:25.000 So, when you referenced the Framingham study, you didn't link to the study, you linked to an article from the USDA about the study.
01:24:31.000 And that study said, oddly, The researchers found no...
01:24:36.000 Again, this is the opening statement of your e-book, references this study.
01:24:41.000 But you didn't mention this part.
01:24:44.000 Oddly, the researchers found no association between plasma B12 levels and meat, poultry, and fish intake, even though those foods supply the bulk of B12 in the diet.
01:24:52.000 It's not because people aren't eating enough meat to get their B12, Tucker said, it's the vitamin isn't getting absorbed.
01:24:58.000 So...
01:25:01.000 So, this backs up my claim that the safest way to get B12 is to take a supplement.
01:25:05.000 Now, Chris will just say, for $60...
01:25:07.000 Can I just finish on this point?
01:25:08.000 And then you can rebut as much as you want.
01:25:10.000 So, your claim was, well, people can just go and get...
01:25:13.000 So, you agree that...
01:25:15.000 No, I would say that vegans that don't supplement and omnivores, there's a lot more deficiency in vegans, right?
01:25:20.000 Like, it's a nutrient of concern that vegans should be cautious of.
01:25:23.000 I agree with that.
01:25:24.000 That's pretty much universally recognized.
01:25:24.000 Okay, that's accepted, right?
01:25:26.000 Yes.
01:25:27.000 But even if you don't accept the 40% number, even though you said that...
01:25:31.000 I didn't say I didn't accept that.
01:25:32.000 Okay, but it doesn't matter whether you accept it or not.
01:25:35.000 You've even said that we should consider higher levels B12 division, so it would make even more.
01:25:40.000 But that doesn't really matter.
01:25:41.000 The point is that you were saying that...
01:25:45.000 Where was I going with this?
01:25:47.000 Hang on.
01:25:48.000 They're saying the vitamin's not getting absorbed and that B12... My point was it's safer to just take a B12 supplement.
01:25:55.000 And for the general population in the world, that is the best recommendation.
01:25:59.000 You'll say you can go to your doctors and get a $60 blood test and test for B12, and then you can decide whether you need a supplement or not.
01:26:05.000 May I stop you guys both here?
01:26:07.000 Why isn't it getting absorbed?
01:26:08.000 If there is a higher level of vitamin B12 in fish...
01:26:11.000 There's other factors that inhibit the absorption.
01:26:13.000 So what are those factors?
01:26:14.000 CBO is one likely...
01:26:16.000 Yeah, people's conditions, but also in the food itself.
01:26:18.000 Bacterial overgrowth in the small intestine.
01:26:20.000 So, Joe, so basically...
01:26:23.000 But we still have the data here...
01:26:26.000 Can I just go back to the argument about...
01:26:27.000 Because I said the best, safest way for everyone to get B12 is to take a supplement.
01:26:31.000 You say you can just spend $60 and get a blood test.
01:26:34.000 But you've got to recognize that in the world, not everybody can afford $60.
01:26:39.000 Okay, so the safest way to get B12, whether you eat meat or not, is to take a B12 supplement.
01:26:45.000 It's the surest way.
01:26:46.000 Let's just all agree on that.
01:26:47.000 It's the surest way.
01:26:48.000 It's the surest way, for sure.
01:26:50.000 But then you've got studies that show 11% of omnivores have B12 depletion versus 77% of vegetarians and 92% of vegans.
01:27:00.000 You know, that's with using holotranscobalamin, which is a much more sensitive marker of B12 deficiency than serum B12, which is really problematic.
01:27:08.000 And then you have 9 out of 10 comparisons of homocysteine that found higher levels of homocysteine in vegetarians and omnivores and higher levels in vegans compared to vegetarians.
01:27:21.000 And homocysteine is also a more sensitive marker than serum B12. So there's four stages of B12 deficiency.
01:27:27.000 And serum B12 will only go down out of range in the fourth and final stage of B12 deficiency.
01:27:34.000 So these other studies that I shared on the last show are looking at holotranscobalamin, which was the most sensitive marker of B12 depletion.
01:27:43.000 It's not technically deficiency at that point.
01:27:46.000 And then you have homocysteine and methylmalonic acid that are less sensitive than holotranscobalamin, but more sensitive than serum B12. Okay.
01:27:56.000 Okay, can you bring up slide 54, please?
01:28:01.000 Okay, and I need to show you.
01:28:02.000 So, not only have you got all the facts wrong so far about B12 of my claims.
01:28:06.000 You said that they were all false, and they weren't false.
01:28:08.000 Right?
01:28:09.000 Every claim that I made so far was backed up by science.
01:28:11.000 And you have admitted that you made mistakes.
01:28:13.000 Okay, so this is your slide.
01:28:15.000 This is your slide, right?
01:28:17.000 This is...
01:28:17.000 Because this is how I can show that he's handpicking these studies to make his claim.
01:28:22.000 You said that 92% of vegans We're deficient in...
01:28:25.000 Let's read what it says.
01:28:26.000 B12 depletion among omnivores, vegetarians, and vegans.
01:28:32.000 We've got to remember that most people are probably listening versus watching.
01:28:35.000 Oh, sorry.
01:28:36.000 Yeah.
01:28:36.000 Okay.
01:28:36.000 So vegans, 92%.
01:28:38.000 It says 77. Vegetarians, 77%.
01:28:41.000 And omnivores, 11% for B12 depletion.
01:28:46.000 But that study showed it was more like 40% of depletion even amongst omnivores, right?
01:28:51.000 I'm not trying to compare the two.
01:28:53.000 I'm just trying to say your case by using this study is that 92% of vegans are deficient in B12 and omnivores are not deficient.
01:29:00.000 Depleted.
01:29:00.000 Depleted.
01:29:01.000 Whatever.
01:29:01.000 I'm not trying to pick apart this study.
01:29:05.000 I agree with the study.
01:29:07.000 Okay.
01:29:07.000 Can you just go to the next slide, please, Chris?
01:29:09.000 I think it's slide 55. Okay.
01:29:14.000 This is from the study.
01:29:17.000 This is from 16 years ago, by the way.
01:29:19.000 And a very small study from 16 years ago.
01:29:21.000 And this is why I show you that he's handpicking the data that he uses.
01:29:23.000 And this is where I go back to the fact that it's about the interpretation of the totality of evidence.
01:29:27.000 And you can't really rely on someone that's not a nutrition expert handpicking studies to suit their bias.
01:29:32.000 So this is what it said.
01:29:34.000 In subjects who did not consume vitamins...
01:29:38.000 The levels were what Chris said, right?
01:29:40.000 11% in omnivores, 70% in...
01:29:43.000 So I would agree, like, if you couldn't get B12 anywhere, you should incorporate some animal foods into your diet.
01:29:48.000 Fair.
01:29:48.000 Okay, but let's look at some other studies.
01:29:50.000 So slide 56. And again, I'm only choosing a few.
01:29:54.000 I'm sure, you know, certainly they're in my favor.
01:29:56.000 And I'm not saying that vegans don't have lower B12 levels, because some people don't supplement, right?
01:30:01.000 But I'm showing that you hand-picked a study from 16 years ago.
01:30:05.000 Slide 56. This is a new study from 2018 with twice the sample size of the ones.
01:30:12.000 People now know you should take a B12 supplement.
01:30:15.000 The studied markers indicate a generally sufficient cobalamin status independently of the diet preferences, lacto-over-vegetarian or vegan.
01:30:22.000 Slide 57. Now this is a study that looked at runners in May of 2019, really current.
01:30:31.000 And it feels like you might not have the most current data because you said to me in your email that nutrition is only one part of what you do and you have lots of other things that you're doing, right?
01:30:41.000 So, slide 57. This is comparing vegans, vegetarians, and omnivores.
01:30:46.000 And these are runners?
01:30:47.000 Yeah.
01:30:48.000 Recreational runners.
01:30:49.000 Recreational runners, yeah.
01:30:50.000 All three groups showed an adequate biomarker status of B12-related parameters.
01:30:54.000 And then slide 58, it would be.
01:30:59.000 And this one not only backs up my point about vegans and plant-based eaters, but also that supplement users are better.
01:31:06.000 So the vitamin B12 status of supplement users of vegans and omnivores was higher compared to the non-supplement users.
01:31:12.000 And a higher proportion of non-supplement users had B12 parameters outside the reference range.
01:31:17.000 They were low.
01:31:18.000 So...
01:31:19.000 Again, that's more evidence that people...
01:31:22.000 It's a good idea to supplement in general because you just have higher levels.
01:31:26.000 And consensus recommendations after you get over 50, you have lower intrinsic...
01:31:31.000 It's a water-soluble vitamin anyway, right?
01:31:32.000 Yeah, but after 50, you lose intrinsic factors, so you can't absorb as much.
01:31:36.000 Right, but it's not dangerous to have higher levels.
01:31:39.000 No, no, no.
01:31:40.000 It's a good thing to supplement, period.
01:31:42.000 Right.
01:31:43.000 And the blanket recommendation.
01:31:44.000 So every single thing that I said in the B12 statement is true and backed up Jamie, bring up slide 59 for me.
01:31:53.000 If we're looking at totality of evidence, let's look at more evidence.
01:31:59.000 Totally.
01:32:00.000 But again, I'm not pointing those three studies out to say there's not more.
01:32:03.000 I'm saying that you handpicked a study where vegans were not...
01:32:06.000 No, I didn't handpick a study, James.
01:32:07.000 There's many studies here.
01:32:09.000 No, you picked one where they were not taking vitamins.
01:32:11.000 And I agree.
01:32:12.000 So we agree that people on plant-based diets...
01:32:15.000 Should take vitamin B12. I see what you're saying.
01:32:18.000 And we agree that most people are getting their B12 supplement in any way just indirectly through animals.
01:32:25.000 Fair enough?
01:32:26.000 Fair enough if you follow the diet that these animals were on.
01:32:30.000 Which is the majority of people.
01:32:32.000 And again, I would say, look, if you want to eat 95% plants...
01:32:35.000 Do we know how common it is for them to supplement animal diet with B12? Is it a rare thing?
01:32:41.000 No, no.
01:32:41.000 Due to metabolic condition?
01:32:42.000 With cattle, it's lower because there's a lot of...
01:32:45.000 It's not that rare.
01:32:46.000 It's lower, but it's not super rare because a lot of soil is deficient in cobalt.
01:32:51.000 And cows need to consume the cobalt to manufacture the B12 in their rumen.
01:32:56.000 So it's more of a side effect of mineral and nutrient deficient soils for cows.
01:33:01.000 But not for pigs and chickens and that sort of stuff.
01:33:05.000 Vegans have higher homocysteine levels than omnivores, 9 out of 10 comparisons found.
01:33:10.000 Higher homocysteine levels in vegetarians than omnivores and higher levels in vegans than vegetarians.
01:33:16.000 The prevalence of hyperhomocystinemia among vegetarians may actually be higher than that among non-vegetarians already diagnosed with heart disease.
01:33:26.000 So that's 9 of 10 comparisons.
01:33:28.000 That's not hand-picking one study.
01:33:31.000 That's 9 out of 10 comparisons that have been done on this topic.
01:33:34.000 Right.
01:33:35.000 And like you said before, we shouldn't just look at the markers, we should look at the outcomes, right?
01:33:41.000 And the outcomes is that vegans and vegetarians with higher homocysteine levels do not have increased risk of cardiovascular disease or diabetes or death from those or from cancer.
01:33:52.000 I didn't make the claim that they do from that study.
01:33:56.000 We're talking about B12 and homocysteine being a marker of B12 deficiency.
01:34:00.000 And Chris, I am showing that you picked a study from 2016, which had a very small sample size.
01:34:05.000 That was 9 out of 10 comparisons right there.
01:34:08.000 That was not the only study that I showed.
01:34:12.000 I am saying that when you came to B12, all of the statements that I made in the film were true, and you said that they were patently false and you were wrong.
01:34:21.000 I didn't.
01:34:22.000 Joe, come on.
01:34:24.000 I've come in here.
01:34:25.000 I've said it already.
01:34:27.000 You're correct.
01:34:28.000 Right.
01:34:28.000 Because I've come in here and people are saying, oh, what are you going to say to that debunk?
01:34:32.000 Chris did not debunk the film.
01:34:34.000 He made misrepresentations of our claims and he got things factually wrong.
01:34:38.000 Well, he certainly seems to have gotten it factually wrong that animals, particularly cows, are not given B12 supplements.
01:34:44.000 He certainly seems to have gotten it factually wrong that at least some of the B12 that people would be able to get in the past, they got from water and soil.
01:34:53.000 And that 40% of people are in Division B12, and that the best way to get B12 is the supplement.
01:34:58.000 So, he got everything.
01:35:00.000 Can I just finish?
01:35:03.000 Can I just finish?
01:35:04.000 Yes.
01:35:04.000 I know, but you're wrong.
01:35:06.000 So, the thing is, I have proven that he got three or four things factually wrong.
01:35:11.000 About B12. Right.
01:35:12.000 And I am a combatives instructor.
01:35:13.000 Okay?
01:35:14.000 I've heard that.
01:35:15.000 Right.
01:35:15.000 But I'm just saying, I'm putting myself down.
01:35:17.000 Yes, I understand.
01:35:18.000 I'm not, like, a super intelligent guy.
01:35:20.000 Well, you are.
01:35:21.000 You are very intelligent.
01:35:22.000 I've said that before.
01:35:23.000 What you did is you did research on these very important subjects and you acquired a lot of data.
01:35:28.000 But this is what people do when they go to school.
01:35:30.000 I mean, it's like the difference between someone who's educated and not educated is not whether or not they go to a specific place.
01:35:35.000 No, totally.
01:35:36.000 It's whether or not they absorb the information and when they study.
01:35:39.000 If you said you studied a thousand hours before the film and three thousand since, then you're obviously educated.
01:35:45.000 You understand what you're talking about.
01:35:47.000 So anyway, you got things factually wrong about B12. So to the people listening or watching, do you really want to put the interpretation of the data in the hands of someone that just got so many things wrong about B12? Well, he got things wrong about your assertions about B12. Yeah,
01:36:03.000 I made four or five claims that still stand that vegetarians and vegans have much higher rates of B12 depletion or deficiency than omnivores.
01:36:13.000 If they're supplementing, they do not.
01:36:16.000 If they're supplementing, they don't, but if they don't supplement, they do.
01:36:18.000 Right, but everyone agrees, but there's no disagreement.
01:36:21.000 Vegans and vegetarians, and anyone over 50, and you're now disputing the safest way to get B12 is to take a supplement.
01:36:28.000 It's the best way to get B12. It's the surest way to get B12, but it's not necessary for many people.
01:36:33.000 Right, for people that can afford to get blood tests, which is not most of the world.
01:36:37.000 We're sitting in America in a nice air-conditioned room, and we've got cars, and we drove here, and we can afford to go to the doctor.
01:36:45.000 Like, the best way to get B12 is to take a supplement.
01:36:48.000 Period.
01:36:49.000 And you're wrong if you think otherwise.
01:36:51.000 If you can afford...
01:36:52.000 Yeah, sure.
01:36:53.000 If you can afford blood tests every six months...
01:36:55.000 We're gonna get B12 supplements to everybody around the world, too?
01:36:59.000 But hold on.
01:36:59.000 That's expensive, right?
01:37:00.000 Here's the thing.
01:37:01.000 If you have a diet that gives you the ample amount of B12... Then you don't need a supplement.
01:37:05.000 Then you don't need a supplement.
01:37:07.000 Sure.
01:37:07.000 What you're saying is that blood tests are expensive, so you should take an expensive supplement?
01:37:12.000 No, they're not expensive.
01:37:13.000 V12? No, it's like, if you buy it in bulk, it's like $2 a year.
01:37:16.000 But, no, I'm not saying that.
01:37:18.000 A year?
01:37:18.000 Yeah, yeah.
01:37:18.000 If you buy it in bulk.
01:37:19.000 $2 a year?
01:37:20.000 Where the fuck are you buying your vitamins?
01:37:22.000 If you buy it in bulk, you probably want to...
01:37:26.000 Really?
01:37:26.000 Yeah, you've got to...
01:37:27.000 But the trick is you'd have to split it with a bunch of people because it's like a year's worth of supply.
01:37:32.000 But anyway...
01:37:33.000 Jesus Christ.
01:37:33.000 So...
01:37:34.000 So, no, the argument is that...
01:37:36.000 I feel like I should just donate to the world.
01:37:38.000 If it's only two bucks a year, I feel like I can hook a lot of people up.
01:37:41.000 I've also shown that in the study that you presented in your e-book, stated that they weren't absorbing it as well from animal products.
01:37:48.000 I'm not saying there's not B12 in animal products.
01:37:50.000 And also, we have to remember one last thing, that the B12 that people are getting in animal products, it was supplemented in the first place.
01:37:57.000 In some cases.
01:37:59.000 In the vast Not in wild-caught fish, not in grass-fed, not in shellfish.
01:38:04.000 Not as much in ruminants.
01:38:05.000 In the vast majority of animal products that people are eating, B12 is supplemented.
01:38:09.000 And so I'm just saying, the safest way to get B12 is to take a supplement.
01:38:11.000 In the vast majority?
01:38:12.000 Is that true?
01:38:13.000 Yeah, you think the vast majority of people are eating wild-caught fish?
01:38:16.000 Yeah, but I don't know.
01:38:17.000 I don't know how many animals are actually getting those supplements.
01:38:20.000 All of the chickens are omnivores.
01:38:26.000 They're not fed omnivorous diets for the most part unless they're free-range chickens.
01:38:30.000 Have you ever seen a chicken fuck up a mouse?
01:38:33.000 It's pretty stunning.
01:38:34.000 Yeah, they're carnivorous little monsters.
01:38:37.000 Then chickens, and when you get them, and you get those eggs, and the eggs are like a really dull yellow, those are animals that are eating grain only.
01:38:46.000 Those are vegetarian chickens.
01:38:47.000 That's not what they want to eat.
01:38:48.000 What they want to eat is worms and bugs and rodents.
01:38:50.000 Yeah, they're not living in their natural state.
01:38:51.000 Right.
01:38:52.000 In their natural state, they probably don't need to have supplementation.
01:38:56.000 This is sort of an argument against vegetarian diets for chickens, really.
01:39:00.000 Because chickens aren't really supposed to eat that way.
01:39:02.000 And feedlot for beef.
01:39:04.000 Feedlot for beef, exactly.
01:39:05.000 They're not supposed to eat grain either.
01:39:07.000 Can we get to protein?
01:39:07.000 Because I think if we miss protein, then we've done people a disservice.
01:39:10.000 No, we're not going to miss it.
01:39:10.000 We have plenty of time.
01:39:11.000 Cool.
01:39:12.000 I'll keep going all day.
01:39:13.000 So with the B12, you made some excellent points, and you definitely...
01:39:17.000 Cleared up what was misrepresented by what you said.
01:39:21.000 And it's really why I really appreciate you having me on because you guys did like a three-hour debunk, right?
01:39:28.000 And there was just a lot of things that were factually wrong.
01:39:30.000 And there's more that I can point out that were factually wrong.
01:39:32.000 So I just really appreciate you having me on.
01:39:34.000 My pleasure.
01:39:34.000 I appreciate you being here.
01:39:35.000 And I really appreciate Chris.
01:39:37.000 As much as we disagree, I really appreciate you coming on and giving me the opportunity and you being here.
01:39:43.000 I know I'm getting like, It's your film.
01:39:46.000 You made a movie.
01:39:47.000 I get it.
01:39:49.000 Cool.
01:39:51.000 So, you want to talk about protein and what the issues are?
01:39:54.000 There's still also just the red meat and dairy thing.
01:39:59.000 Outstanding, too.
01:40:01.000 Oh, whether or not red meat's bad for you?
01:40:02.000 Yeah, we never really cleared that up.
01:40:04.000 But why do you think that red meat's bad for you?
01:40:06.000 We can go with protein.
01:40:07.000 But let's finish that.
01:40:09.000 Because we really should finish that.
01:40:10.000 We can always move into protein because I'm sure protein's going to be a long...
01:40:14.000 Well, I know the thing that's going to happen here, so we can talk about red meat.
01:40:17.000 I've shown that some of the individual things, like heme iron, for example, are shown to be pro-inflammatory.
01:40:23.000 And by the way, just to back you up...
01:40:28.000 Is pro-inflammatory necessarily correlated with poor health?
