James Wilks & Chris Kresser - The Game Changers Debate
嘉宾：James Wilks、Chris Kresser
全文文稿 · 按对话顺序保留完整内容，深入理解上下文。
本篇目录47 章节
§01Transcript · 00:00–04:25§02Transcript · 04:25–08:49§03Transcript · 08:49–13:38§04Transcript · 13:38–18:47§05Transcript · 18:47–23:30§06Transcript · 23:30–28:12§07Transcript · 28:12–33:08§08Transcript · 33:08–37:58§09Transcript · 37:58–42:54§10Transcript · 42:54–47:59§11Transcript · 47:59–53:05§12Transcript · 53:05–58:00§13Transcript · 58:00–1:02:31§14Transcript · 1:02:31–1:06:53§15Transcript · 1:06:53–1:12:13§16Transcript · 1:12:13–1:17:08§17Transcript · 1:17:08–1:22:01§18Transcript · 1:22:01–1:26:46§19Transcript · 1:26:46–1:31:51§20Transcript · 1:31:51–1:36:36§21Transcript · 1:36:36–1:41:00§22Transcript · 1:41:00–1:46:01§23Transcript · 1:46:01–1:50:41§24Transcript · 1:50:41–1:55:10§25Transcript · 1:55:10–1:59:51§26Transcript · 1:59:51–2:04:10§27Transcript · 2:04:10–2:09:40§28Transcript · 2:09:40–2:14:43§29Transcript · 2:14:43–2:19:42§30Transcript · 2:19:42–2:24:20§31Transcript · 2:24:20–2:29:09§32Transcript · 2:29:09–2:33:29§33Transcript · 2:33:29–2:38:37§34Transcript · 2:38:37–2:43:28§35Transcript · 2:43:28–2:48:08§36Transcript · 2:48:08–2:52:53§37Transcript · 2:52:53–2:57:21§38Transcript · 2:57:21–3:02:03§39Transcript · 3:02:03–3:06:58§40Transcript · 3:06:58–3:11:32§41Transcript · 3:11:32–3:16:19§42Transcript · 3:16:19–3:20:59§43Transcript · 3:20:59–3:26:13§44Transcript · 3:26:13–3:30:50§45Transcript · 3:30:50–3:35:56§46Transcript · 3:35:56–3:40:24§47Transcript · 3:40:24–3:42:18§01Transcript · 00:00–04:25
all right here we go uh first of all um welcome james i really appreciate you
having me on my
pleasure um and uh welcome again chris uh so this is essentially uh giving you
an opportunity to
refute some of the things that chris has said about your film we should tell
everybody that you
you're the producer of the game changers yeah i'm one of two producers uh i
know you also from of
course from the ultimate fighter yeah ufc and chris this is your what fourth
appearance here
like that fourth or fifth fourth or fifth um did you get a chance to see what
chris had said yeah
i've watched it you watched it okay i've made a bunch of notes excellent let's
start from the
beginning um the beginning of the show the beginning of your film you talked
about the gladiators and
all that stuff and the the fact that you were shocked to find out that they
they had eaten a
vegetarian diet yeah i mean you know that's been misrepresented right so even
before the film came
out people were like oh there's this vegan film coming out it's vegan
propaganda people were judging
the film before they'd seen it right and the vegan sort of community really
pushed it like hey look at
this documentary so there's been things saying they claimed that the gladiators
were vegan right and if
we can just prove they think the whole film is based on this premise that was
just like an inciting
incident for me to start digging into it first of all fabian kent said they
were predominantly vegetarian
and i said they ate mostly plants and that is what i couldn't believe right so
they didn't claim that
they were vegan didn't even claim that they were vegetarian they were just
fueled mostly by plants
you know and people say oh you cherry picked one location it was the only known
gladiator burial site
in the world based on archaeological and anthropological data at the time
at the time where you read the study because there have been other studies well
there's been there's
been some that have been questioned so like there's one in york and there's one
in york at the time
that had a few gladiator skeletons and it was questioned whether that was the
thing but i'm happy to
address every critique but if you wouldn't mind i just want to make sure that
chris ryan's same page
about how um evidence is evaluated sure so chris would you consider yourself a
nutrition expert
um no i would consider myself someone who is adept at reading the literature
and um learning from experts
in nutrition medicine anthropology etc although i do have master's level
training in nutrition
okay so is it fair to say that any one study cannot show what you know the
human race should be eating
is that fair any one study absolutely so basically anytime you show a study if
you say something you
have to give a citation for it right yeah fair to say and then someone can
claim that that's cherry
picked because that you've got to show a study or some studies and then someone
can claim it's
cherry picked right so what we have to do in order to understand nutrition is
look at the totality
of the evidence and i just want to make sure we're on the same page and then we
can address each
critique if that's okay is that okay that is the core of my argument right
exactly so you would
say is it fair to say like there's three main areas so there'd be like preclinical
data which
should either be in animals or in test tubes petri dishes right there'd be
observational data where you
look at people um and see how they're doing and obviously there's the health
user but uh healthy
user bias potential and there's interventional trials right so let's just take
trans fats for
example right you you look in a petri dish at uh endothelial cells and trans
fats and you can see
that it creates uh vascular inflammation in those cells right and then you look
at people who eat
trans fats and they have high levels of inflammation and then you can actually
do
interventional randomized control trials and you can tell that trans fats cause
inflammation
so we basically all agree that trans fats are bad based on all of those data
points is that fair
okay so therefore again if you start any one study people can just someone can
just claim that you're
cherry picking right you can just say cherry everyone can say that i could say
that you're
cherry picking you can say i'm cherry picking not necessarily because there are
meta analyses and
reviews that are built for this purpose to look at the totality of evidence
totally agree if you're
in the film for example pointing to many meta analyses that summarize all the
research that's been done
on a topic then i wouldn't have said that that's cherry picking fair enough i
agree with that okay so
basically in philosophy there's this um it's a logical fallacy called uh appeal
to authority right but in
the real world you know you have to look at experts that are specialists in
their field so if i you know i just
got shoulder surgery not long ago right so i went to a shoulder surgeon i didn't
§02Transcript · 04:25–08:49
go to a dentist if i want to
learned about comedy or you know fight announcing i might come and talk to you
right if i want to learn
about acupuncture or understand chemo i might come to chris because you've got
a master's degree in
traditional oriental medicine you're a licensed acupuncturist right so if i
want to learn about that
chris is someone that i might want to go to 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 and they're saying that vegetarian vegan
diets are helpful for
all life stages including for pregnancy uh childbirth uh so through childbirth
uh breastfeeding
adolescents athletes and so on okay that's that that's the general consensus
can i just just finish
okay and so and i've got a bunch of slides if you don't believe anything i've
got a bunch of slides
showing the position papers for all of these uh that's okay go ahead so let's
skip through that so
that's you'd agree that those yes no i wouldn't necessarily agree okay so then
let's go to the
recommendation okay so can we go to slide one those recommendations change over
time no they do change
over time and then i would also say that i'm on a predominantly plant-based
diet well exactly so if
you look so then what are we arguing about if you look at two-thirds of my
plate is plants well this
is this is my point yeah you're being unfair 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 you
said that on yeah but that has nothing to do with what he's saying he's not
talking about calories he's
talking about what is predominantly his diet it's mostly plants you've got to
base it on calories
you can't base it on the the the why would we need to base it on calories if
you're saying that your diet
is predominantly plant-based then either one we're on the same page right
because that's what i'm
talking about no we're not because the 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 i thought you were taking the film
which was talking about
plant-based diets so plant-based diets means getting the vast majority of your
calories from plants
and limiting or excluding animal foods but the the film essentially was all
about only eating plants no
okay so there was no recommendation whatsoever about eating animals how animal
products will kill you
dairy products will kill you all kinds of different animal foods no no that
claim was never made see
but there was a connection there was there was not there was an inferred
connection no there was not to
what was the connection the connection cigarettes was that the the way the playbook
that is being used
by the see that's people are conflating like what the hell playbook is the same
the same way they're using
athletes and they're using advertising we never made the claim which i explain
that then but be
clear okay so the playbook that was used by the the uh smoking industry so they
pay for studies right
right and and we know even with food right this has been done with cigarettes
it's been done with drugs it's been done with food research shows that industry-fronted.