01:40:32.000 Because sometimes things that provide inflammation, your body has a positive reaction to it.
01:40:40.000 Yeah, it's a hormetic stressor.
01:40:41.000 So there are things like exercise, you exercise, you create hormesis, right?
01:40:45.000 Right, sure.
01:40:46.000 Sauna.
01:40:48.000 And it's the same thing where he'll sort of try and show that fish, you know, the TMAO, for example, you'll say, well, how can TMAO be bad?
01:40:56.000 We'll get to that.
01:40:56.000 We'll get to that.
01:40:57.000 But let's stick with red meat.
01:40:58.000 Why do you think red meat's bad for you?
01:41:00.000 Well, TMAO is one of the things in red meat, just like heme iron that I just showed as inflammatory.
01:41:05.000 Heme iron is associated with cardiovascular risks, and that heme iron is found in meat.
01:41:10.000 And eating plants in a healthy diet pattern.
01:41:13.000 It offsets it.
01:41:15.000 Absolutely, yeah.
01:41:15.000 Is there evidence that eating meat by itself is associated with cardiovascular disease?
01:41:21.000 Nobody ever has eaten meat by itself.
01:41:25.000 What about these carnivore diet people?
01:41:26.000 Well, there's no research on the carnivore.
01:41:27.000 Those guys are the canaries in the coal mine, aren't they?
01:41:30.000 There's no research on that.
01:41:31.000 So that's one of my people just eating all meat diet.
01:41:36.000 Okay.
01:41:36.000 Yeah, there's not, yeah, I mean, we both agree, like, let's just create a false dichotomy, Chris.
01:41:41.000 If there was a, like, all animal products diet, not just carnivore, but eggs and all this stuff, and then there was a fully plant-based diet, subliminary would be 12. Which one would you advocate?
01:41:51.000 False dichotomy?
01:41:53.000 I'd probably pick the plant diet.
01:41:56.000 Probably?
01:41:58.000 Although I would be concerned about nutrient deficiencies.
01:42:01.000 Yeah, I've never advocated for the carnivore diet.
01:42:05.000 I said as much in the last show.
01:42:07.000 But that says something about plants, right?
01:42:10.000 Plants are awesome.
01:42:11.000 Right.
01:42:12.000 So we agree on that.
01:42:13.000 Yeah, he's never had anything wrong.
01:42:14.000 No, no, no.
01:42:15.000 All he's ever said was that eliminating all animal products from your diet is probably not healthy unless you follow a very strict routine where you make sure that you have all your bases covered nutritionally.
01:42:29.000 That's what Chris has said from the jump.
01:42:31.000 Yeah, I know.
01:42:31.000 I would extend that and just say that I don't think there's strong evidence suggesting that including some animal products in your whole foods plant-based diet is harmful.
01:42:42.000 That's where we seem to have an issue.
01:42:44.000 And I even said that the range of that can vary tremendously.
01:42:47.000 It could be 5% for someone who's just eating...
01:42:52.000 Mostly plant-based diet and they're eating some shellfish and organ meats for the nutrient density.
01:42:57.000 Or you could have someone who eats more animal products.
01:43:00.000 It depends on the person and what their needs are.
01:43:02.000 I go with that first half and the second half.
01:43:04.000 But just to back up what Joe does, slide 62. Because I mentioned this earlier, but we didn't put a slide on.
01:43:12.000 But I think the graphic, again, I know most people are listening.
01:43:14.000 So maybe Joe, you could describe it to people.
01:43:16.000 Differences in postprandial inflammatory responses to a modern versus traditional meat meal.
01:43:22.000 So this is basically, this is the kangaroo.
01:43:24.000 This is kangaroo meat versus beef.
01:43:26.000 Wagyu beef, is that how you pronounce it?
01:43:28.000 I think so.
01:43:29.000 Wagyu.
01:43:29.000 So you'd recognize that marks in CRP, TNF-alpha, and IL-6 are inflammatory markers?
01:43:36.000 Yeah.
01:43:37.000 Okay, good.
01:43:37.000 So I just want to point out that, yeah, if you're going to eat 90% plants and you're going to eat the rest of it from animal products, I think that wild-caught elk and kangaroo meat, stuff like that, would be the way to go, by far.
01:43:52.000 Well, it just makes sense.
01:43:53.000 Just to show you, there's about half the inflammation, roughly, coming from the wild-caught.
01:44:01.000 Well, that makes sense because most of the time when you're dealing with beef, you're dealing with this grain-fed, unhealthy animal.
01:44:09.000 When you're talking about Wagyu beef, that's a dying animal.
01:44:13.000 I mean, if you saw a person whose muscle tissue looked like a Wagyu steak, you'd be like, bro, you've got to get on a fucking diet.
01:44:21.000 You know?
01:44:22.000 I mean, really.
01:44:23.000 But if you saw, like, you know, an athlete, if you looked at an athlete's muscle tissue, it would look like a piece of elk, most likely.
01:44:30.000 Right.
01:44:30.000 It would look very lean and healthy.
01:44:32.000 Right.
01:44:32.000 And dense.
01:44:33.000 So anyway, I just wanted to point out that one, that shows a couple of things.
01:44:36.000 It shows that meat does create inflammation.
01:44:38.000 I would like to see this on grass-fed meat.
01:44:41.000 Yeah, totally.
01:44:41.000 As opposed to this feedlot bullshit.
01:44:44.000 No, totally.
01:44:44.000 But even if it matched the...
01:44:47.000 You know, the kangaroo meat, we're still seeing inflammation there.
01:44:50.000 And yeah, and certainly, like he said, I agree.
01:44:52.000 If you're going to eat animal foods, I think it's wise, timing-wise, to eat a lot of plant foods with those animal foods.
01:45:00.000 Right?
01:45:01.000 If you're going to eat animal foods, you should eat a lot of plants.
01:45:03.000 There's also a lot of benefits to it in terms of fiber, in terms of the microbiota.
01:45:11.000 There's a lot of benefits to having these fermented vegetables as well.
01:45:18.000 Kimchi and having things that provide you with good probiotics.
01:45:23.000 All these things, there's great benefit to a lot of plant foods.
01:45:27.000 Yeah, and people on plant-based diets just end up naturally getting more fiber.
01:45:32.000 Most people are deficient in fiber, right?
01:45:34.000 And if you look at the Paleolithic period, you'd be looking at maybe 100 grams of fiber.
01:45:38.000 I agree.
01:45:39.000 Very high fiber intake.
01:45:40.000 And people on plant-based diets get more fiber than people on other diets.
01:45:45.000 As long as you're eating healthy.
01:45:46.000 We both agree.
01:45:48.000 Oh yeah, sorry.
01:45:48.000 Eating like pasta and pizza and bullshit.
01:45:51.000 But just to be fair though, even in vegans and vegetarians in all of the studies, They're still getting more fiber, despite the fact that you and I would agree they're not eating the healthiest diet.
01:46:00.000 Overall, completely plant-based people are the only people that fall within the recommended BMI range, the people that get the most fiber.
01:46:10.000 BMI range, body mass index?
01:46:11.000 Is that what you're talking about?
01:46:13.000 Yeah.
01:46:13.000 Yeah, but body mass...
01:46:14.000 It's not a great measure.
01:46:15.000 That's a shitty one, right?
01:46:16.000 That makes me obese.
01:46:18.000 Right.
01:46:18.000 Yeah?
01:46:19.000 There's a lot of nonsense to that.
01:46:21.000 I agree, generally, that if you look at people who are on a vegetarian or vegan diet compared with people on the standard American diet, then they're going to have healthier...
01:46:33.000 Right, but that's the standard American diet.
01:46:35.000 If you take someone who's eating healthy plates of broccoli and kale and also has a piece of grass-fed meat, that's what I want to talk about.
01:46:43.000 I want to talk about people following their conscious diet.
01:46:45.000 No, I totally agree.
01:46:46.000 Of course, you're going to see markers.
01:46:48.000 Like, for example, the longest study on a paleo diet, right, had a two-year follow-up.
01:46:53.000 And they had improved, they'd lost body fat, they had improved blood markers.
01:46:57.000 What was really interesting is, okay, they were told to eliminate dairy, right?
01:47:01.000 So you cut out dairy.
01:47:03.000 They were told to reduce their amount of or cut out completely processed plant foods, like white flour and sugar and all this type of stuff.
01:47:10.000 They were told to increase their fruits and vegetables, and they were told to increase their meat consumption.
01:47:15.000 And they got improved health markers all across the board.
01:47:19.000 Now, what was interesting is, at the end of the two years, what they found was that people had not stuck with the meat recommendations.
01:47:25.000 So they kept their meat recommendations the same.
01:47:27.000 They got out processed junk food, right, and trans fats and stuff that you'd all agree...
01:47:32.000 We should get out of our diet.
01:47:34.000 They took out milk out of their diet and they increased the amount of plant foods.
01:47:39.000 So it's very clear that the benefit did not come from increasing meat consumption.
01:47:44.000 It came from increased plant food consumption.
01:47:47.000 Or decreasing bullshit.
01:47:49.000 I think the benefit is decreasing bullshit.
01:47:52.000 Right.
01:47:53.000 It's a two-fold thing, right?
01:47:54.000 You cut out things that are inflammatory and you put in things that are anti-inflammatory.
01:47:57.000 You cut out things that are low in antioxidants, you incorporate things that are high in antioxidants.
01:48:01.000 So that was the major benefit.
01:48:04.000 It wasn't from increased meat consumption.
01:48:08.000 Who's saying it is from increased meat consumption?
01:48:11.000 Not me.
01:48:12.000 No, I'm just saying that was the benefit of a paleo diet, is going in a more whole food, plant-based direction.
01:48:16.000 Right, but I think that's what everyone says.
01:48:17.000 The idea is that you eliminate processed foods, you eliminate sugar, you eliminate these things that are just filled with...
01:48:26.000 But we know that it's not just...
01:48:27.000 It's a two-fold difference when you incorporate whole plant foods.
01:48:30.000 There's the opportunity cost, so you're getting rid of crab.
01:48:34.000 And in my personal opinion, and based on the consensus, you're replacing both...
01:48:39.000 Highly processed foods and animal foods and you're incorporating more whole plant foods.
01:48:44.000 And that is the scientific consensus is to eat a predominantly plant-based diet.
01:48:47.000 You could say the same thing about the benefits you see with vegetarian and vegan studies comparing with standard American diet.
01:48:54.000 I agree.
01:48:54.000 You're removing a lot of the crap.
01:48:56.000 I agree.
01:48:56.000 But what studies have you got comparing a NutriVore diet to...
01:49:02.000 You know, a whole food plant-based diet.
01:49:03.000 We don't have them.
01:49:03.000 So we have to infer.
01:49:05.000 And when we infer, we have to rely on experts that are experts in their field, right?
01:49:10.000 We don't turn to Chris and go, okay, can you tell us more about nutrition, anthropology, and urology than all of these experts?
01:49:17.000 I think that's...
01:49:18.000 I agree.
01:49:19.000 You shouldn't just listen to me, but I don't think it's genuine to suggest that there's a consensus that a whole food plant-based diet is a better choice than a plant-based diet that also contains some animal products.
01:49:34.000 I agree with you that we have no studies on that, and we probably won't, unfortunately, in the near future, because...
01:49:43.000 Right, especially for long-term outcomes, right?
01:49:44.000 Because you can't put people on for 40 years.
01:49:46.000 Yeah, they're not...
01:49:47.000 So I agree that it's hard, like, again, I've said before that we should be getting the vast majority of our calories from whole plant foods.
01:49:54.000 I think there's enough in the literature to show, and the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics recognizes that completely vegan diets are helpful for all the life stages, including for athletes.
01:50:02.000 I think that there's sufficient evidence to go 100%, but I'm not telling people that they should be doing that.
01:50:06.000 I'm saying people can eat whatever they want, but I think we both agree that people should be getting out junk food, right?
01:50:13.000 Soda and trans fats.
01:50:14.000 Oh, by the way, on trans fats, So that's why I asked you in the beginning of the show what your position was, because that's the fundamental question for me, is this question that we're talking about right now, which is,
01:50:29.000 is there sufficient evidence to suggest that everybody, most people, whatever you want to say, should be on 100% or even 95% plant-based diet versus a plant-based diet that contains some animal products?
01:50:45.000 And my argument all along has been, no, there's not sufficient evidence to claim that.
01:50:49.000 Right, but you also think that a completely plant-based diet is likely to be nutrient deficient and all these other things.
01:50:55.000 Do you know his history?
01:50:58.000 Do you know how he started out as a vegan?
01:51:00.000 Yeah, and that's why I think there's emotional ties.
01:51:04.000 My history.
01:51:04.000 History is not relevant.
01:51:06.000 That's an N equals 1. In terms of what happened to me.
01:51:09.000 But you presented it yourself.
01:51:10.000 You said that I had like burst mood and like suppression.
01:51:12.000 Yeah, but I've also said there are people who acknowledge that there are many successful vegans and vegan athletes.
01:51:19.000 You've invoked the N of 1 and also you didn't follow the scientific consensus about plant-based diets when you did it.
01:51:25.000 So you chose a macrobiotic diet and you chose a raw vegan diet.
01:51:29.000 Those were just two iterations of what I did.
01:51:31.000 Right, but why did you choose those when they weren't based on scientific consensus?
01:51:33.000 Because there wasn't This was 20 years ago, and I wasn't paying attention to it at the level that I'm at now.
01:51:40.000 Okay, and you traveled around the world and you got sick, and you attributed it to the diet, which it may or may not have been.
01:51:44.000 I didn't attribute it to the diet.
01:51:47.000 I don't even know why we're talking.
01:51:49.000 My experience is...
01:51:50.000 Because it's relevant because it shows that, like, I don't know why you were vegan or vegetarian.
01:51:54.000 Maybe it was for, like, animal rights reasons.
01:51:55.000 Maybe you felt bad for going back to eating meat, so now you need to field proof.
01:51:59.000 Like, the reason that you need to...
01:52:00.000 The reason that you need to try to debunk the film is because you've got a massive business selling supplements and protein powders and giving diet advice.
01:52:07.000 So our film doesn't make you...
01:52:08.000 I make very, very little money selling supplements, James.
01:52:14.000 It's not a massive business.
01:52:16.000 It's basically a convenience for my patients.
01:52:18.000 I'm just saying overall...
01:52:20.000 My business is basically training people and being a clinician.
01:52:26.000 I don't profit from selling animal products.
01:52:33.000 You do indirectly because you advise this diet.
01:52:36.000 So the film was very bad for you, personally.
01:52:38.000 Because if people believed the film...
01:52:40.000 Which, you know, like the Defense Health Agency, they review the film.
01:52:44.000 They don't care about this myth that we should eat in exactly the same way as our ancestors, not that we even really ate that way.
01:52:50.000 But they don't care about that myth.
01:52:51.000 They care that what is going to be better for warfighter effectiveness and to cut the healthcare costs of our military.
01:52:56.000 So they looked at the science independently.
01:52:58.000 You think the Defense Health Agency is full of vegans?
01:53:03.000 The film is neither here nor there for me.
01:53:07.000 But that's what we're here for.
01:53:09.000 The reason that I'm here is because, and the reason that I came when Joe invited me, and he can probably tell you that it took a few invitations to get me here, is just to provide the other side of the view here.
01:53:27.000 It's not because Because it materially affects me in any way.
01:53:31.000 Believe me, I've got lots of other things, as I told you in the email, that I'm focusing on.
01:53:34.000 Yes, you do lots of other things, not on nutrition.
01:53:36.000 So even like my nutrition team, they spend full time either consulting elite athletes or military personnel, or they're digging into the research.
01:53:44.000 Like our chief science advisor, eight hours a day, all he does is dig into the latest research.
01:53:49.000 So you come onto Joe's podcast, and people are supposed to believe that you are the best person to...
01:53:55.000 Because you say it's about the meta-analysis, and you say it's about the totality of evidence.
01:53:57.000 We agree.
01:53:58.000 But what you're suggesting is that people should listen to your interpretation of the evidence when you get things factually wrong.
01:54:03.000 People should make up their own minds based on the evidence that we have provided.
01:54:10.000 And you don't even know how to read a basic forest plot.
01:54:13.000 That is my point.
01:54:14.000 Because you're not certified, and you're not...
01:54:19.000 Again, I'm not a specialist in nutrition.
01:54:22.000 I would have liked to have brought David, our chief science advisor, who knows a hundred times more about nutrition than I do.
01:54:29.000 And you're coming on here telling people what to eat.
01:54:32.000 You said yourself you're not an expert in nutrition, and you don't know how to read the nutritional data.
01:54:36.000 Let's talk about some of the claims.
01:54:38.000 Okay, let's talk about protein.
01:54:41.000 No, we're talking about the film.
01:54:42.000 Let's talk about the protein.
01:54:44.000 So, is that fair, Joe?
01:54:45.000 We should get to it?
01:54:45.000 Right.
01:54:46.000 Okay, so, can I just, just so I understand your position, and I'm sorry for getting worked up, like, I feel like I'm like an attorney trying to interrogate you, but I feel like I spent a lot of time digging into research.
01:54:56.000 I had the research checked and checked and checked again.
01:54:58.000 I had the research checked to make sure that it was not cherry-picking, that it was reflective of the preponderance of evidence.
01:55:03.000 But who was checking it?
01:55:05.000 Were they people who were not advocates of a whole food, plant-based diet exclusively?
01:55:12.000 Or were they people like...
01:55:14.000 Because all of the experts in the film are people who are clearly aligned with that perspective.
01:55:20.000 I interview them because they're aligned with the consensus.
01:55:22.000 And no, and over half of the people in the film...
01:55:25.000 I thought you just agreed that there is not a consensus that a 100% plant-based diet is better than a diet that includes a lot of plants and some animal products.
01:55:35.000 So where were the experts that would represent that point of view?
01:55:41.000 It doesn't have to be 100% plant-based diet.
01:55:45.000 I agree.
01:55:45.000 It doesn't have to be 100%.
01:55:47.000 The film said plant-based diets.
01:55:48.000 Now, I'll tell you why we only interviewed vegans for the athletes, right?
01:55:53.000 The ones that actually spoke on screen.
01:55:55.000 And Arnold is not vegan.
01:55:56.000 He doesn't drink dairy.
01:55:57.000 He thinks it's for babies.
01:55:58.000 And he's cut down meat by 80%.
01:56:00.000 But all the people...
01:56:01.000 I mean, you know, Nate is not 100% vegan.
01:56:04.000 He's on a largely plant-based diet.
01:56:05.000 He eats a bit of seafood and a bit of stuff like that.
01:56:08.000 But all the people interviewed...
01:56:09.000 Yeah, eggs as well.
01:56:10.000 So...
01:56:11.000 The reason that we only put...
01:56:13.000 And by the way, we did interview Lauren Cordain and Rob Wolf, and I can get to that as well if you want.
01:56:17.000 Because the anthropologists laughed in their faces when the claims that they made.
01:56:21.000 You know, I'm talking about scientists who published these, you know, who are on the team to publish the papers that I've shared.
01:56:28.000 Yeah, like Nutri-Rex who are funded by the industry, and we can get to that.
01:56:32.000 No, not Nutri...
01:56:33.000 That's disingenuous to claim that all of the research that I've shared here is industry-funded and so we can't acknowledge it.
01:56:40.000 But your claim that, like, the recent study that just came out, and we're getting off track, but the recent study that just came out that said that red meat and processed meat is totally fine, like, you really want to go with that?
01:56:51.000 Like, to me it feels like you don't have your finger on the pulse, honestly.
01:56:54.000 I'm not trying to be rude.
01:56:55.000 I think you probably know a lot about your field.
01:56:57.000 Well, what do you think about that study?
01:56:59.000 Well, the Nutri-Reg study?
01:57:01.000 The study that said that red meat...
01:57:03.000 Yeah, it's a Nutri-Rex study.
01:57:04.000 Okay.
01:57:05.000 So in the Annals of Internal Medicine, the day before the film came out, six studies exonerating red meat and processed meat, all from the same company that are apparently giving recommendations.
01:57:17.000 Well, guess what?
01:57:18.000 Exponent and Nutri-Rex and companies like that are not the ones that give public recommendations on what people should be eating, number one.
01:57:24.000 Okay?
01:57:25.000 And we talked about this in the film with Exponent.
01:57:27.000 Nutri-Rex is like another Exponent.
01:57:29.000 So...
01:57:30.000 If you look at their recommendations, first of all, Frank Hu, who is now the chair of Nutrition at Harvard, he took Walt Willett's place, said the panel's blanket recommendations that adults should continue their red meat consumption habits is highly irresponsible.
01:57:45.000 Walter Willett said it's the most egregious abuse of data he's ever seen.
01:57:48.000 And if you want to follow their recommendations, if you could put up slide 92. So they did the same thing in 2017 for the sugar industry.
01:57:59.000 So, there was a meta-analysis in the annals of internal...
01:58:02.000 When you say they, you mean the exact same company?
01:58:04.000 So, Bradley Johnston is the director and co-founder of Nutrex and the first author of the paper that we're talking about for Red Meat.
01:58:12.000 Okay?
01:58:13.000 They're just exonerated red meat, apparently, and processed meat.
01:58:16.000 So this is the same company says, at present, there seems to be no reliable evidence indicating that any of the recommended daily caloric thresholds for sugar intake are strongly associated with negative health effects.
01:58:27.000 So they did a meta-analysis saying that don't worry about your intake of sugar at all.
01:58:34.000 That was what their meta-analysis conclusion it came to.
01:58:36.000 And then two years later, the day before the film came out, and do you really think that's a coincidence?
01:58:41.000 Do you think that the...
01:58:42.000 So let me tell you something, okay?
01:58:44.000 Of our email subscribers, do you know the email address of the person that opens and views our emails the most?
01:58:53.000 It's from the Beef Checkoff program, and they've been doing that since we started.
01:58:56.000 So they sign up for our mailing list, they look at when the film is coming out, And you think it's a coincidence that the day before the film comes out, they release a paper exonerating red meat and cancer.
01:59:08.000 So if you're going to buy into the Nutri-Rex study about red meat and cancer, then to be fair, you've also got to buy into their conclusions about sugar.
01:59:17.000 I'll tell you who they were paid by.
01:59:20.000 So financial support for that paper was funded by...
01:59:27.000 The Technical Committee on Dietary Carbohydrates of ILSI North America.
01:59:32.000 And ISI is the International Life Sciences Institute.
01:59:34.000 Sounds pretty legit, right?
01:59:36.000 So, its members include Coca-Cola, Hershey Company, Pepsi Company, and Red Bull, and a bunch of others.
01:59:41.000 Folks looking out for your best interests.
01:59:43.000 There you go.
01:59:45.000 It would be a problem if that was the only...
01:59:48.000 You claimed this recent study, and I honestly, again, no disrespect, you're busy with lots of other things, you run a successful business, consulting people, selling stuff.
01:59:59.000 I get you don't have the time.
02:00:00.000 You weren't able to read a basic forest plot to look at statistical significance and confidence intervals.
02:00:06.000 I just don't think that you're the one to interpret the data.
02:00:09.000 So the reason you don't have the...
02:00:10.000 You haven't seen the hundreds of...
02:00:13.000 Really respected scientists that have come out saying that this Nutirex study, and by the way, there's an investigation into the Annals of Internal Medicine because of this, for accepting this stuff from Nutirex.
02:00:22.000 But if you're going to accept the meta-analysis on red meat and on processed meat for cancer, then you've also got to accept the 2017 study meta-analysis.
02:00:32.000 If you accept the source.
02:00:33.000 If you accept the source...
02:00:35.000 If the only meta-analysis that showed no association between red meat and heart disease or cancer, that would be highly problematic.
02:00:47.000 First, I'm talking about the one that you cited.
02:00:49.000 You made out that this is like...
02:00:52.000 Second of all, I have pointed out that industry-funded research is four to eight times more likely, right?
02:00:59.000 Yeah, I agree.
02:01:00.000 And going back to that dairy one, by the way, do you know that when they did their meta-analysis, they doubled and tripled and quadrupled up?
02:01:08.000 Because when the meta-analysis that analyzed the meta-analyses, the multiple meta-analyses, included...
02:01:15.000 The studies multiple times.
02:01:17.000 You see what I'm saying?
02:01:17.000 Yeah.
02:01:18.000 Because they took it into account each time.
02:01:19.000 And so when the industry floods the scientific research with their funded studies, again, if they fund a study, it doesn't turn out.
02:01:26.000 They're studying other studies and coming to the same conclusion and adding those on as if it's an additional study.
02:01:31.000 Is that what you're saying?
02:01:32.000 No.
02:01:34.000 Look, if your industry funds studies and it only decides...
02:01:37.000 If you're in a beef industry or a dairy industry, are you going to put out studies that aren't in your favour?
02:01:41.000 No, right?
02:01:42.000 And you also...
02:01:43.000 And they don't have to.
02:01:43.000 You spin it.
02:01:44.000 And so what you do is, if you want to make beef look better...
02:01:46.000 If you want to make saturated fat look okay...
02:01:49.000 Or if you want to make cholesterol okay, you can switch things around in the study to make it look good.
02:01:54.000 If you want to look at eggs, and for example, and I don't want to get, like, it could turn into a three-hour debate about cholesterol and saturated fat, but if you go from 10 eggs a week to 12 eggs a week, it doesn't raise your serum cholesterol.
02:02:14.000 Right, right.
02:02:27.000 I think that's fair.
02:02:28.000 And it's done with the sugar industry, and it was done with tobacco.
02:02:32.000 And again, I'm not comparing the amount of increased risk of cancer from tobacco.
02:02:36.000 That was never a claim that was made.
02:02:37.000 It was the playbook that is used by the drug industry, by the meat industry, by the sugar industry, by the dairy industry.
02:02:45.000 So even though your film came out and these studies came out right before your film, it's kind of proving your point that this same company that tried to exonerate the sugar industry is also...
02:02:55.000 Yeah, if you're going to accept that, if you're going to cite that as evidence...
02:02:57.000 If you're going to cite that company...
02:02:59.000 The reason I think, because like you said, you're so busy on many other things, is I just don't think that your fingers on the pulse...
02:03:05.000 That was not the only study that I said.
02:03:07.000 I know it's not.
02:03:08.000 There's many other meta-analyses, 2010, 15, we can look at them, you know...
02:03:14.000 Well, let's do that.
02:03:18.000 Let's look at those studies.
02:03:20.000 But again, they're including studies that are funded by industry.
02:03:24.000 And so unless you can pass those out and say, is that really...
02:03:28.000 So you're saying we can't...
02:03:29.000 You rely on any study...
02:03:31.000 No, I didn't say that.
02:03:32.000 That's the straw man.
02:03:33.000 I said that you would really need to look at the way in which a study is designed to see if it was viable.
02:03:39.000 And you also have to replicate the studies.
02:03:42.000 Studies have to be replicated.
02:03:43.000 And so what I'm saying is...
02:03:45.000 So there's a...
02:03:46.000 Can I just finish the last point and then I'll let you show as many studies as you want?
02:03:50.000 Because again, you can show as many studies as you want, you can't prove that you're not handpicking them to suit your bias.
02:03:55.000 You are the one that quoted this study.
02:03:58.000 It shows that your finger's not on the pulse because hundreds of top scientists have written letters, or joined in the same letter, to the Alzheimer's internal medicine asking for those studies to be retracted.
02:04:10.000 And there's now an investigation into the annals of internal medicine, yet you are citing that study.
02:04:15.000 An investigation doesn't prove, nothing has been proven yet, and I was aware of that controversy.
02:04:21.000 But you can't even read forest plots, but you're telling people what to eat.
02:04:25.000 The controversy is not surprising.
02:04:27.000 If red meat has been demonized for as long as it has been, and then a study comes out which exonerates it, it would be entirely expected that there would be controversy.
02:04:37.000 And do you know who that study was funded by?
02:04:40.000 Can you just pick up slide 93?
02:04:43.000 Just to show that...
02:04:45.000 Anyway, so it's not just me saying this.
02:04:50.000 I mean, the...
02:04:52.000 Scientists who discredited meat guidelines didn't report past food industry ties.
02:05:02.000 The lead researcher, Bradley C. Johnston, said he was not required to report his past relationship with a powerful industry trade group.
02:05:10.000 I don't know what that trade group is, but if you scroll down...
02:05:15.000 I can tell you, in the first one, the sugar one, it was that Pepsi and all this stuff, although they make a non-profit with a fancy sounding name, and then they back it all with industry funding.
02:05:26.000 Same with the Meek study.
02:05:28.000 That's why I don't understand why he'd use it.
02:05:29.000 If you were being objective, You're saying, oh, there's other studies.
02:05:33.000 But why name this one as though it's got validity?
02:05:35.000 So you feel like they concocted this study and released it right before your film specifically to try to take some of those.
02:05:43.000 I think it's likely that it was tied into the film.
02:05:47.000 But it doesn't matter whether it is.
02:05:48.000 I'm showing that to...
02:05:51.000 To present that study as evidence, when the consensus of the scientific researchers is against that study, that is calling for an investigation, that has asked for it to be retracted, the co-author of the paper, who's part of the leadership team at NutraRex,
02:06:07.000 he's the Vance Chancellor of Dean in Agriculture and Life Sciences at Texas A&M. Texas A&M is partnered with the Beef Checkoff Program.
02:06:16.000 And this is also discussed in the New York Times, slide 94. And there's actually, it goes a lot deeper than that.
02:06:25.000 It actually goes back to Brazilian government.
02:06:28.000 Let's see, slide 94. Slide 94 is just talking about...
02:06:31.000 Research group that discounted risks of red meat has ties to program partly backed by beef industry.
02:06:39.000 So this doesn't necessarily mean what they're saying is incorrect.
02:06:42.000 And this is where it gets slippery, right?
02:06:43.000 Because if they found things that happen to be correct, and they release it, but they release it from a shitty company that has said things in the past.
02:06:51.000 It's a shitty company that chose, and it handpicked which studies it included in meta-analysis.
02:06:56.000 Because you've had plenty of time to explain this.
02:06:59.000 Yeah.
02:07:00.000 To get to your point, Chris, you agree with the conclusion of that study, and you think that the evidence points that there's many studies that point to the idea that red meat is not, in fact, the culprit.
02:07:14.000 And the culprit is when you're looking at these epidemiology studies, that you're looking at the overall diet of these people and asking them, do they eat meat?
02:07:21.000 You're not asking them, what is the quality of the food they eat?
02:07:24.000 Yeah, so I agree that conflicts of interest are a problem.
02:07:29.000 And the editorial that was published in Annals alongside of this study said, this is sure to be controversial, but it's based on the most comprehensive review of the evidence to date.
02:07:42.000 Because that review is inclusive, those who seek to dispute it will be hard-pressed to find appropriate evidence.
02:07:48.000 And who?
02:07:48.000 Who wrote that?
02:07:49.000 The meta-analyses had studies covering millions of participants over 34 years.
02:07:57.000 There are several other meta-analyses that have been done over the past few years, so I don't know the best way to show these because I've got them in a Google Doc.
02:08:10.000 So 2017, let's see if I can give you the title, Jamie, maybe you can Google it or something.
02:08:20.000 Contemporary Review of the Relationship Between Red Meat Consumption and Cardiovascular Risk.
02:08:27.000 Quote from that study, the review concluded, quote, recent findings demonstrated that despite the presence of heme iron and carnitine, Red meat does not significantly increase cardiovascular risk when it is assumed in recommended doses.
02:08:43.000 You have 2014 meta-analysis of 13 studies.
02:08:49.000 Again, this one, Jamie, is called association between Total processed red and white meat consumption all cause cardiovascular disease,
02:09:09.000 heart disease, mortality.
02:09:12.000 And this is a good example of what you were just saying, Joe.
02:09:18.000 There was a slight increased association between red meat consumption and cardiovascular mortality And then at the end, no significant associations is observed between any type of meat and heart disease mortality.
02:09:37.000 Results of the present meta-analysis indicate that processed meat consumption could increase mortality.
02:09:42.000 These results should be interpreted with caution due to the high heterogeneity observed in most of the analyses as well as the possibility of residual confounding, meaning healthy user bias.
02:09:55.000 Lippi, in a meta-analysis of 11 studies of red meat consumption and heart disease, concluded that, quote, the current literature data does not support the existence of a clear relationship between a large intake of red meat and increased risk of myocardial ischemia.
02:10:11.000 And then this is one of the largest that was done.
02:10:15.000 Let me give you the title of this, Jamie.
02:10:18.000 Red and processed meat consumption and risk of incident coronary heart disease.
02:10:23.000 That should bring it up.
02:10:25.000 That's by Misha et al.
02:10:27.000 Conclusion.
02:10:28.000 Consumption of processed meat but not red meat is associated with higher incidence of heart disease and diabetes.
02:10:38.000 So there's a bunch of meta-analyses that have been done over the years that reached the same conclusion, and we could look at the same, this is for heart disease, but there are also some for cancer.
02:10:53.000 So, it's not just that study.
02:10:56.000 There are many others as well.
02:10:58.000 There are many others.
02:10:59.000 And meta-analyses.
02:11:00.000 And there are meta-analyses on the other side.
02:11:01.000 So, you can present studies here so that people listening… That's true.
02:11:04.000 There are meta-analyses on the other side.
02:11:06.000 Right.
02:11:06.000 And you can present the data for the people listening, and it appears like the preponderance evidence is that.
02:11:12.000 But your guidelines for diet… They're not in alignment for saturated fat.
02:11:16.000 They're not in diet for cholesterol.
02:11:18.000 They're not in diet for the amount of carbohydrates for normal people.
02:11:21.000 They're not in line with the consensus for carbohydrates for athletes.
02:11:25.000 I've said a range of carbohydrates could be appropriate for people.
02:11:28.000 What I'm saying is you are not in alignment.
02:11:30.000 With the scientific consensus.
02:11:32.000 And you claim that we cherry-picked in the film, right?
02:11:34.000 But you hand-picked studies to back up your bias.
02:11:36.000 Not to mention that we've pointed out that the studies in those meta-analyses, some of them are heavily funded by industry, not saying that you should throw all those out, but you don't have the wherewithal to assess the studies in the meta-analysis because you pointed out yourself that you can't even read a forest plot.
02:11:52.000 So he reads conclusions, right?
02:11:54.000 He reads conclusions in writing, but has not looked at the actual data.
02:12:00.000 So, you haven't been able to establish.
02:12:02.000 When I spent the first thousand hours, I would look at the whole paper, and then I would look at each author, and I would dig into each author to see where their funding was from.
02:12:13.000 And I'm telling you that the industry is funding studies.
02:12:16.000 To sway things in their favor.
02:12:18.000 And you point, it shows that you don't have your finger on the pulse.
02:12:21.000 There's no doubt about that.
02:12:22.000 Why didn't you point to those last time?
02:12:24.000 Why did you point to an industry-funded study?
02:12:26.000 I have pointed to those before.
02:12:28.000 But in the last one, why point out in the Nutirex study, you know, when it was clearly invalid, the scientists...
02:12:35.000 Wait, wait, wait.
02:12:36.000 Not clearly invalid.
02:12:39.000 It wasn't representative of the scientific evidence.
02:12:42.000 They handpicked the studies they were including.
02:12:44.000 They used the grade methodology.
02:12:46.000 Do you know what the grade methodology is?
02:12:47.000 I do.
02:12:48.000 And do you think that's appropriate for assessing food rather than pharmaceuticals?
02:12:52.000 According to some nutrition organizations, it is.
02:12:55.000 Well, very few.
02:12:56.000 It's not a scientific consensus.
02:12:58.000 What is the National Academy of...
02:13:04.000 Basically, they used the methodology that wasn't appropriate for looking at what they were looking at.
02:13:08.000 It's just the same with the Siritorino and the Chowdhury studies.
02:13:12.000 What they were looking for could never have been found.
02:13:15.000 The association between saturated fat and cholesterol levels, it could never have been found based on the methodology that they used.
02:13:22.000 Do you agree with that?
02:13:23.000 We still haven't got to protein.
02:13:31.000 It's absolutely true.
02:13:33.000 I've never claimed that there aren't studies correlating red meat with poor health outcomes.
02:13:38.000 I never have claimed that and I've said those studies are highly problematic for all of the reasons that I've talked about on the last show and on previous shows.
02:13:49.000 Healthy user bias.
02:13:51.000 Problems with data collection, food frequency questionnaires, relative versus absolute risk, confounding like, you know, not looking at physical activity, and the biggest confounder of all, not looking at diet quality.
02:14:07.000 I'd love to go to diet quality because I know you like to use Matt Lalonde's work, which has never been published, which obviously was built in What?
02:14:15.000 I have not used Matt Lalonde's work in connection with diet quality.
02:14:18.000 I'm talking about food patterns, like healthy food pattern, eating healthy...
02:14:22.000 In terms of nutrient density, which is a part of diet quality, you have referred to Matt Lalonde's work.
02:14:30.000 I'm happy to talk about that.
02:14:34.000 I'm still talking about the research on red meat being problematic because it doesn't consider the overall diet pattern.
02:14:46.000 First of all, you don't have the wherewithal to interpret the scientific evidence, which is very clear that you don't understand forest plots.
02:14:54.000 You recognize that you have to look at the totality of evidence, and you have to be able to dig in and look at where the things are pointing.
02:15:00.000 You yourself said, I am not an expert in nutrition.
02:15:03.000 And you said, and again, I'm not either, which is I don't even know why we're sitting here having this discussion, honestly.
02:15:08.000 We should get some real experts in.
02:15:10.000 We could do that too.
02:15:11.000 You can point on your side who you think the experts are, and I'll point on our side who we think the experts are.
02:15:17.000 I mean, I don't even like to say size, really, because to me, it's not really my position.
02:15:21.000 I think your position is a lot better than the standard American diet.
02:15:24.000 The opposition is really like the carnivores, right?
02:15:26.000 Well, your position, yeah, that's the opposite.
02:15:28.000 Your position, though, is in defense of your film.
02:15:31.000 Yeah, I'm defending the film.
02:15:32.000 And in response to his critique.
02:15:34.000 And how do you think I'm doing so far?
02:15:36.000 Well, with B12, it was a home run, for sure.
02:15:38.000 Well, I think there's lots of other things, but...
02:15:41.000 Well, we still haven't really shown whether or not there's evidence that...
02:15:47.000 See, that's the problem with all this stuff.
02:15:49.000 When you're dealing with these epidemiology studies, it's so hard to figure out what's what.
02:15:54.000 I agree.
02:15:55.000 What are these people eating?
02:15:57.000 Who are these people?
02:15:57.000 Are they drinking?
02:15:58.000 Are they doing drugs?
02:15:59.000 What is the overall health quality based on?
02:16:03.000 I agree.
02:16:04.000 How much of it is based on their diet?
02:16:06.000 And that's why we look at scientific consensus.
02:16:07.000 Could you just bring up slide one?
02:16:10.000 Do you agree with him or dispute what he's saying about scientific consensus?
02:16:14.000 Would you agree that you're not in line with the scientific consensus?
02:16:17.000 My general dietary recommendations?
02:16:21.000 Yeah.
02:16:21.000 Probably.
02:16:22.000 Some aspects of it, but not all aspects.
02:16:24.000 But generally, I mean, come on.
02:16:26.000 I don't think that's...
02:16:28.000 What do you think the scientific consensus, Chris, what do you think the scientific consensus is when it comes to dietary recommendations?
02:16:37.000 Well, it's changed a little bit in the past few years.
02:16:39.000 It definitely was low fat, although that is changing a little bit.
02:16:43.000 There's some recognition of different fats, may have different effects, etc.
02:16:48.000 It would be limiting red meat, would be limiting saturated fat, limiting cholesterol, eating a lot of plants and whole foods, limiting sugar,
02:17:05.000 This is a scientific insight.
02:17:07.000 Hold on, please.
02:17:09.000 What is that based on?
02:17:10.000 What do you think that's based on?
02:17:12.000 That's based on, you know, mostly observational research and then some mechanistic studies and some RCTs.
02:17:21.000 But even RCTs, if you're comparing, again, like some of the studies that are cited, for example, in David Goldman's papers, they're comparing a standard American diet with a plant-based diet.
02:17:36.000 So in a crossover trial, randomized trial, that's not comparing apples to apples.
02:17:42.000 But anyways, to get back to your question, I would say about half of what I recommend is consistent if we use the factors that I just said, eating whole foods and...
02:17:55.000 Not eating processed and refined foods, limiting sugar, all of that.