studies of four to time four to eight times more likely to have a conclusion in
their favor for
their product so this is what the smoking industry did then they got doctors to
say that smoking wasn't
bad and then they got athletes to show like hey smoking is good that was the
parallel that we drew we never
drew the the parallel that was drawn in what the hell so i want to make that
really clear there was no and
and i've seen this in in articles saying you know they connected me we didn't
do that like if you watch the film we never said did you
why did you have that in there though if you're not saying because they're
using the same playbook if you're not saying that meat causes cancer you're
saying
they're using the same specific claims that chicken eating chicken and fish
causes cancer
eating dairy causes cancer there were quotes from doctors vegan doctors no they're
not vegan
that's the other misrepresentation so can i just go back can we just finish the
evaluating evidence
and then get to each point because i'm happy to have every critique so
basically the consensus and
you're saying they're changing over time they are changing because as we get
better at science
they're becoming more the recommendation is becoming more plant-based despite
industry influence from studies and marketing and people being paid off right
industry influence goes both ways the sugar industry in the 60s i agree
exposé pointing the finger at fat
as the culprit no i don't think that's the culprit so that that's a straw man
argument
no but he's not he's not saying you are saying that no no i'm saying the
industry is yeah i agree
the sugar industry is terrible and i would agree that but can i just can we
just finish the evaluating evidence
§03Transcript · 08:49–13:38
but the thing about this section of the film was you were making some sort of a
correlation
between cigarettes and the way that it was marketed the way they're marketed
and the way and then the way meat is marketed correct so it's the same paper it's
the same
company's exponent but why would you do you would never do that about like
carrots or kale or something
they're predominantly healthy because they didn't because they didn't do it but
if you're saying
that you you're connecting the two things you're connecting something that
clearly causes cancer
cigarettes and these studies that were made to show people that it didn't they
were paid off these
studies were fake they were they were essentially cherry-picked fake studies
that were financed by
the tobacco industry correct in order to get people to buy more cigarettes you're
making this same
sort of crime about meat correct which means you think that meat is bad i do
okay that's but that's
where we're that's where we're no we can disagree about that but i'm almost
finished with the
evaluating evidence so so basically what we did when we expert interviewed the
experts is we chose
leading experts in their individual fields with collectively with thousands of
articles in the
peer-reviewed literature right so and this is one of the bummers about the uh
making a documentary
it's like you put the lower third on people don't get to read it so we had the
chair of nutrition
at harvard the president 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 chatton chatton house really respected so you're talking about
vegan doctors i saw some of
them some of them involved in hunting some of them involved in animal testing
um i saw one of them
eating a chicken sandwich at lunch so let's not say that like this was a vegan
bias coming into it
because that's just not true these we're stretching out here we were talking
just about this one section
where you're connecting cigarettes and meat so you're saying that the same sort
of is used the
same playbook but there's no evidence that meat is bad for you no we can get
into that but this is
something that's actually recently been established by mainstream medicine you
understand that right
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 this is 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 it that a diet must be 100 plant-based in order to be healthy okay
okay jane can you clarify
your position okay i want to know what we're actually debating i do you do and
you but this was the
connection that you made with cigarettes in the film no yes no i think i think
they're both promoting
something bad because there's a profit so you think that meat is bad for you
you think that they're
promoting it knowing that it's bad just for profit okay so so all chris has to
do to debunk
the film right is convince the people watching and listening that he knows more
about the consensus and the
experts in their field like i would understand this is what i'm not interested
i'm not i'm
actually not that interested in consensus of experts i'm looking at that
research that is published the
peer-reviewed research that is published yeah including meta-analyses and even
reviews of
meta-analyses that have been done a perfect example is the whole dairy and
cancer section totally that
we talked about where you had argued or walter will it argued that there's you
know dairy products
cause cancer and i pointed to a meta-analyses that looked at over 150 different
reviews yeah that and
84 percent of those found no association so how is that not part of this
discussion where we're talking
about hundreds of scientists across different continents different countries
they're using peer-reviewed
science to show this but in the movie just one expert is pointing to you know
one group of studies
without mentioning that that sounds disingenuous that's a fair point right so
this is the 2018 meta-analyses have
you got a slide for that if not i've got your slide 107 slide 107. no this is a
2019 meta-analyses 153
studies right yeah and i can get a lot further into it because that's not the
only one i'd love to
because at nine o'clock last night until nine 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 so if you
can bring up the slide uh 107 jamie uh is there can we see the slide yeah yeah
put it up okay
is this it okay so you see what he's putting quotes okay 84 of meta-analyses on
dairy consumption showed
either no association or an inverse association between dairy and cancer and
then you go on to point
on what an inverse means is that people ate more dairy get lower rates of
§04Transcript · 13:38–18:47
cancer that's what he's
implying when you put something in quotes what does that mean to you it means
that's what he said yeah
but it's that that quotation is quoting the study right fair enough is that
what they said in the
study no that's not what they said in the study that's right my uh summary of
the evidence of the
study right thank you but when you put something in quote that's misleading but
that's his quote okay
fine okay let's go with that but he's not putting things in quotes saying that
someone else said it
totally i mean that's how when you when you when you anything you do in
literature when you put
something in quotation marks you're quoting the study but let's just let's just
bypass that i'll agree
okay so can you bring up side 109 see what they actually said
okay this is the actual quote okay 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 instance of cancers 20 showed a decreased risk of cancers
with dairy consumption
and 24 showed an increased risk of cancers with dairy consumption now this is
actually until last
night like nine o'clock i realized what he was doing okay if you want to go to
i mean just to sum it up
if you go to slide 110 wait uh can we stay on here for a second what's your
what's your interpretation
do you agree that that was the quote from the study absolutely okay good but i'm
asking you what your
interpretation does that in your mind show a strong connection between dairy
and cancer okay joe you're
going to really realize here what chris is doing okay this is really and i'm
glad that you brought it up
please answer what you're saying okay so can i just say the reason you brought
this up is because walter
well it said there was a strong connection between prostate cancer and dairy
correct yeah so you brought
it about something about all cancers okay yeah so and in this study about half
of the study showed
a connection between prostate cancer and dairy and half didn't right that's
still not a compelling
argument that dairy is associated with cancer okay so can we got you you got a
coin flip basically
right that's not actually true i'll explain i'll explain why that's not true
answer my question
i will i'm trying to tell you i'm trying to tell you here slide 110 well let's
let's stay with this
explain this first and then we'll move to the next slide slide next 110 is
explaining this okay it's just
breaking that down okay so there was statistically significant associations
between dairy consumption and
intensive cancers 71 showed no evidence 13 showed a decreased risk and 16
showed an increased risk so you
see what chris did to represent this he added 71 and 13 to make 84 right you
follow this is how you got it
right so you added 73 71 and 13 to get 84 right so his statement from this
study was 84 showed no evidence
or a decreased risk that's what he made you believe well 71 shows no evidence
13 shows decrease right so if you
add the two of them together that's 84 shows no evidence or a decreased risk
exactly but what he
could have said is 71 plus 16 that's 87 he could have said 87 show no evidence
or an increased risk it's
you were claiming in the film was claiming dairy causes cancer my claim was
there's no the bulk of the
evidence suggests there is no association or inverse association that's true 70
shows no i agree i agree 13
percent shows decreased risk okay so that but hold on a second yeah the
decreased risk and the increased
risk are almost the same right which is what he talked about which is which is
higher three percent
shows increased risk on this one i'm not the point of this study is that this
is his study that he
brought up showing this is very strong evidence okay his statement was very
misleading he added up those
two and then he finished it up by saying so basically there's an inverse
correlation but he did not show he
could have said 87 showed no risk or an increased risk instead he chose to
summarize it saying 84 but
there's no risk increase risk it's a very different thing joe because you're
talking about something
causing cancer no exactly and so he couldn't there wasn't strong enough things
to find that total cancer
was increased right but we just we know that as research shows this included
did it not industry funded
research um two-thirds of research is industry funded and we know that yeah and
research shows that are
you are you proposing that we throw out every study because the one of the main
studies in your film was
sponsored by the hoss avocado board the one that claims that animal products
contribute to inflammation
i'm not sure i'm not sure i'm throwing out i'm saying that industry funded
studies and by the way
industry funded studies they typically only put them out when it shows in their
favor there's no
obligation for industry when they do a study to release it yeah i'm familiar
with that okay i've
written a lot about that so joe what do you think that the industry and the
meat and dairy has far more
§05Transcript · 18:47–23:30
money than the plant-based industry right you'd agree with that actually we we
can look at some
statistics on that okay but but joe i don't know okay would you would you
disagree that industry
funded research has a four to eight times increased um risk compared to non-industry
funded research in
finding collusions in their favor i think in just i think industry research is
definitely a problem but i
see it as a problem across the board and i have some statistics and so do you
not do you not admit that
you here led the audience to believe that there was a potentially decreased
risk overall you made it
sound very high because you didn't split between the no difference that was not
my intention it was
just it was to summarize the data because not to spend 10 minutes as we're
doing now talking about
one study when there's a huge because you made a very misleading claim but no
it's not misleading if
you said it the other way completely accurate if you said showed no evidence or
showed an increased
risk 84 percent that 87 that seems like it's misleading i don't think that
would be misleading
also do you want to look i'm just saying he could have said that but we're
talking about something
causing cancer james exactly so he shouldn't be making increased risk is what
we're looking for
what we're looking for is evidence of it causing cancer 71 the bulk of the
evidence shows no evidence
that's exactly what i've my point if you're claiming if you're claiming that
something increases
then i'm saying here's all this research that doesn't show that you honestly
don't think that
that statement instead of just putting the uh 71 showed no evidence 13 showed
that would be the
fairest the most um you know honest explanation like summary of that statement
i would say that
if you wanted to say it the most accurately yes that's the best way to say it
71 showed no evidence
13 showed decreased risk but i don't have a problem with saying 84 showed no
evidence or a
decreased risk it's true because we're talking about something causing cancer
that's the relevant
point that's the relevant point the relevant point is does the study show that
dairy causes cancer
the the primary evidence the most of the evidence says it shows no evidence or
it shows a decreased
risk that's the bulk of it that's 84 percent versus 87 it doesn't no no no 87
shows increased risk is
only 16 percent no evidence to increased risk to get 87 okay that's illogical
okay then let's throw out
the no no evidence let's throw that out let's throw out no evidence why would
we throw that out the
burden of proof is to show evidence that indicates that dairy causes cancer if
you do a study and it shows
that it doesn't then that's not in support of the claim i agree with them i
agree i'm agreeing that the
meta analysis did not could not find an association but i'm also pointing out
that industry funded
studies were included in it and they are more likely to find no connection okay
so there's 153
studies you're claiming we should just that all of them are industry funded and
we should throw out this
huge review of 153 meta analyses because of industry funding what is the basis
for that claim
no i'm not i'm saying that it sways the results can you you can't see that i
don't i don't i but you
know industry i don't accept that i have 153 studies you accept they were that
they were in this meta
analyses that they're going to sway the results to the point where these
findings aren't valid and we
could do the same thing with this all of the studies that you have linked to in
the film and we can also
look at other studies on dairy and cardiometabolic outcomes that we have i've
got lots of large
reviews that we can look at and again anyone can bring up you know this is a
pointless discussion
to have if you're just going to sit there and say industry funding that's not
my only point that's
that's not my only point i think you're saying it makes them suspect correct
yes and it could have
swayed it in the other direction it has in the past how many how many i do
agree with you about the cigarette
thing how many of the 153 study meta analyses which each also had individual
studies in them
are are so so biased by industry funding that we can't count on the findings
well i would hope that
you would know more than i i mean basically why would you know this is a this
this 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 no i'm not
saying that's the
case i'm saying just because they couldn't even though there were more showing
an increase than
showed a decrease risk right i am saying that it's possible that the the
industry fund that's a
misleading statement more showed increase than decrease that's correct no but
there's 71 showed no
no i agree with that at all i agree i agree so that's a wash but so no it's not
a wash it's not
§06Transcript · 23:30–28:12
even close to a wash no it's not a wash if you have a hypothesis this thing
causes cancer and then you
do a ton of studies and there's no association that's a that hypothesis is no
longer correct it's not a
wash that's actually that's actually not true based on epidemiology if you have
10 studies that show no
association and 10 that show an association then you don't have that you don't
have that at all
here but i'm not again i'm not arguing what he said you have 84 that showed
nothing or a decrease
risk which is the opposite you could say 84 showed no evidence and then and
forget about decreased risk
just say 84 showed no evidence forget about decreased risk right you still have
only 16 showed an
increased risk right when you do an epidemiology study you have to take into
account all the other
factors in this person's lives totally you have to take into account whether
they whether they drink
whether they smoke totally whether they exercise totally you know sedentary
lifestyle there's a lot
of factors so that would if you had something that was causing cancer you would
expect the results to
be flipped you would expect the results to be 16 showed no so showed no
evidence 71 or 84 showed an
increase that would be something you'd say hey this is causing cancer this is
more likely that that's not how
epidemiology works though if you if you had well epidemiology is slippery
anyway i agree wait how
is that not how epidemiology works if you've got if you have even if you had 10
studies showing no
evidence just because you don't find something doesn't mean that it exists okay
the absence of
evidence is not the evidence of absence okay but let's say let's say this if
you 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 most well if it was all epidemiology then it's okay okay so now let's do
100 studies and 70
now show no evidence yeah when you say it's most likely that there's no
evidence no that's not how
it works oh oh how does it how does it work so if you've got 70 studies that
couldn't couldn't show
a correlation and 30 that did that is still in favor of showing that there is a
correlation
well no no no show we're not now we're doing 70 studies if 70 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 we would we would agree right this is why
you can't prove causation
based on observational but you would agree there's most likely a connection
right now if it's reversed
now if 70 of these studies show there's no increased risk of cancer or 84 or 84
which is
because you add in the decreased risk 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 you would assume that we're talking about something that doesn't
give you cancer
well that i mean that that's i agree that this study found that they couldn't
prove a causation
right they couldn't prove a link between cancer but you made it out like he was
being deceptive he is
being deceptive i don't agree with that i don't agree with that because you're
trying to you're you're
trying to show that these studies are proving or at least making this
correlation between consumption
of dairy products and cancer but the evidence doesn't show that 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 13 showed
it's actually better for you you have less risk of cancer than not eating dairy
13 and 16 showed more
showed increased risk of cancer and again when you talk about epidemiology
studies when you're talking
about you know 16 out of 100 you you have to throw in all the other factors
that's why they didn't
find it but can i just the reason you point this up is prostate cancer right
and and so if you look at
slide uh 113 prostate cancer was that's disturbing so it's 50 50 with dairy
consumption versus uh wait that's not
one sorry 113 but a lot of people get prostate cancer too isn't that also an
issue that's a high
isn't that a high risk for males prostate cancer it's it's a high one whether
it's a 112 whether they
consume milk or not so just so in this metronautics that you point to the
highest connection that they
could find between dairy and any type of cancer was prostate cancer so if you
look at the black line
that shows no association if you look at the green line that's decreased
association and the red line
was increased association that was the metal analysis that you provided yeah so
you brought 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 no
disagreement there right
and so he is coming to the determination that prostate cancer is linked and it's
likely that it's causal
§07Transcript · 28:12–33:08
and this very study whoa whoa whoa back up half and half that's not that's no
evidence of a causal
relationship james there's no evidence of a causal relationship okay dr walter
willett is in in just
let's talk about this study okay rather than appeal to authority you just said
yourself that's a rhetorical
fallacy no it's it's a it's a fallacy unless it's the appeal to valid authority
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 so we're talking
about the consensus we're
talking about leading experts in their field with thousands of peer-reviewed
well there is no consensus
there are experts who are very illustrious who would disagree and would uh look
at this study and reach
the same exact conclusion that i did same which is there's no reliable no there's
no reliable proven
connection between dairy and prostate 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 that doesn't prove causation well this was you said you
like this because it
included also randomized controlled trials yeah and i'm saying should we should
we trust walter willett
who at the time was the chair of nutrition harvest trust the studies no no
studies is what we need to
look at but we're way off here because the question was still you know the inf
there are a lot of
inferences made in the film whether they were intentional or not on your part
that you know
dairy people are hearing oh dairy is going to cause prostate cancer they're
going to extend that to
cancer there are other claims in the film made about dairy and metabolic pro uh
issues and saturated fat
and metabolic issues so the operative question that i'm trying to answer is do
the data support that not
does walter willett think that or any other expert in the film do the data
support that conclusion right
and even in that study it the data don't strongly support that 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
so so having walter willett or anyone say there's a strong relationship and we
know the mechanism and
there's you know it's causal that can i pause here by the study didn't you tell
me that two-thirds of
people um have an intolerance towards towards milk and towards dairy and i have
a study here is that
what the number is it's one two out of three people in the world okay so can i
because this is actually
to your point sure so two out of three people have an intolerance towards dairy
in the world and if you're
talking about a study that shows fifty percent of the people in these studies
that are consuming dairy
there's a correlation between prostate cancer and and dairy wouldn't you assume
that maybe what the
same thing that we're talking about with two-thirds of people are intolerant to
something they consume
this thing that's intolerant causes inflammation in the body and that
inflammation the body could
possibly be leading to cancer correct no not correct dairy dairy is inversely
associated with
inflammation so uh we can pull up okay inversely associated with inflammation
but if people
are irritated by dairy if they have an intolerance to dairy and you said two-thirds
of people here's
here's what i would suspect there that if you 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
because despite the fact that some people are lactose intolerant we're still
seeing in that
meta-analyses that you know most people there's no association in most cases
and an inverse association
in other cases so hold on a second but this prostate cancer thing is not most
this is 50 50 right i know
and but why 50 50 is disturbing so imagine what you're saying you're saying if
half of the okay
well if dairy gives half people cancer right and doesn't give the other cancer
then i can just
drink dairy second of all do you see what chris just did that's not what that
said but you see what
these are epidemiology james it's not dairy gives anyone cancer it's
association no that's
not your meta-analysis included randomized controlled trials but this is
actually to you
can i stop this though wouldn't if someone's intolerant of something that means
your body
is irritated by it means it causes some sort of disturbance right whether it's
inflammation
or gastrointestinal disorder you start farting and that's what happens when
people are lactose
intolerant right that irritates the body wouldn't there be wouldn't you assume
that something your
body is intolerant to would possibly be the cause of disruption or disease
certainly could be right so
§08Transcript · 33:08–37:58
now if but if you're looking at two-thirds of the population are intolerant but
why would that cause
prostate cancer and no other cancers i don't know that doesn't make sense that's
why that's why
when you see that kind of thing in the data it's a red flag because there's no
logical explanation
for why it would cause prostate cancer but no other cancers why is there more
of an association there with
with that jamie pull up but just google dairy products and inflammation review
of the clinical evidence
this is a review 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 so the hypothesis that dairy is inflammatory and
that's why it's causing
cancer doesn't seem to hold up in the literature so so can i just say so first
of all you know there's
there's might be studies he can bring up i'm not even a nutrition scientist i'm
like a combatives
trainer right and so you also said that you're not an expert in nutrition and
so what what we have to
believe today is that chris really is it is about the meta-analyses but it's
about the meta-analyses
it's about the totality of taking into account all the evidence not just one
meta-analysis or a meta-analysis of a meta-analyses but all of the data
and so what you're asking people to believe is that you are better at
interpreting the data
than people that are experts in their field there are many experts who would
agree with
me no no you just didn't choose to interview them in the film no actually we
did interview
something i can tell you about in a second on the other side and i'll tell you
why we didn't include
them but you are asking people i would understand it if suddenly chris has
figured out this
neutral diet that he figures out something about nutrition that he's better
than the consent he knows
more about the consensus and more about the majority of leading experts but to
believe that chris knows
more about anthropology urology heart disease new uh why include anthropology
yeah because is that what
you try you try to do with anthropology in the film and successfully because
the majority of anthropologists
agree with what i said you chose the probably one of the few that would agree
with the idea that humans
primarily ate a plant you know exclusively plant-based diet for performance of
human evolution we can go
into that again i'm actually representing the consensus viewpoint in