02:17:59.000 The areas where I differ are red meat, saturated fat, but not always.
02:18:05.000 I think that's individual and depends on how people actually respond to saturated fats, and eggs, and total fat content, depending on the person.
02:18:18.000 What about legumes and grains?
02:18:21.000 I think they can be part of a healthy diet if they're well tolerated.
02:18:25.000 And you do think that the research has shown a whole food plant-based diet versus standard American diet, people are getting improvements on that?
02:18:30.000 Yeah.
02:18:31.000 I think everybody...
02:18:33.000 I definitely think there should be more studies.
02:18:34.000 Standard American diet.
02:18:35.000 Some people I've found don't do well with grains and legumes, especially people with digestive issues.
02:18:40.000 So for them, maybe not.
02:18:43.000 But I've never argued that grains and legumes are...
02:18:48.000 I'm not a strict paleo kind of advocate.
02:18:53.000 And you pointed out last time, I think it was Rhonda Patrick that talked about it too, because obviously I watch your podcast, and you pointed out about these hormetic stressors that we talked about earlier, and so these people that are talking about anti-nutrients in food, they really don't know what they're talking about.
02:19:07.000 That's a red herring.
02:19:07.000 Yeah, yeah.
02:19:08.000 They don't know what they're talking about.
02:19:10.000 It's a really common thing.
02:19:13.000 Look, the landscape of food is enormous.
02:19:16.000 The landscape of dietary requirements and of health, it's enormous.
02:19:22.000 And just you talking about spending thousands and thousands of hours combing over this research can attest to that.
02:19:27.000 And Chris, I think you can as well.
02:19:29.000 I mean, this is a very complicated issue and there's a certain amount of bio-variability.
02:19:35.000 Different people have different physical requirements, different nutritional requirements.
02:19:39.000 But I think we're trying to zoom in on what is actually bad for you and what is actually good for you, I think we agree on.
02:19:46.000 I think we all agree.
02:19:47.000 Everyone here agrees that...
02:19:49.000 You basically need a certain amount of vegetables in your diet.
02:19:53.000 You need vitamins, whether you can get those vitamins from supplements like B12 supplements or whether you can get it from the actual food that you eat.
02:20:01.000 There's certain dietary requirements that I think we're all in agreement on.
02:20:05.000 I think where we disagree on is whether or not red meat is bad for you and what kind of red meat we're talking about and why is it bad and what Is it bad when it sits alone,
02:20:20.000 or is it bad when you're eating it with vegetables, which is what we're recommending in the first place?
02:20:25.000 So if we're recommending that you eat it with vegetables, and these vegetables do have this sort of balancing effect of the negative aspects or the perceived negative aspects, even though there's no evidence that those negative aspects, when eaten by itself, because we don't really have long-term studies on carnivore diet people.
02:20:43.000 I think mostly we're in agreement here.
02:20:46.000 You're defending your film, and rightly so.
02:20:50.000 I mean, I think there was a bunch of claims that were untrue.
02:20:52.000 Well, clearly you've proven with the B12 issue that he said some things that made you look like you were saying things that were inaccurate and uninformed.
02:21:01.000 And he's done that with a bunch of other things too, though.
02:21:03.000 Okay.
02:21:03.000 And so he did it with protein.
02:21:04.000 Let's go to the protein.
02:21:05.000 Before we get to that, can I just show what the consensus actually is on diet?
02:21:08.000 Yes.
02:21:09.000 Okay, so can you just bring up slide one?
02:21:10.000 And I mentioned this earlier, but I didn't show it.
02:21:16.000 So the World Health Organization recommends that people eat a nutritious diet based on a variety of foods originating mainly from plants rather than animals, which you said you could agree with, right?
02:21:25.000 Because it's like not vegan necessarily, like mainly from plants.
02:21:29.000 Yeah, I mean the proportions are a question mark there.
02:21:33.000 And then the, actually slide three would be the FAO, the Appropriately planned vegetarian including vegan diets.
02:21:47.000 Okay.
02:21:49.000 Appropriately planned vegetarian including vegan diets are healthful, nutritionally adequate, and may provide health benefits for the prevention and treatment of certain diseases.
02:21:57.000 That's a weird...
02:21:59.000 Appropriately planned is a weird way of phrasing it.
02:22:01.000 Well, it is.
02:22:02.000 And it's also a little bit unfair because it sort of says if you eat an omnivorous diet, it doesn't need to be appropriately planned.
02:22:08.000 Eat whatever the hell you want.
02:22:09.000 Yeah, that's a good point.
02:22:10.000 These diets are appropriate for all stages of the life cycle, including pregnancy, lactation, infancy, childhood, adolescence, older adulthood, and for athletes.
02:22:19.000 So these women that you hear that are getting arrested because their babies are malnourished because they're following a vegan diet...
02:22:26.000 Appropriately planned is the key phrase.
02:22:28.000 Yeah, I would agree with that.
02:22:30.000 I said that at the beginning of the show.
02:22:34.000 I acknowledge that they're very healthy, high-performing, vegans, people on plant-based diets.
02:22:40.000 If they do it right, they can do it.
02:22:42.000 And if someone wanted to take your advice, would they have to do that right and plan that?
02:22:46.000 Yes.
02:22:47.000 I think everybody agrees that you have to plan out your diet correctly.
02:22:49.000 If you want to exercise properly, you've got to have a plan.
02:22:53.000 You've got to plan to go to the grocery store.
02:22:55.000 You've got to plan to get the right foods.
02:22:56.000 There are some nutrients that are of potentially bigger concern, I think, on vegan and vegetarian diets.
02:23:03.000 Happy to get into that.
02:23:04.000 Can we just show two more slides on the proportion of evidence?
02:23:07.000 I completely agree with appropriately planned.
02:23:10.000 Okay, good.
02:23:11.000 So we recognize that as long as you plan it well, you have B12, you get a wide variety of foods.
02:23:16.000 This is the same one.
02:23:17.000 No, no, the slide after that.
02:23:19.000 I meant for omnivores, too.
02:23:20.000 We want people to be thinking about what they're eating.
02:23:23.000 Totally.
02:23:23.000 And we agree that most people are eating a bunch of crap.
02:23:26.000 So here we go.
02:23:27.000 The Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics, the American Heart Association, and the 2015 and 2020 Dietary Guidelines for Americans recommend appropriately planned vegetarian diets for improved health.
02:23:42.000 That's a statement by Frank, who is the current chair of nutrition at Harvard looking at plant-based diets and cardiovascular health.
02:23:49.000 And then slide two is the FAO. Sorry, I got the slides in the wrong order.
02:23:52.000 This is the FAO. I don't know what messed up with the...
02:23:55.000 It doesn't look like that on my page.
02:23:57.000 Anyway, households should select predominantly plant-based diets rich in a variety of vegetables and fruits, pulses and legumes, which again, a lot of people on the paleo diet would say is useless, and minimally processed starchy staple foods, The evidence that such diets will prevent or delay a significant proportion of non-communicable chronic diseases is consistent.
02:24:15.000 So all I'm pointing out here is that you're not in line with the consensus of science and that you don't have the ability to read the papers.
02:24:24.000 That's all I'm pointing out.
02:24:25.000 I'm in line with pretty much everything that has been shown just then.
02:24:31.000 There's only one of the paragraphs that you mentioned even mentioned animal products and it didn't recommend excluding them entirely.
02:24:41.000 So you would point out that one, you agree that predominantly plant-based is the way to go and that as long as you plan it appropriately, vegan diets can be healthful.
02:24:51.000 Yes, I agree.
02:24:52.000 I said as much that vegan diets can be healthful on the first show if they're appropriately planned.
02:24:59.000 And I don't know, you know, predominantly plant-based.
02:25:02.000 Again, if you look at the plate and we see mostly plants there and then animal products, then yes, if we're talking about calories.
02:25:13.000 So do you agree by calories then?
02:25:17.000 No.
02:25:17.000 Okay, so you're not in alignment with the scientific consensus again, though?
02:25:21.000 I'm not in alignment with that consensus.
02:25:23.000 Okay, so it's not on the predominantly getting your calories from plants, which is the scientific consensus.
02:25:26.000 You're not with saturated fat and cholesterol and a bunch of other things, heme iron.
02:25:30.000 But anyway, so can we get a protein?
02:25:32.000 Because we're really here to defend his critiques of the film.
02:25:35.000 Because, you know, honestly, I've got people that watch the film Changed their diet, started feeling better, watched this podcast where he debunked the film and then called me a lot, you know, like write me a message on Instagram saying you are full of shit.
02:25:46.000 You shouldn't read comments.
02:25:48.000 It was actually, you know, it was an Instagram, like a message.
02:25:51.000 Don't read that either.
02:25:52.000 But anyway, I'm just saying like, it's a shame that you have someone that doesn't really have the capability to really understand the literature coming on here and people buying into it, talking smack on the film where he made a bunch of factually wrong comments.
02:26:05.000 Let's talk about protein.
02:26:06.000 Let's get into protein for sure.
02:26:11.000 And again, I'm not even the one that's qualified.
02:26:15.000 If I'm beating him on some arguments, what do you think you would get if you had a real nutrition expert in here?
02:26:21.000 I'm not qualified to do this.
02:26:22.000 I would like to see it.
02:26:23.000 I would like to see it.
02:26:24.000 Okay, so can I just, your concerns with the protein, and just make sure I'm understanding your argument.
02:26:30.000 Protein quantity and protein quality.
02:26:33.000 And within protein quality, it would be the amino acid profile and the digestibility.
02:26:37.000 Is that fair?
02:26:38.000 Those are your issues with the protein.
02:26:40.000 Those are the considerations of protein.
02:26:42.000 Okay, cool.
02:26:43.000 So we're on the same page for what we're discussing, right?
02:26:49.000 So I just don't know where you...
02:26:51.000 And again, not saying that it's not possible to get enough protein quantity and quality and mix of amino acids in if you're really on it.
02:27:02.000 Right.
02:27:03.000 But if it's well planned.
02:27:04.000 Just like if any other diet was well planned.
02:27:07.000 I think it's less likely that you'll get protein right on a completely vegan diet than it is on a diet that contains animal protein.
02:27:19.000 It's more complicated.
02:27:20.000 It's not more complicated.
02:27:22.000 What it is, is if you don't know what you're doing...
02:27:25.000 And you've been eating in a certain way for 30 years, and you suddenly take your meat off the plate, and you only eat what was left on the plate, you're going to have a problem.
02:27:31.000 Yeah, it's more complicated.
02:27:32.000 Right.
02:27:32.000 Exactly.
02:27:33.000 So that's why we put resources on our website.
02:27:35.000 The level of knowledge and understanding about that is pretty low, in my experience.
02:27:40.000 Right.
02:27:40.000 No, I agree.
02:27:40.000 I agree.
02:27:42.000 I think people need more resources to make better informed decisions about their health, about their exercise, and so on.
02:27:47.000 I agree.
02:27:48.000 What's your position on what he said about protein?
02:27:51.000 Okay, so I'm just quoting you from last time.
02:27:55.000 Man, you really put me through a lot of hours of extra work.
02:27:58.000 Now it's gone from like 3,000 to like 3,100, you know?
02:28:02.000 Anyway, so there was just so much wrong with what you said that I just had to go into every single topic.
02:28:08.000 But anyway, so three ounces of, you said, three ounces of 90% lean ground beef.
02:28:15.000 Do you think that animal fat is not good for you?
02:28:20.000 Because all of a sudden now, Chris is a...
02:28:21.000 Well, that's not what he's saying.
02:28:22.000 He's talking about protein content.
02:28:23.000 Yeah, but what was the statement in the film?
02:28:25.000 Lean ground beef, meaning that for protein content, though.
02:28:29.000 No, no, no.
02:28:29.000 The statement in the film was...
02:28:31.000 I think that's the most common...
02:28:32.000 No, it's not actually.
02:28:33.000 If you go to the store...
02:28:34.000 No, it's not actually not.
02:28:36.000 It's anywhere from...
02:28:37.000 And grass-fed beef, which is what I advocate, that's generally leaner.
02:28:43.000 Okay, great.
02:28:44.000 But he was specifically talking about protein content.
02:28:47.000 No, I know.
02:28:47.000 That's what we're going to go into.
02:28:48.000 Right, okay.
02:28:49.000 Lean ground beef.
02:28:50.000 Okay.
02:28:51.000 But basically what I had said, and I can't remember the exact words that I said, but I pretty much do, because I recorded it a number of times.
02:28:59.000 So, one cup of cooked lentils or a peanut butter sandwich has about as much protein as three ounces of beef or three large eggs.
02:29:07.000 That was what I said.
02:29:08.000 I might be off on a word, but that was what I said.
02:29:10.000 I said about as much protein.
02:29:12.000 Okay?
02:29:13.000 So you go on to say three ounces of 90% lean ground beef.
02:29:17.000 Well, already what you did is you picked leaner beef.
02:29:19.000 But, you know, even though you don't advocate for that, you don't think the animal fat is bad.
02:29:24.000 So what you did is you picked the leanest beef.
02:29:25.000 Anyway, you say it has 24 grams of protein.
02:29:28.000 I'm not sure what your source is.
02:29:29.000 But he does advocate for grass-fed beef.
02:29:32.000 Grass-fed beef is leaner.
02:29:33.000 So if he's talking about what he does advocate for, that does make sense.
02:29:37.000 It's three ounces of ground lean meat.
02:29:40.000 Okay, but the thing is, the point in the film...
02:29:42.000 Because you weren't saying that.
02:29:44.000 Most people...
02:29:45.000 Yeah, exactly.
02:29:45.000 So you were saying...
02:29:45.000 I'm defending what we said in the film.
02:29:47.000 Right.
02:29:47.000 So you were saying regular, standard American ground beef...
02:29:51.000 Has about as much...
02:29:52.000 It's about what we're trying to point...
02:29:53.000 The point of this thing was not to say this is the best foods to eat.
02:29:56.000 It was just to say like...
02:29:57.000 You're making a comparison.
02:29:58.000 The regular stuff that you eat, like a peanut butter sandwich, people think no protein at all.
02:30:01.000 Right.
02:30:01.000 They think...
02:30:02.000 You know, people think that plants have no protein.
02:30:04.000 The first question you get asked, well, where do you get your protein?
02:30:06.000 Right.
02:30:07.000 So I said it's got about as much protein.
02:30:08.000 So you say then...
02:30:09.000 Oh, and by the way, I'd listened to your 30-minute podcast, trying to take down the film, which came out before you came on Joe's podcast.
02:30:17.000 And you said that you, and you sort of backed this up, I don't know, this happened like from one article and it got spread and spread and spread, that someone said, you need five tablespoons of peanut butter to get the same amount of protein.
02:30:34.000 In what world does someone, and you changed your tune a little bit when you came on the podcast, but when I make a peanut butter sandwich, I use bread, two pieces of bread.
02:30:42.000 How many, like, you would use two pieces of bread and peanut butter sandwich?
02:30:44.000 I think that's what a sandwich means.
02:30:46.000 I think by definition, right?
02:30:46.000 It's pretty much okay.
02:30:47.000 Sure.
02:30:48.000 So what you did on your podcast, you admit that a tablespoon of peanut butter is four grams, right?
02:30:54.000 Mm-hmm.
02:30:55.000 Okay.
02:30:55.000 And what is four times five?
02:30:59.000 Twenty.
02:31:01.000 Right.
02:31:02.000 And then per USDA, how much is one piece of whole wheat bread?
02:31:09.000 Four or five, depending on the source you look at.
02:31:12.000 I agree.
02:31:13.000 How many pieces of bread?
02:31:14.000 Two?
02:31:14.000 Yeah.
02:31:15.000 Okay, so five grams of protein in bread.
02:31:17.000 The one that I actually have at home is six grams, but let's take USDA. Okay.
02:31:20.000 So five.
02:31:21.000 Five plus five is?
02:31:23.000 Chris?
02:31:23.000 Ten.
02:31:24.000 Plus 20 from the peanut butter is?
02:31:26.000 Thirty.
02:31:28.000 Well, even on the leanest beef that you chose, it was 24 grams.
02:31:32.000 Why did you say you needed five tablespoons of peanut butter?
02:31:35.000 And I know how it came about.
02:31:36.000 Because I think what you do is you take other people's work like Denise Minger and all these other people.
02:31:41.000 You read their articles and you take their arguments.
02:31:43.000 Because some of the stuff that are on your site is very reflective of people's other arguments on other sites.
02:31:48.000 So there was something that started where people started saying you need five tablespoons of peanut butter.
02:31:53.000 And in the first article it said, without the bread.
02:31:55.000 Now I don't know why you don't include bread.
02:31:57.000 When you make a sandwich, because most people do.
02:31:59.000 It's not just peanut butter.
02:32:00.000 And I almost bought a peanut butter sandwich in here today to show you what two tablespoons of peanut butter looks like, or two and a half.
02:32:06.000 Because the one I had, I looked at it, and it was surprising.
02:32:09.000 When you actually measure a real tablespoon, it's actually not that much peanut butter.
02:32:12.000 So mine, I figured out, has about two and a half tablespoons and two pieces of bread.
02:32:17.000 My bread has like six grams.
02:32:19.000 So my peanut butter is about 22 grams.
02:32:21.000 White bread would be more like 2 or 3 grams of protein.
02:32:25.000 But again, we showed a piece of whole wheat bread on there.
02:32:29.000 We're advocating eating mostly whole foods.
02:32:30.000 That's a whole grain.
02:32:31.000 No one is saying...
02:32:32.000 We even said in the film, if we wanted cherry pick, we'd just try and push plants.
02:32:36.000 We said white sugar and white flour.
02:32:38.000 Bad for you.
02:32:39.000 It was associated with weight gain.
02:32:41.000 Carbohydrates from whole food sources are associated with better lean body mass, lower body fat percentage, and everything else.
02:32:46.000 But anyway, so I don't understand your math.
02:32:49.000 What I think you did is you took that article, because articles that spread from that article forgot to put the bit in parentheses without the two pieces of bread.
02:32:56.000 So you take five tablespoons of peanut butter, At 4 grams a piece, that's 20 grams, right?
02:33:02.000 Which is around what beef is.
02:33:03.000 Two pieces of bread, 10 grams.
02:33:04.000 That's 30. So why did 24 grams of your hand-picked lean beef, which you don't even necessarily...
02:33:10.000 There's no reason that you should be picking that one.
02:33:13.000 That's not what we showed in the film.
02:33:15.000 Why are you comparing 24 grams to 30 grams?
02:33:17.000 Why didn't you say 4 tablespoons of peanut butter?
02:33:20.000 Fair enough?
02:33:21.000 Fair enough.
02:33:21.000 Got it wrong again.
02:33:22.000 So it's frustrating when I watch the show, because every five minutes I'm hearing something that's just factually incorrect.
02:33:28.000 Oh, that's why I'm here.
02:33:29.000 That's why I'm here.
02:33:30.000 Now, again, appreciate the both of you.
02:33:32.000 So can we just look at the actual breakdown of all these different things?
02:33:37.000 So again, the peanut butter sandwich is 22 grams, but that's maybe a little bit more than some people do.
02:33:41.000 The other argument was the quality of the protein.
02:33:43.000 We'll get to that, but quantity first.
02:33:44.000 So if you go to bread on slide four, I don't need to do this.
02:33:48.000 You've agreed.
02:33:49.000 You've agreed.
02:33:50.000 Right, okay.
02:33:51.000 So, and lentils, if you want to do slide eight.
02:33:54.000 Oh, no, no, sorry.
02:33:55.000 What you haven't agreed on is, I'm going to say two tablespoons of peanut butter and two pieces of bread.
02:34:03.000 Okay?
02:34:03.000 Fair enough?
02:34:05.000 Say, for what?
02:34:06.000 I'm just going to say, like, the comparison, roughly.
02:34:08.000 I mean, you can put a bit more peanut butter if you want.
02:34:10.000 Yeah, I'm just going to show...
02:34:11.000 Three tablespoons...
02:34:14.000 So can you just...
02:34:15.000 Three and a half tablespoons of peanut butter and two pieces of bread.
02:34:19.000 No, no, no.
02:34:20.000 I'm going to show you how...
02:34:21.000 I'm going to show you...
02:34:23.000 I'm going to back up what I said in the film.
02:34:25.000 So let's just go through the slides quickly, if that's okay.
02:34:27.000 So slide five...
02:34:28.000 And apologies to all the listeners who don't get to see all my slides.