anthropology james no you're
actually not you'll be hard pressed there's not to find a a consensus group of
experts that agree with
that idea so you're saying that the chat you're saying that richard rang and
the chair of anthropology that
we interviewed does not represent the scientific consensus of anthropology if
you're arguing that
he uh is is saying that humans primarily ate plant-based diet for and didn't
and animal products were
not a significant part of our diet through evolution then yes that's what i'm
saying it depends so we came
from the equator right but i want to go back a second because you don't want to
answer your question are you arguing that
there's a dominant consensus among nutrition experts in the u.s that everyone
should be on a vegan diet
no so what's the what's the argument here that we should people should eat
plants and my argument is
yes they should and and animal products can also be part of that nutrivore
healthy omnivorous diet and i
think you would find a dominant consensus of nutrition experts that agree with
that so it should
be but that that's not the way this film is being interpreted there was a bias
going into it so for
example when you go to the u.s military right the game changers is the first
documentary that has ever
been accredited by the defense health agency for the department of defense it's
the first documentary
that has ever been supported by the special operations medical association they
didn't come into it
looking at the science this has been evaluated by hundreds of phd researchers
to come to that
conclusion okay they did not come into it how so they've been evaluated how so
you can't get an
accreditation your film is evaluated by the department 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 let's base our
diets on ever on evolution they care on what is the science and the game
changes is the first documentary
that's ever been accredited by the defense health agency they didn't look at
this and go okay um this
is a vegan propaganda film why are you saying that hundreds of phds have
reviewed this and reviewed
all the data in it to come to this conclusion and is this proven is this
printed 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 the defense health agency
has reviewed this film
in detail digging into each of the studies right but you're saying you again
called to authority you're
§09Transcript · 37:58–42:54
saying hundreds of phds have have studied this who are these people well there's
there's a lot from
the defense health agency there's a lot of people that are special operations
and medicalization that
came to the decision and these are masters degrees in nutrition phds in
nutrition to get that
accreditation that just hasn't happened before because they didn't come into it
thinking this is a vegan
propaganda film that was the bias going into it we're again talking a lot about
experts and and their
opinions right experts experts in their opinions and not chris kresser in his
opinion it's not that
that's a nice representation james no this is not about my opinion and i we can
fill the room with experts
who agree with me you had an expert a debate with a doctor in the uk on a tv
show who disagreed with you we can
always find we can always find people who agree and disagree uh with all kinds
of different credentials
it's disingenuous to claim like i said that i i'm not here to argue that plants
are unhealthy and that
we shouldn't be eating a lot of plants this is the fallacy that gets created
with these kinds of films
it's not a choice between a standard american crappy processed food diet that
contains meat or a vegan
diet right it's there is a possibility of a plant-based diet a diet that has a
lot of plants that also
contains animal products and that compares comparing that with a hundred
percent plant-based diet that is
the operative question the film the film is i believe that meat and dairy are
bad for you the film
talked about plant-based diet why do you believe that i think there's
sufficient evidence yeah well
let's talk about that because if you look at our website and telling you know
people want to know
resources on what to eat they say we say it's all or something it doesn't have
to be all or nothing
so we were talking about okay but that's nice but what you just said you think
that meat is bad for
you yeah please and dairy and you know well i could see the i could see the
argument if we're talking about
two-thirds of people being lactose intolerant i would see the argument that for
two-thirds of
people dairy is probably not good for you the research doesn't it doesn't
support that but if
but i mean we're saying i can what is lactose intolerant if you're intolerant
of something that
means your body's not enjoying it and that's not the only issue by the way that's
not the only issue
with milk let's just concentrate on that because that's a giant number two-thirds
of people are lactose
intolerant if you would if you set your body's intolerant of something but you
keep consuming that
thing that your body's intolerant of i would naturally assume as a absolute
admitted non-expert
that that's not good so two things here number one i've always for years have
written that dairy is
very individual and depends on your tolerance number two there are a lot of
dairy products with virtually
no lactose in them so cheese for example hard cheeses no lactose you know cream
no lack very little
lactose butter very no lactose ghee no lactose yogurt fermented dairy products
like kefir no lactose so
while i agree with what you're saying if someone is lactose intolerant they
should avoid dairy products
that contain lactose 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 cardio
metabolic outcomes which i'd like
to cover because that includes heart disease and diabetes and overweight
obesity etc there is not
any strong evidence that dairy contributes to those conditions so let's let's
look at those actual studies
chris what you you talk really badly against epidemiology saying it can't prove
causation and
then when you like it you cite it so you'll give epidemiological evidence the
same way with you james i
i mean you can't have it both ways exactly you can't have it both ways i'm
saying that's right oh so
you can if the burden of proof if you're claiming that something is bad for you
yeah the burden of
proof is on you sure meaning 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-analyses that don't support
that and then you
say oh we can't trust the research no i'm saying your hypocrisy is saying that
you say that you said
the epidemiology that's observational studies just looking at people you have
said that we can't rely
on those and then you then cite them yourself i didn't say we can't rely on
epidemiology i say you
have to consider the caveats it with epidemiology 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
for example i'll give you
a couple of reasons about me please so for example first of all there's an
inflammatory mediators for
example like heme iron second of all we look at population data and we show uh
increased causes of
morbidity and mortality for people that eat less meat or that eat no meat so
there's there's increased
§10Transcript · 42:54–47:59
causes of morbidity you just said it the wrong way yeah so it decreases
decreased risk of more uh
morbidity and mortality let's just be real clear on that because you said it
wrong and then so that
everybody for example let's look at two randomized controlled trials see these
are not observational
studies um the the first found that increasing red meat consumption by
replacing carbohydrates in
the diet of individuals without anemia actually reduced markers of inflammation
sorry reduce replacing
what sorry carbohydrates yeah that's what you said sorry so jamie if you want
to pull this uh i mean
these are all on the website cressor dot co slash game changers but that's that
study is called increased
lean red meat intake does not elevate markers of oxidative stress and
inflammation in humans
i believe the study exists i mean that doesn't so these are rcts randomized so
so they're actually
controlling it instead of just looking at observational data which is subject
to healthy user bias um these
are two rcts so that's uh that's one study and then there's another one another
rct uh 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 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 uh in these diets so
all of this suggests it's not the meat it's what you eat with the meat that
makes the difference so we have
studies of chlorophyll eating chlorophyll rich green vegetables uh decreases
the formation of n nitroso compounds with
meat 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 right a crap standard
american diet i agree so it
offsets like some uh so if an animal foods creates oxidative stress you have it
with the plant foods
and that would have the antioxidants and that would offset it is that basically
it's a little more
complicated than that yeah i think it is more complicated than that but as i've
always as i said
last time and as as i've always argued i'm not a proponent of the carnivore
diet i'm not a low carb
guy i'm not a keto guy i'm my fundamental argument is just that the optimal
human diet contains both plant
and animal foods and this focus on individual food components or macronutrients
like protein or fat
or carbohydrate we've gotten too much it's called nutritionism it's just
focusing on these individual
elements and ignoring the overall pattern of diet quality which is the most
important thing and that's
what a lot of the more recent studies are showing when you look at the diet
pattern and diet quality on
it's on you know 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 you know red meat or
white meat or fish or
whatever it's the pattern let me pause here because this is this is one of the
primary misconceptions that
people have about consuming meat 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 yeah how
many days a week do you eat
meat how many days a week do you eat this what they don't take into account is
whether or not these
people are going to wendy's and whether or not they're eating a grass-fed steak
and and and you know
and broccoli something healthy there's a giant difference between those two
things but they're lumped in
together because this is meat consumption yeah there's the studies aren't
perfect for sure
um but you were saying that basically you're looking saying we should look at
outcomes and not just look
at individual markers right is that basically no i'm saying we should look at
the diet quality the overall
diet pattern so for example christopher gardner did the study at stanford a
couple years ago and he
took two instead of saying you know low fat low carb he took two groups and he
advised them all to basically
eat a healthy diet and then one group ate a low fat healthy diet and the other
group ate a low carb
healthy diet they all lost weight but there wasn't that big of a difference
between the two i agree i agree
so first of all in terms of health i would be pretty my my opinion would be i'm
pretty much um
macronutrient agnostic so i wouldn't like i'm not advocating high carb or low
carb i think that people can do
healthy and well i think for athletes they need a lot more carbs which of
course getting those from
plants i think there's certain athletes that can uh if it's slow and steady
state where you're getting
more fat oxidation um i think that you know stone steady state athletes can do
but like an mma fighter
a soccer player a basketball player agreed we all agree on that okay but you
just said that you were
§11Transcript · 47:59–53:05
you were not low carb right you said you're not low carb i'm not i'm not a low
carb advocate i've written
articles called seven things seven reasons you should be cautious i'm not
saying i'm not low a low carb
advocate i don't believe everyone should be on a low carb diet right i've never
believed that
but the thing is chris has his own he doesn't have the consensus um definitions
of carbohydrate
levels you've made up your own definitions right when did i make up my own
slide uh 80
jamie if you could do that please 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 uh he's on a low carbohydrate diet yeah and again you get those slow
and steady state you can
certainly do well um so so chris your recommendation your definition of low
carb is 10 to 15 percent uh if you
can go to the next slide jamie 81 so if you look at the peer-reviewed
literature it's either less than
30 percent or the next slide jamie less than 40 percent like if you look across
all the literatures
less than 30 or 40 moderate carb according to chris uh next slide jamie would
be 15 to 30 uh peer-reviewed
literature next car next slide 40 to 65 and then high carb chris calls more
than 30 and the peer-reviewed
literature high carb more than 65 uh and the next slide more than 70 depending
on the peer-reviewed
literature so you've come up with your own definitions of what is low moderate
and high carb yeah just for
the purpose you just said no it's for the purpose of my work with people that
that's not relate i wasn't
trying to represent research there that's just joe that's what i consider to be
low carb moderate carb and
high carb in my work with patients okay my recommendation did you not just hear
him say
he did i mean that is what you said i mean you when you wrote this out you did
have a different
definition than the peer-reviewed literature you do by his definition have your
own idea and he said no
high car you heard him say that you heard him say no yes and so slide uh slide
88 please jamie so i just
want to sum this up um but what's the point here because the point is the point
i said that everyone
should be on a low carb diet no i agree and i i've always argued that it
depends on everything from
your genes to your exercise pattern where are you getting your numbers from
like when you write low carb
moderate carbon high carb he made them up this is just a rec this this is a
clinical recommendation
from my experience working with patients i'm not representing the scientific
literature here i'm
not trying to make arguments about we're talking about nutrition that's madness
that that's absolute
madness to come up with your own definitions and this is what i feel that chris
does okay 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 he comes up with his own definitions of
things he misrepresents
things that we said in the film okay why did i misrepresent in the film hold on
we're gonna get
we're gonna get into the woods we're gonna get into the woods here let's just
talk about this real
quick what 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 just made them up no based on so there are a lot of people james
that disagree with the
the car the ranges scientific consensus in in yeah but when you say scientific
consensus how many
different scientists were were polled on this how many different studies were
shown i don't know
but hold on a second is this something that you just found that disputes his
position or is this
like a large group of no this is okay so slide 89 well consider verta health
who uses you know the
folks at verta who are all scientists mds they use a ketogenic very low carb
diet to no they choose
markers address diabetes no they actually don't hold on okay you you will not
be in ketosis at 30
carbohydrate or 25 percent or 20 percent or or even 15 percent you for for ketosis
seven percent yes
probably less than ten percent okay i agree i don't think so uh you know that
and and then you know
40 to 65 percent uh you're not you're no you're not even in the ballpark you
know so if you're thinking
about using low carbohydrate diets for example for weight loss or for diabetes
or you know metabolic
issues like verta health is doing then you low carb is not going to be 30 to 40
percent okay that's
not going to work so that's where my recommendation is based on ketosis based
on no based on the optimal
range if you have if you look at the rest of the article it's going to be like
if you've got diabetes
you've got 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 verta health have found will be most
effective and these
§12Transcript · 53:05–58:00
are it's not it's not it's not i there's no representation that this is the
range that is
defined as low carb in the scientific literature so you're you're talking 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 it's actually probably even below 10 and it's not
even not even just to
be in ketosis like just to get the the maximal weight loss you know someone
could be at 15 percent
and still get great weight loss without being in ketosis 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 equivalent uh fat loss you just said that so why are you
now all of a sudden
advocating only low carb diets for uh i'm not advocating only low carb okay so
then i said that
that they can both work for different people in different situations but james
you're misrepresenting
what he was saying what he was saying is getting people to go on a healthy diet
versus the standard
american diet yeah so he's not just talking about low carb versus high carb
what he's talking about is
getting off like processed foods and sugar and eating i totally agree with that
and when you do that
people no matter what low carb or high carb lose weight 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 that's one way yeah that's true but it's it's proven right the
other piece of this
is most of the studies aren't comparing a healthy omnivorous diet with a you
know plant-based vegan
diet they're comparing a vegan diet with a standard american diet that contains
animal products
so you're talking about the paleo diet or his neutral diet yes which by the way
yeah has any of your work
or your ideas been published in the scientific literature no i've never claimed
that i just i just
wondered so you didn't wonder no i did wonder no i couldn't find anything but
that's not why you're
saying that you're saying that to try to make it seem that he's less of an
expert well he is i'm not
an expert either so what what's the point why are you here why am i here well i
actually i did ask if
i could bring my chief science advisor who has a double master's degree in
exercise physiology and
nutrition he's a registered dietitian he built all of his papers and we can
talk about them yeah totally
um but i think we should uh so first of all we just we still haven't come to
this understanding of
why you think meat is bad for you you were basing it well okay so so there's
the individual
components like heme iron for example all right we talked about that last time
the heme iron is only
associated with poor outcomes in the u.s it's not that's actually not true it's
not it's not true
in in other countries that's not true let's let them and then we can that's not
true you can refute it
in the fang 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 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
and you know again we're talking about diet pattern not just is red are you
eating red meat you know in
mcdonald's and fast food restaurants but if are you eating it in the context of
an overall healthy diet
and does that have the same effect right do you know how do you read a forest
plot
yes or no i don't what does that mean that's basically looking at this is just
the competent
intervals what's it called the forest forest plot plot okay yeah because it
kind of looks like a bunch
of trees right okay so you don't know how to read a forest plot so have you
actually looked at the
study i have looked at the study okay so i'll just we don't know how to read it
so it's kind of
so get a microphone on you james just pull that sucker over so you see that um
first of all he said that what he put up on the screen i don't know if you
still got the slide but
you said that um the he mine association was only in americans right but the
conclusion of that study
said that heme iron was associated with um cardiovascular disease that was a
conclusion
study which he didn't put up on the screen okay and then 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
right so there's two things about that was from the study okay first thing i i
can't link to my
slide i don't know where it is um but basically uh can you just read the
conclusion of that study
because i uh i i can't find my slide the conclusion this is down here
a higher dietary intake of heme iron is associated with an increased risk of
cardiovascular disease
whereas no association was found between c cardiovascular disease and non-heme
iron intake
§13Transcript · 58:00–1:02:31
or total iron intake okay so and then also and then i just read the the quote
just now which was
incorrect by the way the authors made a mistake so if you how do they make
mistake um so if you look at this forest plot for example this uh kipstein grobush
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 so basically you see this um this is a 1.86 with the
constant interval being 1.14
to 3.09 okay that is statistically significant connection between heme iron and
you can look at the
uh the conclusions but you're saying that what he said about eating it with
green leafy vegetables
no no no but we have to point out that he that i don't think this one i don't
think that's true
no first of all unlike the dairy one where i think that he was being a bit
misleading
in this case i don't think he was being misleading i think you i think that you
read there was no
misleading it was summarizing we already went over this yeah i don't think you
would like to create
that impression but no no that's my opinion that's just my opinion i think you're
being a bit misleading
in this case i do not think he was being misleading at all it did say what you
said in the study even
though you didn't point out the conclusion you left out the conclusion of the
study but what wasn't
your fault is i think you i think you read the study but you you admitted that
you can't you don't
know how to read forest plots and the forest plots if you did look at them and
you had to read them
you'd show that there were three uh in the netherlands and in sweden that did
show a significant
correlation because what you were trying to make out with this point which i
understand when you're
trying to 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 and so you went and found
the study and you found a
quote even though you didn't like to put the conclusion of the study no i did
say that there
were but hold on i did acknowledge that there was an association but it was
based on american cohorts
yeah but it's not in there but it's not it's not your fault because the study
the people in the
whoever wrote the the write-up for the study made a mistake there were
statistically significant
because 1.14 to 3 means that there was like a 14 to 300 increase in that one
study of uh from the
netherlands the kirsten clips in crowbush and for people watching they can go
and look at the study
look at the conclusions yeah there were three because his point was what you
tried to infer from
that was that the american diet that includes a bunch of junk food is different
than the the ones in
sweden and netherlands where they aren't eating so much junk food but that
actually was incorrect so
heme iron has been associated and is recognized yes it has been associated 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 and now we're focusing on a single
mechanism rather than looking
at the outcomes right which i again i'm happy to look at the outcomes do you
agree with what he just
said i do that heme iron i think that plant foods offset the oxidation offset
in some in some regard the
oxidation that you get from animal foods however if you work out you have oxidative
stress okay
so if you um 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 i don't think
we know that's
true no we do know that we don't know that that's how do we know that that's
true and that's not
very specific no no this is nutritionism because we're not focusing on the
nutrients in red
meat and the things that and the highly bioavailable protein it's not like red
meat is only there to
cause is is causing oxidative stress i agree it's not the only thing there are
some nutrients in me so
again the question is is there a place for animal foods in a diet that is
healthy overall not not
whether you know you should eat plant foods right we both agree that you should
probably eat a lot of
plant foods right which is my position i think it would be difficult for me to
argue a hundred percent
plants versus 50 plants i don't think it's argued to add like argue like 90 95
plants versus i think
the argument would take hours and hours and hours to convince you why i think
100 plants is better i
think there's definitely bio variability and i think different people have
different requirements
go back a second i want to make sure i understood what you just can you can you
repeat that so my
position is that the literature um i think it's an easier argument because we're
talking about plant-based
diets and plant-based diets would either limiting or or limiting or eliminating
§14Transcript · 1:02:31–1:06:53
animal products right
so for plant-based general diets in general right 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 you're
getting the vast majority of your calories from plants right and i think there's
a lot most people
even if you're eating pasta you're getting the vast majority of your calories
from plants
well yeah but if we're talking about what's a healthy the healthiest diet but
that's the
problem right i think whole plant foods a lot of shitty american diet is plant-based
you're talking
about buns and bread and yeah all the bullshit and peanut butter and jelly
sandwiches that's all
plant-based a lot of vegans and vegetarians just because you're vegan
vegetarian doesn't mean you're
healthy exactly right it's like the my argument is you're getting the vast
majority of your calories
from whole plant foods right okay agreed okay you agree well i don't think the
vast majority is my
position but i think that's his position right i agree what he's saying yeah i
think that i think that
look i i eat animal products i have for a long time and i eat a lot of
vegetables as well i think that
an omnivorous diet is is the key to health that's what i believe yeah i i
believe that meat helps
you recover faster i think it's more nutrient rich i think there's things in
meat that it's very
difficult to get in plants and i think the quality of the amino acids and the
quality of the protein
content is superior to that in plants i definitely should get into that let's
talk about that because
that's one of the things you brought up can i can i just say that i agree with
the type of meat that you
eat we know that like there's not studies done on the inflammation in elk but
there is
studies on inflammation in kangaroos for example in australia so totally wild
courts that's like
their equivalent of elk right and there is about half the inflammation coming
from that as there is
from beef well i would imagine i mean you're talking about a much healthier
much higher protein
the difference between the protein content in elk per ounce versus the protein
content in beef
is almost double it's a giant and we just had like less information controlled
trials i showed that