02:34:31.000 That's okay.
02:34:31.000 Tell them to go to YouTube.
02:34:33.000 Yeah.
02:34:33.000 Here we go.
02:34:34.000 So, this is USDA. So, I don't know where you get the numbers from, but I went to the USDA site.
02:34:39.000 Unfortunately, it changed in October, so it's not quite the same as when we were making the film.
02:34:42.000 But anyway, one slice of bread, five grams of protein.
02:34:47.000 And you accepted that, right?
02:34:48.000 Mm-hmm.
02:34:49.000 Okay, good.
02:34:50.000 Peanut butter, two tablespoons, eight grams.
02:34:53.000 You accepted that?
02:34:54.000 You accepted that two tablespoons of peanut butter has eight grams?
02:34:57.000 Yeah.
02:34:58.000 Okay, we could have more.
02:34:59.000 I have more, but whatever.
02:35:01.000 Okay, here we go.
02:35:01.000 So you agree that 18 grams of protein for the peanut butter?
02:35:06.000 That's the sandwich we showed in the film, whole wheat bread, peanut butter.
02:35:09.000 Okay, so the next slide.
02:35:12.000 And again, I'm being very conservative on this, like in the amounts.
02:35:15.000 So now we look at lentils, one cup, 17.9 grams of protein.
02:35:19.000 That is USDA again.
02:35:20.000 Would you accept that?
02:35:22.000 Yeah, I haven't looked at this, but...
02:35:23.000 I accept USDA as a source.
02:35:29.000 Okay, good.
02:35:30.000 But you accept USDA when it comes to this, but not in terms of the recommendations?
02:35:35.000 We're talking about...
02:35:36.000 Yeah, if we're talking about quantity of...
02:35:38.000 Okay, cool.
02:35:40.000 So we're on the same page.
02:35:41.000 This is something that's been clearly measured.
02:35:43.000 This is not something like recommendations.
02:35:45.000 No, okay, sure.
02:35:46.000 But we're on the same page.
02:35:47.000 We're taking this as a source.
02:35:48.000 Okay.
02:35:48.000 Okay, so now if we go to slide nine.
02:35:54.000 Sorry, the one that you just had.
02:35:56.000 The one with the eggs, Jamie.
02:35:58.000 Yeah, yeah, yeah.
02:35:58.000 There we go.
02:35:59.000 So three eggs, 18 grams of protein.
02:36:03.000 Would you say so far we've got about as much protein?
02:36:06.000 In the peanut butter sandwich, with two tablespoons, not the five that you claim.
02:36:09.000 It's less.
02:36:10.000 I mean, 18 is not 24. No, no, no, I'm getting to the beef.
02:36:14.000 I'm saying, so far what I have presented, just the two tablespoons of peanut butter, and it came to 18. I was really conservative, right?
02:36:22.000 I could have put more peanut butter, I could have had bread that had more, like the one, I don't want to name the brand, but it's like six grams.
02:36:27.000 But you'd admit that you can get bread that's got six grams of protein.
02:36:30.000 Sure.
02:36:31.000 Okay, so I'm being really conservative, just to sort of prove a point.
02:36:36.000 So far, we've had a peanut butter sandwich with only two tablespoons of peanut butter.
02:36:39.000 Seriously, try that at home, Joe.
02:36:41.000 Actually measure it with a measuring.
02:36:43.000 Yeah, well, I talked about it in the podcast.
02:36:44.000 I would probably have about five.
02:36:47.000 Okay, so...
02:36:48.000 Anyway, I probably would, too.
02:36:51.000 Three large eggs.
02:36:52.000 Three large eggs.
02:36:52.000 Okay, so now we go to organic.
02:36:54.000 This is organic ground beef.
02:36:58.000 Standard organic ground beef.
02:37:00.000 Three ounces.
02:37:00.000 So three ounces is 17.5 grams.
02:37:03.000 If you want to...
02:37:05.000 If you want to get into it, we can get into it.
02:37:06.000 Because it's per 100 grams, so I can...
02:37:08.000 What's the fat percentage?
02:37:12.000 9.2 grams.
02:37:16.000 So it's half fat?
02:37:17.000 No, sorry.
02:37:19.000 It's 9.2 grams per 100 grams.
02:37:21.000 See, we had to do the calculation.
02:37:22.000 Oh.
02:37:23.000 But that...
02:37:24.000 Okay.
02:37:25.000 But this is the regular organic ground beef.
02:37:27.000 So it's in the neighborhood of...
02:37:29.000 And then, to be fair, because I knew you'd bring up a grass-fed beef, so that I found the lowest and the highest.
02:37:34.000 Okay.
02:37:35.000 Okay, so go to grass-fed beef, slide 11. Three ounces.
02:37:40.000 This is on the very low end, so this would probably be the fattiest meat.
02:37:42.000 But you wouldn't be against animal fat, right?
02:37:46.000 Not typically.
02:37:47.000 Depends on the person and their situation.
02:37:48.000 But we're just talking about protein here anyway.
02:37:50.000 So lowest, 14.4.
02:37:52.000 On the highest end...
02:37:54.000 I actually think my number...
02:37:56.000 18 grams.
02:37:59.000 Okay, so peanut butter sandwich, 18 grams.
02:38:03.000 Lentils, 17.9.
02:38:04.000 Can we round that up?
02:38:05.000 Yeah.
02:38:06.000 Three eggs, 18 grams.
02:38:08.000 Okay.
02:38:11.000 Three ounces of beef, 18 grams at best.
02:38:15.000 Right, when I looked up grass-fed beef.
02:38:16.000 So it's essentially saying exactly what you said.
02:38:18.000 I'm not saying if you go with 90% lean, you can have more protein.
02:38:23.000 No doubt.
02:38:23.000 So you can find protein that's got higher.
02:38:25.000 I said about...
02:38:27.000 I was trying to show...
02:38:29.000 Dispel the myth...
02:38:30.000 That you...
02:38:31.000 You know...
02:38:32.000 Plants have no protein...
02:38:33.000 And animal foods have all this protein.
02:38:36.000 So I've just shown you there...
02:38:38.000 Now your second point...
02:38:40.000 Was that...
02:38:41.000 The problem with...
02:38:42.000 His second point was...
02:38:44.000 The problem with a peanut butter sandwich...
02:38:45.000 To get 18 grams of protein...
02:38:46.000 I think this is a fair point...
02:38:47.000 You would have to eat 410 calories...
02:38:51.000 It was actually the more important point because I'm not necessarily, you know, that may not be a problem for somebody who's training.
02:38:59.000 No, no, no, but I just want to talk about the DS score.
02:39:01.000 No, I know, but can we just do quantity?
02:39:03.000 Can we finish quantity first?
02:39:06.000 So can you bring up slide 15?
02:39:09.000 So you'd admit that you can get a decent amount of protein.
02:39:12.000 Your argument was you can get, like, percentage.
02:39:14.000 So, slide 15, the lentils for 18 grams of protein.
02:39:18.000 Again, if you want to check this calculation, stop at any time, I'm fine.
02:39:21.000 I have had this triple checked.
02:39:23.000 Okay, 18 grams of protein, 231 calories.
02:39:27.000 Okay?
02:39:28.000 Because you like point...
02:39:29.000 I love that people like to point out the beef and then the peanut butter sandwich and try and compare those.
02:39:33.000 Even though we were right on the protein, now you're trying to pick on the calories.
02:39:37.000 So, you didn't pick the lentils, which have 231 calories.
02:39:40.000 The next one, slide 16, has...
02:39:44.000 Which is about the same for beef.
02:39:46.000 Which is about 210 calories.
02:39:47.000 Grass-fed beef in the first instance, slide 17...
02:39:56.000 275 calories, and that was on the one that wasn't so lean, and 70% lean beef, and I'm just pointing out there's different ranges, 417 calories for 18 grams of protein, right?
02:40:10.000 So fatty meat, which you don't think fat, like the animal fat is bad, right?
02:40:14.000 No.
02:40:15.000 Okay.
02:40:18.000 He's talking about the protein percentage.
02:40:20.000 There was more protein percentage-wise in my peanut butter sandwich than there was in the green beef.
02:40:25.000 And then the last, no, not the last one.
02:40:26.000 Yeah, we could have picked something with less calories.
02:40:28.000 So if we pick tempeh, for example, slide 19, 170 calories.
02:40:37.000 So again, would you say...
02:40:38.000 But I think his argument was...
02:40:40.000 The argument was the quality of the protein.
02:40:44.000 No, no, no, no.
02:40:45.000 There was two arguments.
02:40:46.000 Yeah, the part of it was you would have to consume more calories.
02:40:48.000 Okay, but just before...
02:40:49.000 Can I just prove it at one point?
02:40:50.000 Yeah.
02:40:50.000 So the first part was you can't...
02:40:54.000 There's nowhere near as much protein.
02:40:56.000 And then there was like, oh, it's based on the calories.
02:40:58.000 So the percentage of protein isn't good.
02:40:59.000 You would have to have more calories to get the same amount of protein.
02:41:02.000 Which is not true.
02:41:02.000 You don't have to.
02:41:03.000 You don't have to.
02:41:04.000 Okay, so we made a mistake again.
02:41:05.000 That was not a central part of my argument.
02:41:07.000 No, but it was a part of it.
02:41:08.000 It was quantity and quality.
02:41:10.000 Yeah, it was quantity and quality.
02:41:11.000 And the quantity was broken down into two things.
02:41:13.000 You just can't get as much in that serving.
02:41:16.000 They're totally wrong.
02:41:17.000 You'd have to have five tablespoons of peanut butter.
02:41:19.000 Totally wrong.
02:41:19.000 Agree?
02:41:21.000 I agree that you don't have to have five tablespoons.
02:41:23.000 Right, thank you.
02:41:24.000 Okay, and then you also said that you'd have to have so many calories that you couldn't get it, and you were wrong again.
02:41:28.000 Agree?
02:41:32.000 For the peanut butter sandwich or just in general?
02:41:35.000 Just in general, from plant foods.
02:41:36.000 Yeah, I agree that you don't need to have 600 calories of lentils to get that much protein.
02:41:42.000 So can we get slide 20, sweet potato and leek omelette from Chris's site?
02:41:47.000 Where the protein is coming.
02:41:48.000 So this is from your site, 18 grams of protein, 410 calories.
02:41:51.000 The funny thing is, I typed in recipes, and I think this was either first or second came up.
02:41:56.000 All I do is pick the first two high-protein recipes from your site, because I didn't pick the soup or the salad because I thought it would be unfair, so I picked the first couple.
02:42:03.000 So sweet potato and leek omelette, the protein coming from eggs, 18 grams of protein, 410 calories.
02:42:09.000 Do you have an issue with your own meal?
02:42:11.000 No.
02:42:12.000 So do you have an issue with the peanut butter sandwich having 410 calories?
02:42:15.000 No.
02:42:17.000 Okay, second one.
02:42:18.000 Like I said, that wasn't central to my point.
02:42:21.000 The point is, it's harder to get the same quantity and quality, the DS score.
02:42:30.000 We'll get to the DS score in a minute, and I will show that you were wrong again.
02:42:34.000 So, taro and bacon hash, slide 21. 18 grams of protein, 570 calories.
02:42:40.000 If you want to go to your breakfast of champions, which I thought, you know, for athletes, slide 22. And by the way, I took your data.
02:42:47.000 I didn't take USDA. I assumed that you were not lying.
02:42:50.000 So I took the totals from the bottom, but I standardized it for 18 grams of protein because we're just comparing everything percentage-wise.
02:42:56.000 688 calories.
02:42:57.000 Do you think that people should not eat that meal?
02:43:00.000 It depends on who you're talking about.
02:43:03.000 It's low protein, right?
02:43:06.000 I don't think that people shouldn't eat it.
02:43:07.000 Is it low protein?
02:43:11.000 You can't rely on that for your protein.
02:43:15.000 So first of all, it's low protein by most people's standards, but your standards of protein are much higher.
02:43:21.000 So that would be far off.
02:43:22.000 So that would mean to make up for the rest of the day, you would have to have meals that were like almost just protein, or maybe they'd have to buy the protein powder from your website.
02:43:30.000 In order to make that up.
02:43:32.000 Anyway, so let's move on to now the, and by the way, slide 23, largest study I've ever done comparing completely plant-based eaters with, like, study showing plant eaters versus meat eaters.
02:43:46.000 75 grams a day?
02:43:47.000 That was the average.
02:43:49.000 Aren't you supposed to have one gram per body weight, per pound of body weight?
02:43:53.000 No.
02:43:54.000 You're not?
02:43:54.000 That's at the upper end for athletes.
02:43:56.000 Okay.
02:43:57.000 It's 0.8 grams.
02:43:57.000 It's 0.8 grams.
02:43:58.000 This is how much they were actually getting in the largest study ever done comparing plant-based eaters.
02:44:03.000 So you can see it's about the same.
02:44:04.000 And actually, per pound of lean body mass, fat-free mass, the vegans were getting slightly more because they had better body mass index.
02:44:10.000 They were slightly leaner.
02:44:11.000 But anyway, I just want to say it's roughly similar.
02:44:13.000 So your next argument was that athletes need more protein.
02:44:17.000 It wasn't an argument because you admitted that I pointed it out in the show.
02:44:21.000 So if you go to slide 24...
02:44:25.000 I just want to point to point about the amount that we're actually requiring.
02:44:27.000 Okay, we're going into the amount now.
02:44:30.000 We're in amount for athletes, because his point is maybe you can get enough to survive, but not to be an athlete.
02:44:36.000 I don't think that was his point.
02:44:38.000 I think his point was that there's a different requirement for athletes.
02:44:43.000 Yeah, there's a different question.
02:44:44.000 We weren't arguing on this point.
02:44:46.000 Your point is you need more.
02:44:48.000 His recommendations, though, what he does is he pushes them to a really high end that isn't consensus, then trying to make it out that it'd be harder to get, which we've already shown you can get enough protein.
02:44:58.000 Of course, an athlete eats more calories, therefore they get more protein as a percentage.
02:45:02.000 So I just wanted to show two positions on this, and then we can see if you, again, you don't agree with the consensus of science.
02:45:09.000 So this is the joint position paper of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics, the Dietitians of Canada, and the American College of Sports Medicine.
02:45:17.000 So this is for athletes, okay?
02:45:19.000 This is just one.
02:45:20.000 I'm going to show you another in a second.
02:45:21.000 Do you want to read it out, Joe?
02:45:23.000 Sure.
02:45:23.000 Current data suggests that dietary protein intake necessary to support metabolic adaptation, repair, remodeling, and for protein turnover generally ranges from 1.2 to 2.0 grams or kilograms per day.
02:45:40.000 Okay, and then the next slide, Jamie, if you could bring up slide 25. I agree with that and have it in my notes.
02:45:45.000 Yeah, okay.
02:45:45.000 I just want to make sure we're on the same page.
02:45:47.000 Okay.
02:45:48.000 Protein supplementation beyond a total daily protein intake of 1.2 grams, kilograms a day.
02:45:53.000 Wait, wait, wait.
02:45:55.000 Is it the wrong one?
02:45:57.000 Where are you reading that?
02:45:58.000 From the big square.
02:46:00.000 You said 1.2?
02:46:02.000 No, I said 1.6, didn't I? No, you said 1.2 to 2 grams.
02:46:06.000 You read the thing from the last thing you were looking at.
02:46:08.000 How did I do that?
02:46:08.000 Did I really do that?
02:46:09.000 That's pretty genius.
02:46:10.000 That doesn't make any sense.
02:46:11.000 Okay.
02:46:11.000 This is what was in front of me, right?
02:46:12.000 Can you read it again?
02:46:13.000 Yeah.
02:46:13.000 Oh, okay.
02:46:14.000 I thought I read 1.6.
02:46:15.000 I didn't?
02:46:17.000 That's what you heard?
02:46:18.000 You heard 1.6?
02:46:18.000 Oh, maybe.
02:46:19.000 I thought you said 1.2 to 2. No worries.
02:46:21.000 Either way.
02:46:21.000 No worries.
02:46:22.000 Protein supplementation beyond a total daily protein intake of 1.6.
02:46:27.000 The squiggle means about.
02:46:29.000 Oh, okay.
02:46:29.000 About 1.6 grams, kilograms a day during RET. That's resistance exercise training.
02:46:35.000 Training provided no further benefit on gains in muscle mass or strength.
02:46:40.000 And these are like really highly...
02:46:41.000 And if you look at the...
02:46:43.000 So a gram per kilogram.
02:46:45.000 A kilogram is two pounds of body weight.
02:46:47.000 2.2.
02:46:48.000 2.2.
02:46:49.000 So we're 1.6 grams.
02:46:50.000 So it's less than one gram.
02:46:52.000 It's 0.727272 grams per pound.
02:46:55.000 So you're looking at about three quarters of a gram per pound recommended.
02:46:59.000 Anything over that provided no gain.
02:47:02.000 I want to clarify.
02:47:03.000 So you can see the...
02:47:07.000 The two-phase breakpoint analysis on the top right, this chart.
02:47:09.000 Yes.
02:47:10.000 Okay, so you can see as the chart goes up and then it flattens out.
02:47:13.000 There was no further gains in fat-free mass, which is the y-axis, after 1.6.
02:47:18.000 However, there's something called a confidence interval.
02:47:21.000 Like, how confident are they that these findings are correct?
02:47:24.000 And it was a very wide confidence interval.
02:47:25.000 So it actually took it, there was 6 grams either side.
02:47:28.000 So it was actually up to 2.2 and down as low as 1. So it's 1 to 2.2.
02:47:32.000 The other one, the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics and the Academy of Sportsmen, is 1.2 to 2. So the widest range is 1 to 2.2.
02:47:42.000 So you think that this recommendation that's a standard thing that you hear in a gym, one gram per pound, it's probably just...
02:47:51.000 No, that's legit.
02:47:51.000 That's legit at the upper end.
02:47:53.000 So 2.2 grams.
02:47:55.000 On the upper end, the 2.2 grams per...
02:47:58.000 Per kilogram of body weight per day is one gram per pound of body weight.
02:48:03.000 So no doubt, and this is what you're talking about, certain athletes like bodybuilders, strength athletes, but the competency of all means to apply to everybody.
02:48:10.000 Some people could actually build, and this is about optimally building muscle as fast as possible, and some people could do it at one gram, some people might 2.2, but like regularly it looked like 1.6, 1.8, like the scientific consensus of that, and you said that you agree with these ranges.
02:48:24.000 Yeah, and there's some evidence suggesting that higher amounts may be beneficial.
02:48:28.000 So if you go to, or Jamie, if you search for examine.com, how much protein do you need?
02:48:37.000 There's an article there, and examine.com is a, do you know about them?
02:48:43.000 I know who they are.
02:48:44.000 A panel of scientists, or a group of scientists.
02:48:46.000 A group of scientists, right, right.
02:48:48.000 Not the American College of Sports Medicine.
02:48:50.000 It's Canadian, right?
02:48:52.000 Indicator Amino Acid Oxidation Method, which is newer.
02:48:57.000 If you scroll down, Jamie, to the optimal daily protein intake for athletes and similarly active adults, or if you just click on that...
02:49:08.000 You see in that paragraph, IAO studies and athletes found different numbers because four of the 49 studies in the meta-analysis that had that lower range were conducted in people with resistance training experience.
02:49:26.000 The other 45 were newbies.
02:49:28.000 IAO studies found different numbers.
02:49:31.000 Female athletes required 1.4 to 1.7.
02:49:34.000 Male endurance, 2.1 to 2.7.
02:49:37.000 Amateur male bodybuilders, 1.7 to 2.2.
02:49:40.000 But this seems the same.
02:49:40.000 It says the average amount of protein required to maximize lean mass is about 1.6 grams per kilogram.
02:49:48.000 It's the same exact measurement.
02:49:49.000 We don't even need to argue it.
02:49:51.000 It's totally accepted.
02:49:52.000 In the sports world, whatever.
02:49:54.000 It also says some people need upwards of 2.2 grams per kilogram for those interested in comprehensive breakdown.
02:50:00.000 It provides another link.
02:50:02.000 I don't think we're far off.
02:50:03.000 We're not far off on this.
02:50:05.000 It says regular training male endurance athletes require 2.1 to 2.7 grams per kilogram, so that's the high range.
02:50:13.000 Yeah, and you did say something about 2.3 to 3.3 in one study you pointed out.