showed less inflammation with eating red meat no yeah but the thing is that's
it's tricky because
when is something healthy or something inflammatory it's always compared to
what
so in some of these studies what the industry does is they'll compare red meat
to bacon or
that or you know they'll switch it up there's always to watch it works the
other way around they
compare a plant-based diet with a standard crop western diet no i agree that's
that's not a
good comparison but i still don't see why you're saying meat is bad for you
well so he i mean we
just showed with the heme iron but the heme iron in conjunction with plant-based
foods right he's
showing and he said it's because of the quote that you gave is that one of the
primary reasons is
because of oxidation antioxidants deal with oxidation you get oxidant you get
pro-oxidation from animal
foods right you also get pro-oxidation from exercise now we're talking about
mechanism you know isolated
mechanisms right but you talk about but chris you talk about mechanisms when
you want to and you talk
about pre-clinical data when you want to i was talking about them in response
to the claims made
in the film because mechanisms were mentioned new 5gc tmao heme iron and so i
brought those up in you
know to respond to them no but that's not when you use them because if you go
on your website i'm not
saying we shouldn't ever talk about mechanisms james i'm saying if if you're
talking about mechanisms but
the outcomes don't support the mechanism then what's the point well i think we
can get into
epidemiology and look at that but i think we should definitely hit protein
because i think of
everyone watching like that's the biggest myth and it's the biggest sort of gripe
and then i think
we should definitely hit b12 so i want to make sure let's go with b12 because
one of the things that
you said that he disputed was did bring up that b12 quote that you said was
complete horseshit i can
read it out if you want go ahead please uh b12 is this and if you disagree with
what you were critiquing
b12 isn't made i'll read the whole thing and then so b12 isn't made by animals
it's made by
bacteria these animals consume in the soil and water just like uh with protein
animals are only the
middlemen before industrial farming farming farm animals and humans could get b12
by eating traces
of dirt on plant foods or by drinking water from rivers or streams but now
because pesticides
antibiotics and chlorine kill the bacteria that produce this vitamin even farm
animals have to be
given b12 supplements and you said that's just all false that's all just factually
§15Transcript · 1:06:53–1:12:13
wrong so first of all b12
is made by bacteria but it's um animals don't get it from consuming soil and
water first of all you
misrepresented what i said so i said it's made by bacteria that these animals
consume you went on to
say that animals didn't get bacteria from the soil that's not what i said i
said they get it from the
bacteria that they got from the soil so you misrepresented what i said you you
made out the key claims you made
james is that as pot it was pot used to be possible to get b12 by eating dirt
or on plant foods or from
drinking water from rivers or streams i've still have not seen convincing
evidence that that is true
slide 48 and jack norris a vegan dietitian has admitted as much in his article
and then even more
relevant than all of that is looking at b12 deficiency rates between vegans
vegetarians and omnivores
uh in the clinical literature like the the other stuff is not really relevant
until you get to the
clinical can we address each of your critiques then is that okay yeah um so
first of all
um you said there's zero evidence that b12 is fed to cattle right you said that
and so can i just
first you represent because i said even farm animals can you put up slide uh 44
please jamie
i said even farm animals have to be given b12 supplements okay that's what i
said okay um so did you
mean all farm animals okay so so do you see that that is a screen cap from the
film that's a chicken
and down at the bottom there's the quote for the poultry right so would you
disagree that like pigs
and chickens and no i don't disagree that they sometimes get b12 but do do what
about what about
shellfish shellfish are extremely high in b12 they're the highest even that's a
total non-sequitur
and 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 so yeah are you are
you in certainly
you're really suggesting that the like the population gets most of its b12 from
shellfish
no okay i'm saying that the claim that animals need to take b12 supplements in
order to have b12
in their flesh so you're not where do you think chickens get it from
james where do you think chickens about the shellfish was i never claimed
chicken was a great
source of b12 i said i said you i said in the film even farm animals have to be
given b12 supplements
you said that it was absolutely false everything that i said about b12 you said
was absolutely false
those are your words this is also you talking about that people used to be able
to get it from
consuming vegetables right bacteria on it and that the water is now because of
pesticides and chlorine
the water no longer has and then you claim that the same percentage of of you
you picked one study that
showed uh 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 i know all
of your critiques because
i've noted them and i've got a point for each one so can i just go and then you
can if you disagree
you can so um could you just uh jamie could you put up slide 45 and i know and
rather than throwing off
track going to about humans we'll get to that in a second but that that i mean
b12 is just commonly
fed to chickens and you would agree with that right yeah and and pigs and lambs
that feel that can't
room and like ruminants can create b12 in their gut from the bacteria that they
yeah okay yeah so
but you brought up by valves and other yeah no certainly there's some yeah but
that's not yeah
totally okay so um but since you brought up cattle you said that cattle uh
there's no evidence of
cattle being fed b12 so if you bring up flight 46
vitamin b12 for sheep and cattle that's what it says you said there's no
evidence so you said there's no
evidence so on the left that just so because people might not be able to read
the small print well
listen there's people just listening as well okay sorry for people just
listening so b12 injection
for sheep and cattle there's three different products there's something that's
added to feed on
the left so it says a liquid complementary complementary feeding stuff
containing the essential trace
elements cobalt selenium and b12 of b12 deficiencies correct that's due to some
soils and it being low in
cobalt which is a lot of yeah okay so now if you just go to um slide 47 please
jamie
next slide okay this is the largest supplier of animal uh feed or supplements
in the world okay on
their website young ruminants require supplemental vitamin b12 prior to full
room and development
they also say vitamin two is sometimes administs uh parenterally to uh incoming
feedlot cattle
and also b12 by the way has been shown to increase milk production you said
there was no evidence that
cattle are given b12 and you said that all my statements were absolutely false
do you at least
admit that you were wrong there if i said that i've got your cattle that
§16Transcript · 1:12:13–1:17:08
specifically that one portion
of the statement you said there's no evidence so you said that i'll get ever
get b12 supplements then i
was wrong about that everybody says 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 there's also zero
evidence that b12 is fed to cattle that is flat out wrong and i have just shown
that is that fair i was
wrong okay so we'll get to another point because you were wrong about many
other things as well
okay so uh let's see so you agree that um you know it is fed to cattle so you
want to look at humans
um i'm trying to see if there's any other points that you brought up they've
been giving minerals
and feet and different things to right that's the thing what is the point the
point if cattle are
deficient because they're in a feedlot where they're not eating grass it's not
only that and that's the
primary reason it isn't only or because it becomes so young cows young cows
these are young cows that
are most likely right people have been getting i know meat b12 from animals do
you just do you
dispute that the primary source of b12 for human beings has been eating animals
and also fish and shellfish
in history and from rivers and dirt but both where is the evidence that that
rivers and streams and
dirt has been a primary source i'm going to i'm obviously going to give it to
you okay you think i
came here today you think i made claims in the film that i couldn't back up
perhaps because there are a
lot there are actually quite a few claims we did we we went over those in the
last show yeah so can we
stick with the b12 sure okay so um can we just go to slide 48
hold on a second please um so b12 concentration fluctuated between 100 so this
is in uh the
levels of water in the english lake district if you want to go to slide 49
uh the vegetables uh where the vegetables were eaten without being carefully
washed the strict
vegetarians who do not practice hand washing or vegetable cleaning may be untroubled
by vitamin b12
deficiency and by the way the the retained vitamin d12 for soil was adequate to
prevent
b12 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 we sanitize water now which is a good thing yes but
that also takes out the b12
sure so here so that makes your statement correct so so he was wrong again that's
not the consensus
view that you can get enough b12 from eating unwashed vegetables but that's not
what he didn't
necessarily say that was the consensus view 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 so again now people
have questioned did
i spend a thousand hours okay now that i'm giving you the facts do you question
that i spent a thousand
hours i've spent sent another two thousand hours looking at peer-reviewed
research since then if you
say you have i don't have no reason to disbelieve it's a lot of time it's a lot
of thousand hours is
a lot of time like what was it lane uh lane norton said that you should
probably have gotten a phd
i think well i don't think that's the case i think there's people a lot smarter
than me
that are making these scientific but i mean that amount of hours of research
you literally 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 anyway i believe you so
anyway there are also
b12 analogs in the soil that aren't absorbed and utilized like true b12 okay
but again you don't
can we admit the two things the two things that we've you touched on so far you
you got wrong
absolutely that it's proven that cattle do receive b12 under whatever
circumstances i don't know whether
it's because they're grass-fed or grain-fed i'm assuming they're feedlot
animals that don't get proper
nutrients from soil right don't get proper i mean if you're getting these grain
fell
fed soybean fed cattle and they're just pouring this dried out into a bucket
these animals are not
grazing and they're likely deficient in a lot of different things sorry and
that's why there's also
they've always been supplementing their diet with minerals supplementing diet
with vitamins and that's
the funny thing people like oh well um let's just take the extreme end of a
plant-based diet
vegans right so people say oh well vegans have to take a supplement well guess
what you're
supplementing anyway you're just doing it indirectly if you are eating that
kind of
99 of the of the somewhere around there 97 to 99 yeah whatever so so the vast
majority so where
you know people are getting it you're supplementing you're not just something
§17Transcript · 1:17:08–1:22:01
by b12 you're supplementing
d in the in the you're getting it from someone who supplements it in the feed
of the animal and
then you get it that way exactly generally not if you're eating grass-fed beef
not if you're eating
you love to grass-fed beef against one to three percent but let's just let's
just admit that you
made a mistake can you just admit that you made a mistake about both of those
things b12 in cattle
and and then you have a third point so we had the b12 in cattle you had that
you there was no
ever you said there was zero evidence about that you said there was no evidence
about being able to
get it from water and and uh from dirt which again i proved to be for you to be
wrong and and the
third thing that you said i said that there's no evidence that humans primarily
got their b12 from
eating from soil and water which is what you said no i didn't you're misrepresenting
again he's
misrepresenting and he's wrong joe you've got to admit that in this case well
it's clearly wrong about
b12 being given to cattle i mean we showed three different supplements this is
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 so you don't think that people will get
the idea from hearing
that that we never needed to consume animal products to get b12 and we only
only could we could get
plenty from eating correct so where is the evidence for for that other than the
one study that you showed
there that that's because most evidence of vegans is even vegans who are
supplementing these are
modern vegans right yeah so he's talking about something but you see what he's
going off on a
track here because he's got two things wrong so the third thing on this because
his statement is
essentially saying that the reason why we don't get it today is because of we
sanitize
yes so your third point you i said this you took issue with my claim okay 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 then you said