02:50:20.000 That doesn't actually help you build more muscle mass, but if you're trying to lean out...
02:50:25.000 And also, I think some of the studies that you've looked at, like there's one at 2.3, I've actually got it on my...
02:50:32.000 Computer I don't have in my slides, but there's one at 2.1 to 3.3.
02:50:36.000 There's two things about that.
02:50:37.000 One, it's when you're in a caloric deficit.
02:50:38.000 Because of gluconeogenesis, you pull some of the protein and you use some of the energy, so there's less protein, less for building.
02:50:44.000 So if you're a bodybuilder cutting for competition, trying to get down to like 4 or 5%, then your protein requirements go up above that normal range because you're in caloric deficit.
02:50:54.000 You're using some of it for fuel.
02:50:55.000 And that's also the case with those carnivore people and a lot of keto people as well, right?
02:50:59.000 Yeah.
02:50:59.000 Yeah, and they probably adapt some, because like in normal people, you can actually only, during exercise, you can only get 10% of your energy from the oxidation of protein into glucose.
02:51:08.000 But, so, the, where are we going?
02:51:11.000 So, but the 2.3 to 3.1, by the way, it's one in caloric deficit, and it's two based on fat-free mass qualifications.
02:51:17.000 It's not based on total body weight, which is what all the recommendations are on.
02:51:20.000 So, the 2.3 to 3.1 in some of these studies, if you did like, okay, if someone was 15% body fat, it would bring it down.
02:51:26.000 It It wouldn't be 2.3 to 3.1.
02:51:29.000 It's 3.1 based on the lean body mass.
02:51:31.000 So if you're 200 pounds and you've got 20% body fat, you only weigh 160 pounds for this calculation.
02:51:36.000 Got it.
02:51:37.000 Anyway, where we are?
02:51:39.000 So you like to talk about the IAO in terms of these recommendations.
02:51:42.000 And if you look at slide 102, Jamie, how am I doing, by the way, defending the film?
02:51:48.000 Excellent.
02:51:49.000 You're really doing really well.
02:51:51.000 Good.
02:51:51.000 Not bad for a dumb old UFC fighter, right?
02:51:53.000 You're not that old.
02:51:55.000 41. Going great.
02:51:57.000 Look what I did.
02:51:58.000 Look what I did to the top of my head this morning.
02:52:01.000 I cut it.
02:52:01.000 I just started, the last couple of months, I started shaving it with the...
02:52:04.000 How much protein can the body use in a single meal for muscle building?
02:52:08.000 Implications for daily protein distribution showed upward of C1 of 2.2 grams per kilograms a day in cohort of young male bodybuilders.
02:52:18.000 Although the method of assessment indicator amino acid oxidation technique used in this study has not received universal acceptance for determining optimal protein requirements.
02:52:27.000 So it's in that same range.
02:52:29.000 A couple of things.
02:52:30.000 I'm not trying to point out that your IAO is off.
02:52:33.000 I'm saying if you want to take your IAO, the indicator amino acid oxidation index, if you want to use that, then the upper confidence level is still 2.2.
02:52:42.000 So the scientific consensus, I just want to make it very clear, that you threw out a bunch of these numbers on high protein, making out that vegans couldn't hit that level.
02:52:50.000 First of all, I've shown that foods can get that.
02:52:53.000 I've shown that vegans can get sufficient protein.
02:52:55.000 And I've shown the scientific consensus on the protein ranges for athletes are not in scientific consensus with these 3.3.
02:53:04.000 But even if there were, there's no reason you couldn't get it on a plant-based diet.
02:53:06.000 I didn't argue that everyone should be eating 3.3 grams per kilogram.
02:53:09.000 No, but you did argue that vegans couldn't get enough protein, and you were wrong.
02:53:15.000 I didn't say they couldn't get enough.
02:53:16.000 I said that it's less likely that they will get enough.
02:53:19.000 No, but it's not, though.
02:53:20.000 If they eat some of those recipes on your website, they'd be getting less.
02:53:23.000 So you're being disingenuous, Chris.
02:53:27.000 Well, the first recipe, that was sweet potatoes, right?
02:53:30.000 Was it?
02:53:31.000 No, it had eggs in it.
02:53:33.000 The second one.
02:53:34.000 No, it was a sweet potato and leek omelette.
02:53:36.000 It was a taro and bacon hash, and then it was breakfast of champions with milk, yogurt, and eggs.
02:53:40.000 So, all I'm saying is, people that watched the last episode, where he was bashing the film, people walked away thinking, you can't get enough protein.
02:53:49.000 And then they thought, the quality's not good enough.
02:53:51.000 And now we can get into that.
02:53:52.000 Let's get into that.
02:53:53.000 Let's get into that.
02:53:53.000 Because this is the crux of it, right?
02:53:55.000 Yes.
02:53:55.000 It's like...
02:53:56.000 You can get all these nutrients.
02:53:58.000 First of all, B12 is an argument.
02:54:00.000 Smash that.
02:54:01.000 Protein is the next argument.
02:54:02.000 I've just smashed the protein quantity argument, and now we'll get into the quality.
02:54:06.000 We certainly smashed the protein quantity versus caloric intake.
02:54:12.000 Right, and so it's fair to say, is it fair to say, that based on what I've presented, you can get about as much protein from the things that I said.
02:54:19.000 Well, based on what you presented, you haven't lost an argument yet.
02:54:22.000 Thank you.
02:54:23.000 There's not one thing that you've said that's incorrect.
02:54:27.000 And I even agree, if you're going to eat some meat, it should be some elk that you went and hunted yourself.
02:54:32.000 So, let's get into the amino acid content.
02:54:34.000 Oh, yeah.
02:54:34.000 Love this.
02:54:36.000 I was really researching for this.
02:54:39.000 I really enjoyed it.
02:54:41.000 Because there were so many flaws that I was just like...
02:54:44.000 I was a truth seeker, right?
02:54:47.000 So I went for the search for the truth in combat.
02:54:49.000 Bruce Lee would say, research your own experience, absorb what is useful, reject what is useless, add what is specifically your own.
02:54:55.000 I don't care about all the George Dillman BS about you can knock people out.
02:55:00.000 I don't care about that.
02:55:01.000 I don't care about all these traditional styles of martial arts.
02:55:04.000 I care about what is the truth.
02:55:06.000 Before I did this, you know, I thought, oh yeah, paleo diet makes sense.
02:55:09.000 I actually switched to grass-fed beef because of the omega-6 to omega-3 ratios.
02:55:12.000 I started eating air-chilled chicken.
02:55:14.000 But then I read the research, and I wasn't biased by, like, anything other than finding out the truth between the optimal diet for health and athletic performance and recovery of my injuries.
02:55:23.000 And that is the truth, and that is what I have done.
02:55:25.000 And now we're going to expose how you were incorrect about the protein quality.
02:55:31.000 So you said, what's a little disingenuous about the film, they said every plant has every amino acid.
02:55:38.000 Well, yeah, nobody disagrees with that.
02:55:40.000 But it does have, does it have enough of each of them?
02:55:43.000 Well, first of all, people do disagree with that.
02:55:45.000 Like, if you want to search, you know, plants have missing amino acids, people think that it's missing some of the 9% amino acids.
02:55:52.000 So that's why we put that in the film, okay?
02:55:54.000 And we did, and I said, you left off part of my quote.
02:55:57.000 I said, every plant...
02:55:58.000 Has every amino acid.
02:55:59.000 That's what you said.
02:56:00.000 But you left off the end of my quote, which said, every plant has every amino acid in varying proportions.
02:56:04.000 That is what I said.
02:56:05.000 And you left out the in varying proportions, which again, I think is disingenuous.
02:56:09.000 He did not complete my quote.
02:56:11.000 You handpicked part of my quote to represent your view.
02:56:14.000 So people, number one, do think that plants are completely...
02:56:18.000 A lot of people think, just like, you know, there's articles saying, well, no one thinks that protein gives them energy.
02:56:23.000 I've got five studies here, the only five studies that I could find, on the knowledge of collegiate athletes, and around 50% in each of the studies think that protein is what gives you energy.
02:56:33.000 So people were saying, like, why did you put that in the film?
02:56:36.000 That's a straw man.
02:56:37.000 People don't think that protein gives you energy.
02:56:39.000 About 50% of collegiate athletes think that protein gives you energy.
02:56:41.000 That's why I addressed it in the film.
02:56:42.000 Anyway.
02:56:43.000 Back to, you like the DIAAS, right?
02:56:46.000 The Digestible Indispensable Amino Acid Score.
02:56:49.000 Or the PDCAAS, which preceded it.
02:56:52.000 Yeah, either of those, right?
02:56:54.000 So, can you just mention why you like it and, you know, what the benefits are and how it's determined?
02:57:02.000 How is it determined?
02:57:04.000 So, the DIAAS takes into consideration amino acid profile and bioavailability, whereas the PCAAS did not take into consideration bioavailability.
02:57:17.000 Right, it looks at crude protein, it looks at the total amount of protein absorption, not the individual amino acids, because different individual amino acids absorb differently, so that was one of the benefits of the DS scoring.
02:57:28.000 We call it DS and PD-CAS or whatever.
02:57:30.000 But how is it determined?
02:57:33.000 Chris?
02:57:34.000 Do you know how it's determined?
02:57:35.000 The DS? I don't know the details.
02:57:40.000 I'm sorry.
02:57:41.000 It's almost like comedy.
02:57:45.000 That someone is talking about these systems that does not know how...
02:57:49.000 Okay, so slide 27. And I'll tell you one of the benefits of the DIAS. And I think you might have mentioned this, so I think you might know more than you're letting on.
02:57:57.000 So one of the benefits is the oro-ileal digestibility.
02:58:00.000 So the PDCAAS, right, that took the whole digestive tract to what came out of the end.
02:58:05.000 What are we looking at here?
02:58:06.000 So this is how the DIAS is brought about.
02:58:10.000 So...
02:58:11.000 Basically, past the ileum, you can't digest, your body doesn't absorb the protein, really.
02:58:15.000 It's digested by the bacteria, right?
02:58:17.000 So this is one of the benefits of the DIAS versus the PDCAAS, right?
02:58:22.000 The old system, is that they saw how much protein went through the whole digestive tract, but that wasn't reasonable, right?
02:58:28.000 Because...
02:58:29.000 Past the ileum, you're not digesting the protein, the bacteria digesting it, and you're not getting it.
02:58:33.000 Does that make sense?
02:58:33.000 Yes.
02:58:33.000 So basically, they put a pore in the pig.
02:58:36.000 Now, PDC-AS was mostly in rats, and this is done in rats, and there's some in humans, but it's mostly done in pigs, because it's a more similar digestibility to humans.
02:58:46.000 And they're basically assessing how much of that protein was absorbed, right?
02:58:50.000 And how much of the amino acids were absorbed.
02:58:52.000 Now, some people make the argument, even the FAO point out the flaws, some people make the argument, well, pigs have a different digestibility rate, which is true, and they have a different amino acid profile requirement.
02:59:04.000 Different.
02:59:05.000 So some people would say, therefore, DAS, bunch of crap.
02:59:08.000 Right?
02:59:08.000 I'm not going to make that argument.
02:59:10.000 Even though it's tested in animals, primarily not in humans, they've got a different amino acid requirement and different digestibility capability.
02:59:16.000 Okay?
02:59:17.000 So, I mean, would you think that that score is the best one to use for humans?
02:59:20.000 It doesn't make sense.
02:59:21.000 Right.
02:59:21.000 But I'm not going to even make that argument.
02:59:23.000 I'm going to go with you and say, okay, DS is the best thing out there.
02:59:26.000 Okay.
02:59:26.000 Okay?
02:59:27.000 So even though you can question it.
02:59:28.000 So...
02:59:30.000 You've said...
02:59:31.000 This is a quote from last time when you were trying to bash the film.
02:59:34.000 It's all about protein quality, and this, as you said, is an established science, a firmly established science.
02:59:40.000 He was talking to you, obviously, and you must have said it was established.
02:59:43.000 They look at this, especially in, like, third-world countries where protein deficiency is common, so they try to figure out how to address this.
02:59:51.000 Okay?
02:59:51.000 Now, the FAO, the Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations, what is their purpose?
02:59:59.000 Chris?
03:00:04.000 I've got a slide if you want to prove, but it's basically defeating hunger, providing food security, not for America or for England, but for more than 130 countries where people are starving, malnutrition.
03:00:16.000 That is their purpose.
03:00:18.000 So you've got to look at it through the lens of that.
03:00:22.000 If you can just put up slide 29, because I just want to really back these claims up.
03:00:26.000 I know the slides are getting kind of boring, and I again apologize for people just listening.
03:00:29.000 Research focusing on protein malnutrition was largely conducted after the identification of...
03:00:35.000 Quashior core.
03:00:37.000 Quashior core.
03:00:38.000 Quashior core.
03:00:38.000 Quashior core.
03:00:40.000 And the realization that many children globally are suffering from subclinical protein malnutrition.
03:00:46.000 To address protein malnutrition, the composition and digestibility of proteins must be determined.
03:00:52.000 Okay, so we go to the next slide.
03:00:54.000 And this is, by the way, that was looking at the DS score.
03:00:57.000 You know, you can see at the top.
03:00:58.000 Can the DS score decrease protein malnutrition?
03:01:01.000 Then they go on to say...
03:01:03.000 The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations has developed methods to evaluate the protein quality of food items, and in 2011, the Digestible Indispensable Amino Acid Score, D-I-A-A-S, was recommended as a successor to their previous method.
03:01:22.000 Okay, so we're not in a disagreement right now.
03:01:24.000 I'm even going to forego, like, I'm not going to argue about the animal having different amino acid requirements, even though that's, like, that's pretty funny, right?
03:01:31.000 Like, why are you assessing?
03:01:32.000 Anyway, so I'm not going to have that argument.
03:01:34.000 What I'm going to have is I'm going to go with everything so far, FAO, they're endorsing it over the PDS, a lot of experts endorsing it over the DIAS, over the PDCAS. Okay.
03:01:43.000 So now in slide 31, it's made for starving children, okay?
03:01:49.000 Mm-hmm.
03:01:49.000 This is what it's made for.
03:01:50.000 So I would agree, if you're in a caloric deficit, and you're in a country where there's very little protein, and you're only getting 30 grams of protein a day, let's just say that the animal, like, take the animal stuff out of it, and, like, the way that the method is flawed, which the FAO points out.
03:02:03.000 But let's just say it's legit.
03:02:04.000 I would agree.
03:02:05.000 I would say, eat, get your protein from meat.
03:02:08.000 I would agree.
03:02:08.000 Because that's what it was designed for.
03:02:10.000 As you can see, In looking at post-exercise skeletal muscle, the DIAS does not attempt to consider how scores translate into optimizing more downstream physiological targets of interest to a physically active person or athlete.
03:02:24.000 So it wasn't designed for that system.
03:02:28.000 It was designed for starving people in countries where they were not getting enough protein and they weren't getting enough protein, as you would call, high quality.
03:02:37.000 Okay?
03:02:37.000 So...
03:02:40.000 So would you recognize that it wasn't developed for that system?
03:02:44.000 Yes.
03:02:45.000 Based on the scientific literature.
03:02:46.000 But you're inferring it now for the amount that...
03:02:49.000 I still think it's a relevant measure of protein quality because it looks at amino acid profile and ileal digestibility.
03:02:58.000 Yeah, it is.
03:02:59.000 It is.
03:03:00.000 In starving countries when people are starving.
03:03:02.000 I agree.
03:03:03.000 But as you can see, this is not my opinion.
03:03:06.000 It's still looking at amino acid profile, right?
03:03:09.000 You can see that.
03:03:10.000 It's looking at the relative content of amino acids in a particular food.
03:03:16.000 Yes.
03:03:17.000 And it's looking at the ileal digestibility.
03:03:20.000 Which I think is an improvement.
03:03:22.000 I think it's got elements, even though the FAOs point out its flaws, and 10 years from now, we'll have a better system, right?
03:03:28.000 But, right, would you agree?
03:03:29.000 Probably 10 years from now, we'll probably have a better system.
03:03:31.000 I would imagine.
03:03:31.000 Okay, but it's the best that it can kind of go of, but again, it looks at, and it's not just my opinion that it's not used for that.
03:03:37.000 This is like, in sports medicine, 2019, and I agree, you're busy with other stuff, you probably haven't seen this article that came out in February.
03:03:46.000 Have you seen this article before?
03:03:47.000 I have not seen this particular article.
03:03:50.000 So basically, can you look at the...
03:03:52.000 Now, in the 2018 Journal of International Sports Nutrition, slide 32, Society of Sports Nutrition, Because you like to say it's all about muscle protein synthesis, right?
03:04:03.000 That's an important factor.
03:04:04.000 Okay.
03:04:05.000 It has been proposed that muscle protein synthesis is maximized in young adults with an intake of 20-25 grams of high-quality protein.
03:04:14.000 About?
03:04:15.000 About 20-25 grams of a high-quality protein.
03:04:19.000 Okay.
03:04:22.000 Do you disagree that like eating four or five times a day at 20 to 25 grams of high quality protein, whatever you want to take, high score, whatever, under the scoring system you agree with, do you agree that that is the amount to maximize muscle protein when it shows that that does for a four hour window,
03:04:41.000 acute muscle protein is this?
03:04:43.000 Yeah, most of the sports organizations suggest that for acute protein intake.
03:04:50.000 Now, again, I'm going with the consensus.
03:04:52.000 So if you take that 20 to 25 grams four or five times a day, multiply that, what is that?
03:04:58.000 That's 80 to about 120 grams of protein a day.
03:05:04.000 Is that enough for a big athlete?
03:05:06.000 Is that enough for a 250-pound athlete?
03:05:09.000 I would say no.
03:05:10.000 So I'm not saying that it is.
03:05:11.000 I think you need more protein than that.
03:05:13.000 Right?
03:05:14.000 Because muscle protein synthesis is only one factor.
03:05:18.000 Right.
03:05:18.000 Can you tell me what the other factors are?
03:05:20.000 Tissue regeneration and repair, recovery.
03:05:23.000 Right.
03:05:24.000 Yeah.
03:05:24.000 Okay.
03:05:25.000 So I think we're on the same page that 20-25 grams has basically been shown in a single sitting over a four-hour window in what we call acute, short-term.
03:05:34.000 That's been shown to maximize muscle proteins in this.
03:05:36.000 And that is because 20 grams, and it's been shown actually you can get less with like egg, you could get like 17 grams or something.
03:05:43.000 Because basically you're hitting two things.
03:05:44.000 You're hitting leucine.
03:05:45.000 You're getting 1.82 grams of leucine.
03:05:50.000 Which is basically like a foreman, right?
03:05:52.000 It's like telling the others, like, hey, you should build protein.
03:05:55.000 If you don't have any leucine, even if you had all the essential amino acids you want except for leucine, you wouldn't have the foreman telling all the workers to, like, build the muscle, basically.
03:06:02.000 That's what leucine is.
03:06:03.000 So you're getting enough leucine, and you're getting 8 to 10 grams of essential amino acids.
03:06:07.000 That is what is important in the acute stage of muscle proteins instance.
03:06:13.000 You're getting 8 to 10 grams of...
03:06:15.000 And we can get more granular, like it's, you know, 0.0 grams per pound of body weight.
03:06:19.000 But this is basically accepted.
03:06:21.000 And in fact, they've shown that, like, even if you're 400 pounds, you know, you probably don't need even more than 20-25 grams.
03:06:28.000 For some reason, there's something in that number about getting the leucine amount.
03:06:30.000 It doesn't really matter how big you are.
03:06:32.000 You know, there's a small percentage of people that say you might need a bit more, 2.5 or whatever, but consensus is this 20-25 grams.
03:06:38.000 And I'm sorry this is, like, long, but it's important to, like, break down.
03:06:41.000 Okay?
03:06:42.000 So...
03:06:45.000 So, by the way, just going back to your DS scoring, you're basically looking at, like, rules for Jiu Jitsu tournament, like a Gi Jiu Jitsu tournament, and you're trying to apply them to MMA. So, just because Jiu Jitsu is involved in MMA, it doesn't mean that a scoring system for, like,
03:07:00.000 IBJJF or whatever, that doesn't mean that that's the best scoring system for MMA, right?
03:07:06.000 Is that fair, Joe?
03:07:06.000 Sure.
03:07:07.000 Yeah, you could get points for, like...
03:07:08.000 Yeah.
03:07:08.000 Whatever, okay.
03:07:10.000 So, essentially, and this isn't just my opinion, okay?
03:07:13.000 This is scientific literature, not an article that you just pulled on on examine.com.
03:07:18.000 That's not how science works.
03:07:19.000 You don't just pull up an article.
03:07:20.000 So, slide 33. And it's very clear.
03:07:25.000 This is just very obvious.
03:07:26.000 It's not...
03:07:26.000 It can't...
03:07:27.000 It cannot just be about short-term acute muscle protein synthesis, right?
03:07:31.000 It can't be.
03:07:31.000 Because you wouldn't be hitting the 1.6 to 2.2.
03:07:34.000 So, this states...
03:07:37.000 Acute anabolic responses are not necessarily associated with long-term muscular gains.
03:07:42.000 The topic can only be answered by assessing the results of long-digital studies that directly measure changes in lean mass with the provision of varying protein dosages.
03:07:53.000 Okay, so you agree that it's not just about short-term muscle processes.
03:07:58.000 Okay, so what it is, Joe, it doesn't matter.
03:08:02.000 At a certain point, it doesn't matter because, yeah, let's say you're going to have four times a day, and let's say you're going to have 160 grams of protein, and you have 40 grams, right, of protein four times a day, that's 160 grams.
03:08:14.000 So if you're going to optimize muscle mass, and by the way, how much muscle have you put on in the last 15 years?
03:08:23.000 No, I'm not sure.
03:08:24.000 I put on none, basically.
03:08:26.000 I'm about the same.
03:08:27.000 But anyway, let's just say that you're a bodybuilder and you're trying to stack on as much muscle as possible.
03:08:33.000 I'm like 190, 193 maybe sometimes.
03:08:36.000 If I go over 200, I just feel slow.
03:08:38.000 I feel slow with the handgun.
03:08:39.000 I just feel slower punching, whatever.
03:08:42.000 Not everyone's goal is to optimize muscle mass as quickly as possible.
03:08:45.000 But let's say that your goal is.
03:08:48.000 Clearly, it's not enough to do that.
03:08:49.000 You have to hit the 1.6 to 2.2 grams.
03:08:52.000 Right?
03:08:53.000 Right.
03:08:53.000 Once you hit that amount, you have to do two things.
03:08:56.000 You have to hit the muscle, the short-term leucine threshold and amino acid in the short-term, right?
03:09:02.000 And then you have to hit the...
03:09:04.000 What are you doing, Jamie?
03:09:09.000 So, you have to do two things.
03:09:11.000 You have to maximize the muscle processes in the short-term, and you have to get enough protein during the day.
03:09:17.000 Right?
03:09:17.000 Of 1.6 to 2.2.
03:09:18.000 Is that fair?
03:09:20.000 Okay, so once you hit the 1.6 to 2.2, let's say you have 40 grams, it doesn't matter.
03:09:27.000 You follow me?
03:09:27.000 You even quoted...
03:09:28.000 So it doesn't matter the amino acid profile of the food?
03:09:31.000 Is that what you're saying?
03:09:31.000 No, because as long as you hit the essential amino acid amount and the leucine amount in the...
03:09:36.000 And you can hit the leucine amount and the amino acid amount in virtually all of these vegan forms of protein?
03:09:43.000 Is that what you're saying?
03:09:43.000 No.
03:09:44.000 First of all, you could do it with like...
03:09:46.000 If you do beans, rice, and vegetables, yeah, you'd hit two grams of protein for like 570 calories.
03:09:51.000 Now, again, you know that most athletes supplement, right?
03:09:55.000 Yes.
03:09:56.000 I can have got slides if you want scientific proof, but you would accept that elite athletes do even more.
03:10:02.000 So people are supplementing with protein powder anyway.
03:10:04.000 They're supplementing with branched-chain amino acids because it contains leucine isolecine.
03:10:08.000 Elite athletes are, yes.
03:10:09.000 Over 50% are supplementing with protein powder and a higher percentage of elite.
03:10:14.000 Athletes?
03:10:14.000 Just athletes, period.
03:10:15.000 Yeah.
03:10:15.000 And elite athletes are supplementing even more.
03:10:18.000 It's probably more like 90%.
03:10:19.000 So if your goal is to do something and take creatine or protein, You know, these athletic endeavours, like you pointed out, the thing that Patrick does, and we can get into, by the way, the misrepresentation from Robert O'Hurst into Patrick's records,
03:10:35.000 if you want, because there was a lot of claims that were made that were completely false again.
03:10:40.000 So, basically, if you get enough protein, if you hit one of the windows, if you hit the 1.6 to 2.2 with plant protein, you can hit the muscle protein synthesis.
03:10:49.000 And like, all of a sudden he's like...
03:10:51.000 So you're saying there's no benefit in animal protein for an amino acid profile versus plant protein?
03:10:58.000 No, not if you're getting enough protein.
03:11:01.000 So you're saying if you're getting enough protein, there's no benefit.
03:11:05.000 I'm even talking about...
03:11:06.000 And you're getting the right ratio, as you have acknowledged, of the right ratio of plant proteins.
03:11:14.000 No, no, no, it's not difficult at all.
03:11:16.000 I'm talking about leucine, if you were really messing up and eating like people just don't eat healthy, you might not get enough leucine.
03:11:23.000 But if you're planning to become as big and as strong as possible, do you need a specific workout plan?
03:11:28.000 But this is only assuming that you're taking supplements, so we're assuming that everyone's taking supplements to achieve...
03:11:34.000 No, not at all.
03:11:35.000 No, you can do it with supplements.
03:11:37.000 Okay, but you're not assuming that people are taking supplements.
03:11:40.000 No, you can do it.
03:11:41.000 But are you assuming that people are taking supplements?
03:11:43.000 No.
03:11:44.000 You can do it on a whole food diet, plant-based diet, with B12. Just supplement B12, nothing else.
03:11:53.000 You can achieve the same amino acid profile as meat.
03:11:56.000 Yeah, I mean, I want to touch on that.
03:11:57.000 I'm not saying that the only thing...
03:11:58.000 But that is the argument, right?
03:11:59.000 That was what you said.
03:12:00.000 But I just want to throw people off, like, depending on where you live, you might want to supplement vitamin D based on not getting enough sun.
03:12:06.000 I just don't want to throw out...
03:12:07.000 Everybody should do that anyway.
03:12:09.000 Anyway.
03:12:09.000 Particularly D3. Okay, so what I'm saying is, as long as you get that amount of protein, and again, if you're eating...
03:12:18.000 If you're exercising to optimally build muscle, you're exercising a fair bit, right?
03:12:23.000 You're burning more calories, right?
03:12:24.000 So you eat more calories.
03:12:26.000 I don't know where my slide is.
03:12:28.000 We're deep into the woods here, and this is getting really confusing.
03:12:30.000 The question was, and this is what his assertion was, that the amino acid profile of meat is superior than the amino acid profile of meat.
03:12:39.000 It is in context.
03:12:42.000 It's important when you look at the FAO and the goals that they're doing to try and stop world hunger.
03:12:46.000 It is not important in the Western world, number one, and not important if you're an athlete and you're getting between 1.6 to 2.0 grams per kilogram.
03:12:55.000 So what you're saying is that as long as you're getting this 1.6 to 2.2 grams per kilogram of protein, whether it's lentils or peanut butter, that you have enough amino acids to achieve the desired results.
03:13:09.000 And it's essentially the exact same as if you're hitting that 2.2 grams.
03:13:13.000 If you're getting 2.2 grams, it doesn't matter.
03:13:16.000 It's irrelevant.
03:13:16.000 Do you think that's true?
03:13:19.000 If you're getting 2.2 grams of protein and you're doing it and you're not doing it in the way that you said where you're not planning it and not making sure you're getting enough leucine, which is low...
03:13:32.000 You wouldn't have to try...
03:13:39.000 I agree.
03:13:40.000 But there's a certain quantity that you will achieve.
03:13:43.000 There's a plateau.
03:13:45.000 So it doesn't matter once you've got that amount.
03:13:47.000 The other point that you had about protein quality is digestibility.
03:13:50.000 So that's the last point that I want to address.
03:13:52.000 Okay.
03:13:53.000 How am I doing?
03:13:54.000 Good.
03:13:54.000 Okay, so slide 34. Because you basically claim that, okay, even if there are enough amino acids, you can't digest it as well.
03:14:02.000 The more precise data collected so far in humans assessing real specific oral ileal nitrogen digestibility has shown that the differences in the digestibility between plant and animal protein sources are only a few percent contrary to historical findings in rats or determinations using less precise methods in humans.
03:14:25.000 Okay, and just so you know, I understand that you haven't seen this, probably, because it just came out last month published by Stanford.
03:14:32.000 So I get that you haven't seen it.
03:14:33.000 Now, I'll take this one step further.
03:14:35.000 There's only at most like 2 or 3% different in digestive plant protein.
03:14:39.000 And you know how it's assessed in the pigs?
03:14:41.000 They give them raw food.
03:14:43.000 So they give raw beans...
03:14:46.000 Raw grains.
03:14:47.000 And you have said one of the reasons that it's less digestible is because of trypsin inhibitors.
03:14:53.000 Yeah.
03:14:53.000 And what happens when you cook?
03:14:55.000 You definitely break them down.
03:14:58.000 Are you getting it?
03:14:59.000 So, when you heat food, the likelihood is, even though it hasn't been tested, we know that the digestibility is less in plants by a few percent.
03:15:07.000 Only a few percent.
03:15:08.000 Not the 40% versus 100% that he was claiming last time.
03:15:11.000 That's old science.
03:15:12.000 I'm talking about current science.
03:15:15.000 Right?
03:15:15.000 And there's only a few percent difference and they imagine that not only if you heated it That you would get equivalent.
03:15:23.000 You might even get more because you're killing the trypsin inhibitors by heating it.
03:15:27.000 So that whole nonsense about the quantity, you were wrong.
03:15:32.000 The quality, the DR score was not designed for that.
03:15:36.000 It doesn't matter when you get enough protein.
03:15:38.000 So as long as you get enough protein, you're using measures for an organization that is looking at hunger.
03:15:46.000 We're talking about if people have got enough.
03:15:48.000 I agree.
03:15:49.000 If you're in a developing country and you have very little diversity of plant foods and maybe not enough and there's some animals, you should be eating the animals.
03:15:57.000 I agree.
03:15:58.000 But that is not what it was designed for and it doesn't matter.
03:16:01.000 The amino acid profile doesn't matter and the digestion doesn't matter when you get enough protein.
03:16:05.000 Let me pause you for a second here because you've been going on for a long time.
03:16:08.000 Yeah, I think it's really important.
03:16:09.000 Amazing points.
03:16:10.000 Chris, this has not been that good for your arguments.
03:16:13.000 So what are your thoughts on what he said so far and what are your thoughts on what he's refuted about what you had asserted about his show?
03:16:22.000 I think he's made some good points.
03:16:24.000 And, you know, my original argument and what we started out talking about was, so you take the film and the claims of the film, the specific claims of the film, and then you also take the question that we started talking about,
03:16:43.000 which was, Is there evidence that a 100% plant-based diet is better than a diet that contains animal foods and plant foods?
03:16:53.000 You see what you're doing?
03:16:54.000 But they're protein.
03:16:55.000 I mean, come on.
03:16:56.000 And there were a lot of claims in the film that we talked about, about dairy products causing cancer, dairy products contributing to cardiovascular disease, chicken and fish causing cancer.
03:17:09.000 Red meat clogging the arteries that we address and haven't had a chance to go into detail on in this show.
03:17:20.000 But there was a bunch of stuff that you did say.
03:17:22.000 But Joe asked you about protein, and we were talking about protein, and what you just did there is you segued into something else.
03:17:27.000 So can you answer definitively, do you think I've presented very good arguments against your rebuttal about both protein quality, including the amount and the ratio, and about protein quality and quantity, including digestibility and amino acid scores?
03:17:43.000 I think the protein quantity is still an issue.
03:17:47.000 The question of getting...
03:17:49.000 But how?
03:17:50.000 I mean, you've got to have some logical arguments, Chris.
03:17:53.000 I'm sorry, but you're like, I have disproven your rebuttal on protein and on...
03:17:59.000 B12! I think the qualities and quantities still matter.
03:18:03.000 So even though that scale was developed for the FAO, there's still a difference, a quantitative difference in the amino acid profile and digestibility.
03:18:17.000 I didn't argue with that.
03:18:18.000 That was not my point.
03:18:21.000 But if it's about amino acids and it's about protein content and digestibility, if what he's saying is correct, then there really is no need to eat meat.
03:18:31.000 That's what he's saying.
03:18:31.000 There isn't.
03:18:32.000 There just isn't.
03:18:33.000 That is his argument.
03:18:34.000 For protein.
03:18:35.000 I mean, you can, like, come up with some other, like, we can go at nutrient, if you want to look at nutrient profiles and, like, then we can look at that.
03:18:41.000 But you've got to admit I've presented some good arguments in both favor of quantity and quality.
03:18:45.000 I do, and I hadn't seen that last study from 2000. And so I just want to sum it up.
03:18:48.000 I want to sum it up by slide 30. Just one last slide on this.
03:18:51.000 Sure.
03:18:53.000 Well, I mean, yeah, well, I've got slides proving the outcomes as well, but if you just want to look at it, this is not me.
03:19:00.000 This is not me making up, like, oh, I'm a vegan, I'm just making stuff up.
03:19:04.000 Like, there's a bunch of bullshit that's put out by vegans about arguments that are totally terrible.
03:19:08.000 Agreed, yeah.
03:19:09.000 And honestly, I think vegans are, like, the worst people for their own movement.
03:19:13.000 I agree as well.
03:19:14.000 Like throwing blood on people that are wearing fur jackets or whatever.
03:19:17.000 I think it's ridiculous.
03:19:18.000 Right?
03:19:19.000 But that doesn't...
03:19:20.000 Don't lump me in and the film in with vegans in general.
03:19:23.000 You've done a far better job of explaining things here than you did even in the film.
03:19:28.000 Yeah, but it's very tricky.
03:19:29.000 It's very tricky because you don't have that amount of time.
03:19:31.000 This is...
03:19:31.000 We're three and a half hours in.
03:19:32.000 Right.
03:19:33.000 Well, I would have made a 10-hour film.
03:19:34.000 And it was upsetting.
03:19:35.000 I'm sure you would have.
03:19:36.000 People say, oh, you...
03:19:37.000 For example, a couple of arguments that were made.
03:19:40.000 Half of the athletes you filmed, you didn't put in the film because they stopped being vegan.
03:19:45.000 Completely not true.
03:19:47.000 There were also a bunch of experts we didn't put in the film that we couldn't put in.
03:19:50.000 And we didn't put them in because there wasn't room.
03:19:52.000 It was like...
03:19:53.000 I understand.
03:19:54.000 In filmmaking, it's called killing your babies.
03:19:55.000 There was amazing scenes that were being really convincing.
03:19:58.000 Mm-hmm.
03:19:58.000 That we couldn't put in.
03:19:59.000 Like, the evidence in the film is far less than 1% of the evidence that I... Why don't you guys do it as, like, a Netflix thing?
03:20:06.000 A series?
03:20:07.000 Like, Wild Country, where you do, like, seven hours of it.
03:20:10.000 No, I would like...
03:20:10.000 We're considering doing more.
03:20:11.000 It seems like a wiser thing to do, because...
03:20:13.000 Yeah, but I think, like, how many people are going to sit down?
03:20:15.000 You know how many people are going to watch this?
03:20:17.000 Well, I know how many people...
03:20:18.000 I mean, I don't know how many people watch the film.
03:20:19.000 Millions.
03:20:20.000 But, yeah.
03:20:20.000 So, when...
03:20:22.000 We're talking about, like, we don't really have that much time left, unfortunately, because we are here at three and a half hours in, and I have another one right after this.
03:20:30.000 But what about the film do you think he hasn't refuted your criticisms?
03:20:36.000 Can we just put that last slide up?
03:20:37.000 Yes, please.
03:20:37.000 What is it again?
03:20:38.000 Slide 34. And also, I've got a bunch of slides showing that actually...
03:20:42.000 Here we go.
03:20:43.000 There's no research to suggest that protein recommendations are different for athletes following a vegetarian diet than for those on an omnivorous diet.
03:20:51.000 Now, that is the handbook, the textbook that is used when you become a board-certified specialist in sports dietetics.
03:20:57.000 So what this is basically saying is what you said earlier.
03:21:00.000 The amino acid profile, once you reach a certain point and a certain amount of grams per kilogram.
03:21:05.000 And you've got to reach that amount anyway, even with meat.
03:21:07.000 That's the thing.
03:21:08.000 Okay.
03:21:08.000 I gotcha.
03:21:09.000 And again...
03:21:10.000 What about the film do you think that he hasn't refuted, your criticisms?
03:21:16.000 I mean, I would love to do it anyways.
03:21:20.000 I don't know how productive that's going to be.
03:21:22.000 There's the blood flow and endothelial function and inflammation.
03:21:26.000 I would love to get to it.
03:21:27.000 Let's get to that.
03:21:28.000 The meat and...
03:21:30.000 Let's do it.
03:21:30.000 Let's do the erection scene.
03:21:31.000 What is the other one?
03:21:32.000 The erection.
03:21:34.000 That's the most scientific part of the movie.
03:21:37.000 What was the other thing, Chris?
03:21:40.000 Well, I mean, just talking about inflammation and endothelial function will take the rest of the time.
03:21:45.000 Can we take that to endothelial function?
03:21:47.000 Cancer and dairy, the chicken and fish and cancer.
03:21:52.000 I can refute all of that, all of your claims.
03:21:55.000 Do you want to look at the erection and the dolphin scene because they're related to endothelial function?
03:21:59.000 Why don't we talk about research about endothelial function?
03:22:04.000 Yeah, okay, great.
03:22:04.000 That's related.
03:22:06.000 Okay, endothelial function.
03:22:07.000 We'll close with this.
03:22:12.000 It's already 2.30.
03:22:15.000 It's just a shame because all the other claims he made were false.
03:22:18.000 What other ones were false?
03:22:20.000 In the interview, or in the film, when you said, and I've seen you say this on interviews, we have 22 years of research showing that a single high-fat meal impairs endothelial function.
03:22:35.000 That study was from 1997. No.
03:22:39.000 Multiple studies, and I can put them up if you want.
03:22:41.000 So that's 22 years.
03:22:45.000 The effect of a single high fat meal on endothelial function in healthy subjects.
03:22:50.000 So this compared a 900 calorie diet.
03:22:53.000 Both were on 900 calories.
03:22:55.000 One group was eating 50 grams of fat and one group was zero grams of fat.
03:23:00.000 The high-fat meal was an egg McMuffin, a sausage McMuffin, two hash browns, and a non-caffeinated drink, all from McDonald's.
03:23:09.000 Yeah, I'm not talking about this.
03:23:10.000 Okay, but that is one study.
03:23:11.000 You just picked one.
03:23:11.000 Well, which one are you talking about?
03:23:13.000 Well, I got a bunch.
03:23:13.000 Okay.
03:23:14.000 Well, I got a bunch that actually contradict that.
03:23:16.000 So, the same study, the same researcher that did that study, Found that taking vitamin C and E after the high-fat meal completely eliminated the effect that it had on endothelial function, which suggests that a healthy omnivorous diet with plants wouldn't have the same impact.
03:23:34.000 There was a 2019 review, and this will be at kresser.co slash gamechangers.com.
03:23:40.000 Adding nuts, avocados, olives, berries, spice blends, orange juice, red wine, and protein, including milk protein, to a high-fat meal prevents endothelial dysfunction and oxidative stress.
03:23:53.000 We've got several studies that suggest that dairy and egg proteins improve endothelial function.
03:24:00.000 2015 controlled trial with 52 subjects.
03:24:03.000 Dietary proteins, including milk and egg, improved endothelial function.
03:24:08.000 2006 study, adding dietary protein to a high-fat meal, prevented postprandial endothelial dysfunction.
03:24:15.000 We have 2009 study, followed subjects for 12 weeks.
03:24:19.000 A low-carb diet improved endothelial function, whereas a low-fat diet decreased it.
03:24:24.000 2007 study with...
03:24:26.000 Okay, we just...
03:24:27.000 I mean, we can go on and on and on.