he didn't provide a
reference for that so it's hard to check but again it contradicts you know mounds
of evidence on b12
efficiency so can you bring up slide 50 please jamie you said that i didn't
provide a reference
okay but in the bottom left where we put all of the references whenever i made
a claim about the
scientific research oh well it's covered by the yeah it'll go away in a second
okay
okay allegedly there you go so so first of all there's the reference you claim
we didn't have
a reference would you admit that you were wrong i missed that okay three times
wrong about b12
okay so can we just go into your study your sorry your ebook on b12 you
basically said i don't know
where you got that study from your b12 ebook opens with the exact same study so
can you put up slide 51
please jamie okay is that your ebook on the left yes okay you rounded up to 40
but i kept it at 39
okay uh because i was being specific b12 deficiency is far more common than
most healthcare practitioners
and the general public realize data from the tufts university framing and
offering study
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 that was the
opening statement of your b12
ebook and you claimed that where you couldn't find the evidence of that study i
no disagreement that b12
deficiency is an issue i've talked about that on my website that's not that's
not what you said on the
last time you're on joe's podcast 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 if that's not reflective of the
preponderance of evidence
why did you open your ebook with it it's not okay so there's two different
issues here one is
do omnivores get b12 deficiency yes they do okay and 40 people tested in this
study which is the one
that you reference that's right and there are many i'm not saying the study is
bad but you said let's
look at all of you said that i didn't provide a reference but did you do you
write your own ebooks
by the way i do and you don't remember that study no i write a lot okay james
do you know how do you
have any idea how many articles i've written over the years do you remember
every study from every
article i don't know if you're right no i don't because i'm a combative trainer
and that's the
thing do you not feel like i'm a combative trainer you yourself recognize that
you're not a nutrition
expert right you said that at the beginning i'm not a nutritionist i have
master's level training in
nutrition so i mean yeah so there's two so you've got a number of things wrong
about b12 there's two
issues what does that specifically mean like master's level training in
§18Transcript · 1:22:01–1:26:46
nutrition right thank you joe
well in california uh 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 so the training is a lot different than it is in other
places so
there's the question of can omnivores develop b12 deficiency yes they can if
you go and look at the
rest of the ebook it's because of things like sebo right and you're actually
higher ranges you'll
actually accept higher ranges of what would be considered potentially deficient
right yeah you'll say
like three four hundred might be deficient so that would mean that even more
people were deficient
right now i'm not arguing that vegans can be more deficient than omnivores um
but can i just go to
slide 52 so can i go to slide 52 so what is that what is the question here if
you're not arguing no
i'm there's 12 deficiency there's not be more is more common and i'm pointing
out that you made
vegetarian i'm pointing out that you because that is what clinically makes the
difference if someone is
b12 deficient i'll get then then they think i think i'm not prepared to get to
that i will get to that you
like the four or five claims that i made about b12 were patently false i've
already pointed out three
of the things that you got wrong out of the five and you are the one that like
is recommending telling
people what to eat i am a combatives trainer and my facts in this case are the
this doesn't change
anything about the facts i'm recommending no it is the recommendation is still
that people get enough
b12 and that they are less likely to do that on a vegetarian and vegan diet and
there's lots of
studies showing that can an omnivore can an omnivore develop b12 deficiency
absolutely i see it in my
practice and nearly all of the people that not the vast majority no no no no i
didn't say that the vast
majority of that 40 were meat eaters you referenced you didn't reference the
study that's only because
there are more meat eaters in the general population that has nothing to do
with the fact that beat that
meat eaters are getting more b12 deficient i'm not arguing we've got all of
these studies about
homocysteine nine out of ten reviews that have shown higher homocysteine levels
in vegans
can we stick to the point that he made last time as i'll never get to rub up
okay so you when you
referenced the framium study you didn't link to the study you linked to an
article from the usda
about the study and that study said oddly uh the researchers found no again
this is the opening
statement of your ebook references this study but you felt you didn't mention
this part 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 it's not because people aren't
eating enough meat to get
the b12 tucker said it's the vitamin isn't getting absorbed so is that so this
backs up my claim that
the safest way to get b12 is to take a supplement now chris will just say for
60 can i just finish on
this point and then you can rebut so your claim was well people can just go and
get um so you agree
that so you know i would say that vegans that don't supplement and omnivores
there's a lot more deficiency
in vegans right like it's a it's a nutrient of concern that vegans should be
cautious of i agree
with pretty much universally that's accepted right yes so but that you even if
you don't accept the 40
number even though that you said that i didn't say i didn't accept that it
doesn't matter whether
you accept it or not like you've even said that like we should consider higher
levels b12 division
so it would make even more but doesn't that doesn't really matter the point is
that you were saying that
um where was i going with this hang on they're saying the vitamins not getting
absorbed and that b12
oh so my point my point was it's safer to just take a b12 supplement and for
the general population in
the world that is the best recommendation you'll say you can go to your doctors
and get a 60 dollar
blood test and test for b12 and then you can decide whether you need a
supplement or not may i
mass stop you guys both here why isn't it getting absorbed if there is a higher
level of vitamin b12 and
fish and there's other factors that inhibit the absorption so what are those
one yeah one likely
people's conditions but also in the overgrowth in the small intestine so so so
joe so basically
um but we still have that we still have the data here can i just go back to the
argument about
because i said the best safest way for everyone to get b12 is to take a
supplement right you say well
you can just spend sixty dollars and get a blood test but you've got to
recognize that in the world
not everybody can afford sixty dollars okay so the safest way to get b12 if
whether you eat meat or
not is to get take a b12 supplement we know it's the surest way let's just all
§19Transcript · 1:26:46–1:31:51
agree on that it's
the surest way it's the surest way for sure but then when you've got studies
that show you know 11
of omnivores have b12 depletion versus 77 of vegetarians and 92 of vegans you
know that's with using
holotranscobalamin which is a much more sensitive marker b12 deficiency than
serum b12 which is really
problematic and then you have nine out of ten comparisons of homocysteine that
found higher
levels of homocysteine and vegetarians in omnivores and higher levels in vegans
compared to vegetarians
and homocysteine is also a more sensitive marker than serum b12 so there's four
stages of b12 deficiency
and serum b12 will only go down out of range in the fourth and final stage of b12
deficiency so these
other studies that i shared on the last show were looking at holotranscobalamin
which was the most
sensitive marker b12 depletion it's not technically deficiency at that point
and then you have homocysteine
and methylmalonic acid that are uh more sent less sensitive than holotranscobalamin
but more sensitive
than serum b12 okay okay can you bring up slide 54 please okay and i need to
show you so not only have
you got all the facts wrong so far about b12 of my claims you said that they
were all false and they
weren't false right every claim that i made so far was backed up by science and
you have admitted that
you made mistakes okay so this is your slide this is your slide right this is
because this is how i can show
that he's hand picking these studies to make his claim you said that 92 percent
of vegans were deficient
in let's read what it says is b12 depletion among uh omnivores vegetarians and
vegans uh vegans now
we got to remember that most people are probably listening versus watching oh
sorry yeah okay so vegans
92 it says 77 vegetarians 77 and omnivores 11 for b12 uh depletion but that
study showed it was more
like 40 percent of depletion even across the board but i'm not trying to
compare the two okay i'm just
trying to say your case by using the study is that 92 of vegans are deficient
in b12 and omnivores are not
deficient okay depleted whatever i'm i'm not i'm not going to try okay whatever
the number i'm not trying
to pick i'm not trying to pick apart this study i agree with the study okay
okay can you just go to
the next slide please chris i think it's slide 55 okay this is from the study
okay this is from 16
years ago by the way okay and a very small study from 16 years ago and this is
why i show you that
he's hand picking the data that he uses and this is where i go back to the fact
that it's about the
interpretation of the totality of evidence and you can't really rely on someone
that's not a nutrition
expert hand picking studies to suit their bias so in sub this is what he said
in subjects who did not
consume vitamins the levels were what chris said right 11 in omnivores 70 and
so i would agree like
if you couldn't get b12 anywhere you should incorporate some animal foods into
your diet
fair okay but let's look at some other studies so slide 56 and again i'm only
choosing a few
i'm sure you know certainly they're in my favor and i'm not saying that vegans
don't have lower b12
levels because some people don't supplement right but you i'm showing that you
handpicked a study
from 16 years ago slide 56 from uh and this is for a new study from 2018 with
twice the sample size
uh of ones and you know people now know you should take a b12 supplement the
studied markers indicate
a generally sufficient cobalamin status independently of the diet preferences
lacto over vegetarian or vegan
slide 57 now this is a study that looked at runners in may of 2019 really
current and it feels like you
might not have the most current data because you said to me in your email that
you this nutrition is
only one part of what you do and you have lots of other things that you're
doing right so slide 57
this is comparing vegans vegetarians and omnivores and these are runners yeah
and recreational runners
recreational runners yeah all three groups showed an adequate biomarker status
of b12 related parameters
and then flight 58 it would be and this one not only backs up my point about
vegans but also
uh and plant-based eaters but also um that supplement users are better so the
vitamin b12 status of
supplement users of vegans and omnivores was higher compared to the non-supplement
users and a higher
proportion of non-supplement users had b12 parameters outside the reference
range you know they were
low so again that's more evidence that people it's a good idea to supplement in
general because you just
have higher levels and after and the consensus recommendations after you get
over 50 you have lower
intrinsic it's a water-soluble vitamin anyway yeah but after 50 you lose
intrinsic factors so you can't
absorb as much so right it's not it's not dangerous to have higher levels so
even no no you could yeah
exactly it's a good thing to supplement period right and the blanket
recommendation so every single thing
that i said in the b12 statement is true and backed up by so so jamie bring up
§20Transcript · 1:31:51–1:36:36
slide 59 for me if we're
looking at totality of evidence let's look at more evidence totally but again i
i'm not pointing those
three studies out to say there's not more i'm saying that you hand picked a
study where vegans no i didn't
hand pick a study james there's many studies here no you picked one where they
were not taking vitamins
and i agree so we agree that people on plant-based diets should take vitamin b12
i see what you're saying
and we agree that most people are getting their b12 supplement in any way just
indirectly through animals
fair enough fair enough if you follow the diet that these animals were on which
is the majority of people
and again i would say like look if you want to eat 95 plants and you're going
to know how common
it is for them to supplement animal diet with b12 is it a rare thing no no
sorry with cattle
with cattle it's lower because there's a lot of a lot but much it's not that
rare well it's lower but it's not super rare
because a lot of soil is deficient in cobalt and cows need to consume the cobalt
to manufacture the b12
in their in their room so it's more of a side effect of uh mineral and nutrient
deficient soils but not
for pigs and chickens and that sort of stuff so vegans have higher homocysteine