03:24:30.000 He's just rattling on...
03:24:32.000 All of these studies show that animal proteins don't decrease endothelial function.
03:24:39.000 You have to know more about nutrition.
03:24:44.000 Please respond to it.
03:24:46.000 So, first of all, you just compared low-carb and high-carb.
03:24:50.000 For health, I'm not promoting high-carb or low-carb.
03:24:52.000 That wasn't the point.
03:24:53.000 The point is that low-carb diets that contain animal products and that milk and egg protein have been shown to improve endothelial function, not worsen it.
03:25:01.000 The claim in the film was that animal protein worsens endothelial function.
03:25:05.000 Right, because that is the scientific consensus and we keep going back to this, Chris.
03:25:08.000 Well, tell us why.
03:25:09.000 Tell us why that is.
03:25:12.000 Seafood consumption protects against endothelial damage.
03:25:15.000 Seafood is an animal protein.
03:25:17.000 Mediterranean diet, which includes animal products, improves pulse wave velocity, blood flow, markers of atherosclerosis.
03:25:24.000 These are studies in the peer-reviewed literature.
03:25:27.000 Lots of them.
03:25:28.000 So what's wrong with this?
03:25:30.000 So the industry-funded studies, what you do...
03:25:31.000 Wait, wait.
03:25:32.000 Who said anything about these being industry-funded?
03:25:34.000 No, but what you do...
03:25:35.000 Everything is healthy compared to what?
03:25:39.000 Healthy or unhealthy compared to what?
03:25:41.000 So if you have a low-carb diet and you replace a bunch of white sugar and flour, you might not see...
03:25:47.000 The outcome is going to be a decrease.
03:25:49.000 But the claim that was made in the film is that animal proteins worsen endothelial function.
03:25:55.000 I just listed a whole bunch of studies, especially those suggesting, here's one that says, influence of food patterns on endothelial biomarkers is a systematic review.
03:26:06.000 The conclusion was that healthy food patterns, abundant in fruits and vegetables, had a beneficial impact on endothelial function.
03:26:13.000 Westernized patterns, higher intakes of processed meats, sweets, fried foods, refined grains were positively associated to influence.
03:26:21.000 Which makes my point.
03:26:23.000 No, it makes my point, which is quality matters.
03:26:26.000 Yeah, quality matters.
03:26:27.000 So if you give someone sausage McMuffin and egg McMuffins and you show that...
03:26:30.000 I'm not showing that.
03:26:31.000 My studies are not showing those.
03:26:33.000 Okay, but let's let him explain his studies.
03:26:35.000 Okay, so for example, slide 71. I purposely didn't include those studies because I don't think that they're a good thing to compare to.
03:26:42.000 So, slide 71...
03:26:47.000 Okay, this is nice because there's a graph, right?
03:26:49.000 So you can see, so, oh, everyone's saying like that fat in the blood, that's normal.
03:26:53.000 Well, what do you mean by normal?
03:26:54.000 Yeah, lots of people do that.
03:26:55.000 That's normal.
03:26:56.000 That doesn't mean it's optimal when you see the fat in the blood like that.
03:26:58.000 And by the way, it was a film.
03:26:59.000 We couldn't throw everything in.
03:27:00.000 So when you see fat, that's called postprandial lipemia.
03:27:03.000 That means after a meal, fat in the blood, right?
03:27:06.000 That is associated with up to a 50% decreased endothelial function, which means less nitric oxide is produced, which means that the arteries can't open up as much, less oxygen, less nutrients to the muscles, okay?
03:27:17.000 So, that is associated.
03:27:18.000 As you can see in this graph, I don't know, so the solid line is the triglycerides, this is after the meal, okay, which was,
03:27:33.000 by the way, a shake of whipping cream and liquid chocolate and nonfat dry milk, okay, As you eat the meal, you can see that the triglycerides go up.
03:27:44.000 That's the fat in your blood.
03:27:45.000 See between two and four hours, it kind of peaks.
03:27:46.000 We measured those athletes at two hours.
03:27:48.000 And again, this is not just a film.
03:27:50.000 It's been done for over 20 years in the scientific literature.
03:27:52.000 So as you can see in the graph, right, Joe?
03:27:55.000 As the dotted line goes up, that's the appearance of more fat in the blood.
03:27:59.000 Right, you get that lactescence, the milkiness of the blood.
03:28:02.000 You can see that very clearly that the flow-media dilation drops.
03:28:07.000 So it drops by 11%, okay?
03:28:09.000 If you look, for example, does that make sense?
03:28:11.000 So that when you have those fat in the blood, your ability to, your arteries to expand goes down.
03:28:16.000 There's no, like what, that's not an Egg McMuffin.
03:28:19.000 That is a milk and whipping cream, and that's it.
03:28:22.000 So now if you go to slide 73...
03:28:26.000 Now I agree, this had some...
03:28:27.000 So they compare...
03:28:28.000 Now here...
03:28:29.000 Yeah, we can skip to the next one.
03:28:31.000 That was 11%.
03:28:32.000 Okay, so here what I've done is...
03:28:33.000 The only thing I've changed about this graph is I put the green dots for the plant-based meal and the red dots for the animal-based meal.
03:28:40.000 So they were eating Korean barbecue, egg, milk, oil, mayonnaise, rice, and vegetables.
03:28:45.000 And on the other hand, they were having a vegan meal of soup, kimchi, vegetables, orange juice, apple.
03:28:49.000 So it was matched for calories at 800 calories.
03:28:51.000 The green is in red, and the, sorry, the green is plants, and the red is animal-based.
03:28:56.000 So, I don't know if you want to go into, but basically, I mean, you've slide 74. Again, please try to remember, a lot of people are listening to this.
03:29:06.000 Oh, sorry.
03:29:07.000 Do you want to read the...
03:29:07.000 No, you can if you want.
03:29:10.000 Here, changes of serum triglycerides were negatively correlated with changes of FMD. Flow-mediated dilation.
03:29:18.000 No doubt.
03:29:19.000 Well, low-carb diets often will lower serum triglycerides, and they contain animal protein and fat.
03:29:24.000 No, not postprandially.
03:29:27.000 Not after the meal, which is important to test, because that lasts for six to eight hours, and what do you do again?
03:29:32.000 You eat another animal-based meal.
03:29:33.000 So the next part, Joe?
03:29:35.000 Go ahead.
03:29:36.000 Then how is it that triglycerides go down over time if someone's just eating?
03:29:40.000 Because your body adapts to it.
03:29:42.000 So Joe, can you read the second part?
03:29:44.000 The study suggests that acute HTG... That's hypertriglycemia.
03:29:48.000 That's the fat in the blood, basically.
03:29:50.000 It causes endothelial dysfunction via enhanced oxidant stress and this may pave the way for the development of atherosclerosis.
03:30:02.000 It's a mouthful.
03:30:04.000 Atherosclerosis.
03:30:05.000 Under chronic conditions.
03:30:06.000 So what that's saying, acute means short term and chronic is long term.
03:30:09.000 Under acute thing, it affects your endothelial function, your ability to exercise and perform, and in the long term affects chronic conditions like heart disease.
03:30:17.000 And if you go to slide 75...
03:30:19.000 Remember that chart that we looked at with the green dots and the red dots?
03:30:22.000 8.2% decrease in FMD two hours following the animal-based meal.
03:30:27.000 2.7% increase in FMD two hours following the plant-based meal.
03:30:32.000 Okay, so you've got less blood flow.
03:30:34.000 Chris makes out there's no science, no evidence.
03:30:36.000 It was just this crazy thing that they made up.
03:30:38.000 It was the co-chair of the Cardiovascular Committee for the NFL that has been researching this for years.
03:30:43.000 I didn't say that, James.
03:30:44.000 I said there was a lot of other evidence contradicting it.
03:30:47.000 So, again, if we want to bring up a study, effects of dietary carbohydrate restriction versus low-fat diet on flow-mediated dilation.
03:30:56.000 This is what you've been talking about.
03:30:59.000 No, because you're not comparing it to the diet that I'm suggesting.
03:31:01.000 After 12 weeks, peak flow-mediated dilation at 3 hours increased from 5.1% to 6.5% in the carbohydrate-restricted group and decreased from 7.9% to 5.2% in the low-fat diet group.
03:31:15.000 Right.
03:31:15.000 12-week low-carbohydrate diet improves postprandial vascular function more than a low-fat diet.
03:31:22.000 Right, because the low-fat diet has a bunch of...
03:31:25.000 Like white flour and stuff in it.
03:31:27.000 That's the thing.
03:31:27.000 But so there's often the low-carb diets too that are being compared to the diets with animal...
03:31:33.000 If we're talking about protein, the claim in the film was that animal protein causes endothelial dysfunction.
03:31:39.000 Somehow we've gotten off talking about fat.
03:31:41.000 And I've just mentioned many studies that show that dietary proteins, including milk and egg, improve endothelial function.
03:31:50.000 No, they don't.
03:31:52.000 Okay, there's a study right here.
03:31:55.000 Joe, you can't just say a study, right?
03:31:59.000 Because Chris can bring up studies that I can't.
03:32:01.000 Dietary proteins improve endothelial function under fasting conditions but not in the postprandial state.
03:32:07.000 With no effects on markers of low-grade inflammation.
03:32:10.000 This is in the British Journal of Nutrition 2015 study.
03:32:14.000 Okay, but dietary proteins doesn't even necessarily mean animal-based proteins, right?
03:32:17.000 No, it says including milk and egg.
03:32:19.000 Including?
03:32:20.000 Yeah.
03:32:21.000 The bottom line is that he can present any study.
03:32:24.000 I'd have to dig into it, see the funding, because it's always what it's compared to.
03:32:27.000 So you can show a huge benefit for eggs if you compare it to lard.
03:32:32.000 These were proteins that included soy.
03:32:36.000 Soy, milk and egg.
03:32:37.000 And they all improved endothelial function.
03:32:40.000 And then another study showing dietary protein, milk or soy.
03:32:47.000 To a high-fat meal prevented postprandial endothelial dysfunction.
03:32:52.000 And then there are the two low-carb studies that I mentioned.
03:32:55.000 There's a controlled trial that found that a low-carb, high-fat diet improved pulse wave velocity, which is another marker of endothelial function.
03:33:03.000 There are studies of the Mediterranean diet, which is a healthy diet pattern that includes some animal products, include improved pulse wave velocity.
03:33:11.000 Seafood consumption protects against endothelial damage.
03:33:15.000 Yes, compared to beef it does.
03:33:19.000 Can I just say, for example, you said you were trying to refute the study about the increased risk of colon cancer between vegetarians and non-vegetarians, right?
03:33:30.000 The three times increased risk for those who had white meat, like fish or chicken, once or twice a week.
03:33:34.000 And then you go to a meta-analysis, which is not comparing...
03:33:38.000 You're comparing fish to bacon or beef.
03:33:43.000 Of course, compared to that.
03:33:45.000 These are controlled trials that look at dietary proteins, milk, soy, and egg.
03:33:51.000 But Chris, first of all, you admitted that you don't even know how to read the science.
03:33:55.000 Is that fair?
03:33:56.000 Do you honestly feel qualified to read even a single paper?
03:33:59.000 Yes.
03:34:01.000 But you don't know how to read a forest plot.
03:34:03.000 I took a master's level research methodology class.
03:34:08.000 I'm referring to studies that are in the peer-reviewed literature, James, and you haven't answered the question.
03:34:15.000 If protein impairs endothelial function, why are studies showing that milk and egg don't George Dillman did a study showing that the heart rate went up when he did a knockout without touching someone.
03:34:30.000 Just because you can show studies that I haven't had a chance to read and dig into doesn't need me that my point is valid.
03:34:38.000 The film has been reviewed And it's been accredited by the Defense Health Agency.
03:34:45.000 Yeah, we've heard that.
03:34:46.000 Right?
03:34:47.000 So, you think that they, like, basically, your debunk, which you failed miserably to debunk the film, right?
03:34:55.000 I have proven again and again that your points were invalid.
03:34:59.000 I have presented data with healthier meals.
03:35:01.000 You thought I was going to go to the feeding someone McDonald's.
03:35:04.000 I didn't.
03:35:05.000 I showed one with just basically dairy.
03:35:08.000 Just dairy.
03:35:09.000 And I've showed three or four studies with dairy protein.
03:35:12.000 Proteins that don't interfere with endothelial function and actually improve it.
03:35:17.000 The bottom line is, Joe, that at each step of the way, Chris is not in line with the scientific consensus.
03:35:25.000 Not on protein recommendations, not on definition of carbohydrates, not on endothelial function, not on heme iron.
03:35:33.000 You shouldn't be having him on He said himself he's not an expert in nutrition.
03:35:39.000 He is unable to read a single study and understand it.
03:35:46.000 I am not qualified either.
03:35:48.000 That's a mischaracterization.
03:35:50.000 Okay, then tell me the competence interval of this in the forest plot.
03:35:56.000 Listen, I'm presenting...
03:35:58.000 You've presented some studies.
03:35:59.000 Anyone can say anything about studies.
03:36:01.000 I've not put myself out.
03:36:02.000 I'm the expert that is doing these studies.
03:36:07.000 That's what people think.
03:36:08.000 That is doing these studies.
03:36:09.000 In the same way that you did, you...
03:36:13.000 Collected information from experts.
03:36:14.000 From the scientific consensus, from leading researchers with thousands of hours.
03:36:21.000 There are many experts that would disagree.
03:36:26.000 But it's the same thing with climate change or whatever.
03:36:29.000 No, it's not the same at all.
03:36:31.000 It's absolutely not the same.
03:36:33.000 The consensus of experts that agree that we should be on a 100% or even 95% plant-based diet is the same as the consensus on climate change.
03:36:44.000 It's not even close to that.
03:36:46.000 Parallel is that the scientific consensus says that we should be in predominantly plant-based diets and that vegan and even vegan diets are helpful for all stages of life cycle.
03:36:56.000 I've shown that you can get enough protein.
03:36:57.000 I've shown that the quality DS scoring doesn't matter.
03:37:00.000 I've shown that the B12 stuff that you got is completely wrong.
03:37:03.000 What else do you want me to show you?
03:37:05.000 You want me to show you that even despite having lower creatine levels, because people have pointed out in the film, oh, you said as long as you get all the amino acids, that's enough.
03:37:13.000 You didn't point out that the study said vegetarians have lower creatine sores, therefore it may affect performance.
03:37:21.000 They didn't test it.
03:37:22.000 I've got a bunch of studies where it has been tested, where they had vegetarians and meat eaters had equivocal fat-free mass, equivocal power output, equivalent time to fatigue, despite lower creatine levels.
03:37:33.000 And we know that creatine is ergogenic.
03:37:34.000 I've also got other studies showing that when vegetarians actually take supplemental creatine, they get increased gains of over one pound of muscle over the meat eaters.
03:37:43.000 So despite lower creatine, which we know is the most studied supplement They're getting that because their intake of creatine is lower.
03:37:50.000 Yes, and so when they take...
03:37:52.000 So they're supplementing, they see a bigger response.
03:37:54.000 You could look at that the other way.
03:37:55.000 You could say, we should have more creatine in their diet, and then they wouldn't need to supplement with that to get the bigger response.
03:38:02.000 Right, but it points out that despite lower creatine source, which we know are ergogenic, which are performance-enhancing, they still have equivocal fat-free mass, muscle, and power output and time to fatigue.
03:38:15.000 And when you add creatine in, you get a benefit.
03:38:18.000 Now, I'm not saying that everyone should be taking creatine, but if you're trying to build as much muscle as possible, I think you should.
03:38:23.000 And by the way, meat eaters also tend to supplement that are trying to bodybuild with creatine as well.
03:38:28.000 So I'm saying that despite the fact of lower creatine, which we know...
03:38:31.000 Would you argue that's probably the most well-studied and best...
03:38:36.000 A supplement that we know of that can help...
03:38:39.000 Muscle gain.
03:38:42.000 Yeah, okay, fair enough.
03:38:43.000 So despite lower creatine, people on plant-based diets can still have as much muscle mass.
03:38:47.000 And when they hate creatine, they get even more than the meat-eaters.
03:38:50.000 And I've got a bunch of science to prove that too.
03:38:52.000 So basically, Joe...
03:38:54.000 If someone watched the last episode where he tried to debunk the film for 2 hours and 50 minutes, do you feel that I've fairly addressed a lot of the critiques?
03:39:02.000 And I can address a lot more.
03:39:03.000 He talks about nutrient quality.
03:39:05.000 He likes to refer to diet quality.
03:39:06.000 He says that we're lowering certain nutrients.
03:39:10.000 Yeah, vegans are low, typically in B12 and D, calcium and zinc, because they eat a bunch of shit.
03:39:15.000 But meat eaters are low in about 9%.
03:39:18.000 So he likes to point to a nutrient score which favors a paleo-type diet.
03:39:22.000 That's not comparing equivalent vegans.
03:39:24.000 Vegans and vegetarians in general, they smoke less, they have a higher drink less, they have a higher diet quality in general.
03:39:34.000 So it's not comparing apples to apples.
03:39:36.000 Right, because they do all of the things that are better for health, including eating a plant-based diet.
03:39:41.000 He thinks that just the only one thing that they don't do better is eat more plants.
03:39:45.000 Well, he's saying that you lump in meat eaters with people that eat the standard American diet.
03:39:49.000 When you say meat eaters, you're not talking about people who are eating organic.
03:39:52.000 But when we're talking about muscle diet...
03:39:54.000 Average American gets 60% of their calories from ultra-processed and refined foods.
03:39:58.000 So that's why they're nutrient deficient.
03:40:00.000 But that's what they are saying when they compare meat eaters versus...
03:40:02.000 You're not comparing Joe Rogan's and his diet versus an equivalent...
03:40:07.000 No, but all I'm pointing it out is that you are saying that vegans are typically more deficient in certain nutrients.
03:40:14.000 They are in certain nutrients, but that's because a lot of people aren't smart and don't like...
03:40:17.000 So you're looking at the overall group of them versus the people that are doing it as recommended by these studies that are showing the appropriate amount of amino acids they're doing it or they're bound.
03:40:29.000 I don't even think about it.
03:40:31.000 I don't count how much protein I'm taking.
03:40:33.000 I just eat a wide variety.
03:40:34.000 And a really good source actually is nutritionfacts.org.
03:40:37.000 And he's got this useful thing called...
03:40:39.000 Yeah, he doesn't like that because it's not in alignment.
03:40:42.000 What's wrong with nutritionfacts.org?
03:40:44.000 Oh, it's just...
03:40:46.000 It has a very strong plant-based...
03:40:49.000 Agenda.
03:40:50.000 Yeah, well, because they follow the science.
03:40:52.000 So anyway, forget all of the useful videos that are on there.
03:40:54.000 They do like three-minute videos for people to learn about the science.
03:40:57.000 It gives all the references.
03:40:59.000 But the useful thing, the really useful thing is he has like the daily dozen, you know, about what all of the evidence is showing we should be eating.
03:41:05.000 Whether you're eating meat or not...
03:41:16.000 James, you made an excellent point.
03:41:19.000 Chris, do you have anything to say in closing?
03:41:22.000 Oh, thank you for doing this.
03:41:24.000 I really appreciate the time.
03:41:25.000 Sorry if it felt a bit combative.
03:41:26.000 No, you knocked it out of the park.
03:41:27.000 You did a fantastic job.
03:41:28.000 I appreciate it.
03:41:29.000 Let me explain my position.
03:41:33.000 Coming in here, I felt like you'd put your film out.
03:41:36.000 I felt Chris felt the same way.
03:41:38.000 Having you in here while he debunked it was just going to be a waste of time.
03:41:42.000 You had put your position out.
03:41:43.000 He was going to chance to debunk it.
03:41:45.000 I've also felt that would be unfair to not have you come in and explain and refute his debunking.
03:41:51.000 And I think you did a fantastic job.
03:41:53.000 I really appreciate having me on.
03:41:55.000 My pleasure.
03:41:55.000 And I'd love to come back on and talk about combatives and myself sometime.
03:41:59.000 Whatever, man.
03:41:59.000 Let's do that next time.
03:42:00.000 Awesome.
03:42:00.000 Okay.
03:42:01.000 Thank you, Chris.
03:42:02.000 Thank you, James.
03:42:03.000 Bye, everybody.
03:42:06.000 I'm sorry I felt it was combative.
03:42:07.000 For me, it's like hard to use.