levels than omnivores
nine out of ten comparisons found higher homocysteine levels in vegetarians and
omnivores and higher levels
in vegans than vegetarians right and the prevalence of hyperhomocysteine homocysteine
among vegetarians may actually be higher than that among non-vegetarians
already diagnosed with heart
disease so that's nine of ten comparisons that's not hand-picking one study
that's nine out of ten
comparisons that have been done on this topic right and the out like you said
before we shouldn't just
look at the markers we should look at the outcomes right 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 i didn't make the claim that they do from that study
i'm making we're talking
about b12 and homocysteine being a marker right and i am and chris i am showing
that you picked
a study from 2016 which have a very small sample size that was nine out of ten
comparisons right there
that was not the only study that i i'm not saying that i'm not saying that
study 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 i didn't joe come on like now listen i've
come in here i've said it
already yeah no i just want to make sure you're correct right because i've come
in here and people
are saying oh what are you going to say to that debunk chris did not debunk the
film he made
misrepresentations of our claims and he got things factually wrong well he
certainly seems to have gotten
it factually wrong that animals particularly cows are not given b12 supplements
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 and that 40 of people are uh division and that the
best way to get b12
is the supplement so he got everything so i don't agree can i just finish can i
just finish yes
i know but you're but you're wrong so so the thing is i have proven that he got
three or four things
factually wrong about b12 right and i am a combatives instructor okay i've
heard that
right so but i'm just saying i'm putting myself down i understand i'm not like
a super intelligent
guy but you are you are very intelligent i've said that before and what you did
is you did research on
these very important subjects and you acquired a lot of data so this is what
people do when they go to
school 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 totally it's whether or not they
absorb the information and
when they study and you said you studied a thousand hours before the film and
three thousand cents
that you're you're obviously educated you understand what you're talking about
so so um 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 i made
i made four
five claims that still stand that vegetarians and vegans have much higher rates
of b12 depletion or
deficiency than omnivores the bulk of the studies they're supplementing they do
not if they're
supplementing they don't but if they don't everyone agrees but like there's no
disagreement vegans and
vegetarians and anyone over 50 and mo like the safest way and you're now disputing
the safest way
to get b12 is to take a supplement it's the best way to get the surest way to
get b12 but it's not
necessary for many people right for people that can afford to get blood tests
which is not most of the
§21Transcript · 1:36:36–1:41:00
world like you will it was sitting in america in a nice like air-conditioned
room and you know we've
got cars and we drove here and we can afford to go to the doctor like the best
way to get b12 is to
take a supplement period and you're wrong if you think otherwise if you can
afford yeah sure if you
can afford blood tests every six months if you but we're gonna get 12
supplements to everybody around
the world that's expensive right here's the thing if you have a diet that gives
you the ample amount of
b12 then you don't need a supplement then you don't need a supplement sure what
you're saying is that
blood tests are expensive so you should take an expensive supplement no they're
not expensive
b12 no it's like if you buy it in bulk it's like two dollars a year but no i'm
not saying that
yeah yeah if you buy it two dollars a year where the fuck you buy your vitamins
if you if you if you buy it you probably want to really yeah you've got it but
the thing the trick is
you gotta like you'd have to split it with a bunch of uh people because it's
like a year's worth
of supply but anyway jesus christ so so no the argument is that i feel like i
should donate to
the world if it's only two bucks a year i feel like i could hook a lot of
people up i've also shown
that in the study that you presented in your ebook stated that like they weren't
absorbing it as well
from animal products i'm not saying there's not b12 in animal products 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 in some in some cases in the vast majority of fish not in grass fed not
as much in the vast
majority of animal products that people are eating b12 was supplemented and so
i'm just saying the
safest way to get b12 is take a supplement in the vast majority is that true
yeah you think the vast
majority of people are eating uh wild caught fish and i don't know how many
animals are actually
getting those supplements all of the chickens all the chickens all of the
chickens chickens are omnivores
they're not fed omnivorous diets for the most part unless they're free-range
chickens if you give it
you ever seen a chicken up a mouse it's pretty stunning yeah yeah they're carnivorous
little monsters
then chickens and when you get them and you get those eggs and the eggs are
like a really dull yellow those
are animals they're eating grain only those are vegetarian chickens that's not
what they want to
eat what they want to eat is worms yeah they're not living in their natural
state right in their natural
state they probably don't need to have supplementation this is sort of an
argument against vegetarian diets
for chickens really because no chickens aren't really supposed to eat that way
yeah and feedlot for
beef feedlot for beef exactly they're not supposed to eat grain either can we
get to protein because i think
if we miss protein then we've like done no we're not gonna miss we have plenty
of time cool i'll keep
going all day 12 you made some excellent points and you definitely uh cleared
up uh what was what
was misrepresented right and it's it's really why i really appreciate you
having me on because you guys
did like a three-hour debunk right and there was just a lot of things that were
factually wrong and
there's more that i can point out okay let's let's get i really i really
appreciate you having me on
my pleasure i appreciate you being here and i really appreciate chris and as
long as as much as we
disagree i really appreciate you coming on and giving me the opportunity and
you being here so let's
talk about i know i'm i know i'm getting like emotional and something but i'm
annoyed like people
yeah i'm trying to seven years you know yeah i get it cool so uh you want to
talk about protein and
yes what the issues are there's still so it's also just the red meat and dairy
thing outstanding too
oh whether or not red meat's bad for you yeah we never really cleared that up
well why do you think
that red meat is bad we can go with protein but let's let's finish that okay
because we really
should finish that we can always use the protein because i'm sure protein is
going to be a long
discussion well i know i think it's going to happen here so we can talk about
red meat i've
shown that like some of the individual things like heme iron for example are
shown to be
uh pro-inflammatory and by the way just to back you up um let me see where the
slide is
pro-inflammatory necessarily correlated with poor health because sometimes
things uh that
provide uh information yeah yeah your body has a a positive reaction yeah it's
a hormetic hormetic
stressor yeah so there are things like exercise you exercise you create yeah
yeah yeah hormesis right
right sure sauna yeah yeah and it's the same thing where he'll sort of try and
show that fish uh you
know he'll the tmao for example you'll say well how can tmao be bad we'll get
to that we'll get to that
but let's let's stick with red meat why do you think red meat's bad for tmao is
§22Transcript · 1:41:00–1:46:01
one of the things
okay in red meat just like heme iron that i just showed is inflammatory but he
he mine is associated
with cardiovascular risks and that he mine is found in meat and eating plants
in a healthy diet pattern
it offsets it absolutely yeah is there evidence that eating meat by itself is
associated with
cardiovascular disease nobody ever has eaten meat by itself what about these
carnivore people well
there's no research those guys are the canaries in the coal mine aren't they
there's no research on
that so that's one that's one of my people just eating all meat diet yeah there's
not yeah i mean
i mean we both agree like let's just create a false dichotomy chris if you if
there was a cut like all
animal products diet not just carnivore but eggs and all this stuff and then
there was a fully plant-based diet
subliminary b12 which one would you advocate if false dichotomy uh i'd probably
pick the plant
diet probably all uh although i would be concerned about nutrient deficiencies
yeah i i've never
advocated for the carnivore diet i said as much in the last show but that says
something about plants right
plants are awesome right so we agree on that yeah he's never had anything wrong
no no what 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
that's what chris has said from the jump yeah i would 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 and can i can i just where that's where we seem to
have it and i even
said that the range of that can vary tremendously could be five percent for
some someone who's just
eating uh mostly plant-based diet and they're eating some shellfish and organ
meats for the nutrient
density or you could have someone who eats more animal products and depends on
the person what their
needs are i go with that first half and the second half but just to back up uh
what joe does um slide
62 because i mentioned this earlier but we didn't put a slide on but i think
the graphic again i know most
we were listening so if maybe joe you could uh describe it to people
differences in post-prandial
inflammatory responses to a modern versus traditional meat meal so this is
basically this is the kangaroo
this is kangaroo meat versus beef wagyu beef is that how you pronounce it i
think so okay so so uh you'd
recognize that marks in crp tnf alpha and il6 are inflammatory markers yeah
okay good so i just want to
point out that like 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 um kangaroo meat stuff like
that would be the way to go
by far well it just makes sense just to show you like there's look at the the
there's about half the
inflammation roughly coming from uh the wild core well that makes sense because
most of the time we're
dealing with when you're dealing with beef you're dealing with this grain-fed
unhealthy animal when you're
talking about wagyu beef that is that's a dying animal i mean if you saw a
person whose muscle
tissue looked like a wagyu steak you'd be like bro you got to get on a diet you
know i mean really but
if you saw like you know an athlete if you looked at an athlete's muscle tissue
would look like a piece
of elk most likely it would look very lean and healthy right and dense so
anyway i just wanted to
point out that one that shows a couple of things that shows that meat does
create inflammation i would
like to see this on grass-fed meat yeah as opposed to this feedlot no but even
if it matched the uh
you know the the kangaroo meat we're still seeing inflammation there and yeah
and certainly like
he said i agree if you're going to eat animal foods i think it's wise timing
wise to eat a lot of plant
foods with that those animal foods right well i definitely think if you're
going to eat animal foods you
should eat a lot of plants with it there's also a lot of benefits to it in
terms of fiber in terms of
your the bio microbiota yeah there's there's a lot of benefits to having these
fermented vegetables as
well you know things like uh kimchi and and having things that provide you with
good probiotics all
these things there's great benefit to a lot of plant foods yeah and people on
plant-based diets uh just end up
getting naturally getting more fiber for most people are deficient in fiber
right and if you look at like
the paleolithic period you'd be looking at like maybe 100 grams of fiber i
agree and very high fiber
intake and and and plant people on plant-based diets get more fiber than people
in on other diets as long
as you're eating healthy as we we both agree oh yeah pasta and pizza 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 i you and i would agree they're not eating the healthiest diet overall
§23Transcript · 1:46:01–1:50:41
overall vegan uh overall
completely plant-based people are the only people that have uh fall within the
recommended bmi range
the people get the most fiber bmi range body mass index is that what you're
talking about yeah yeah but
body mass it's not a great it's not a great measure that's a shitty one right
that makes me obese
right yeah yeah there's there's a lot of nonsense to that i agree i agree
generally that if if you look at
people who are on a vegetarian or vegan diet compared with people on the
standard american
diet then they're gonna have right and people healthier right but that's also
the standard american
diet if you take someone who's eating healthy plates of of broccoli and kale
and also has a piece of
grass-fed meat that's what i want to talk about i want to talk about people
following a conscious diet
no i totally agree i of course you're going to see markers like for example the
longest study on a paleo diet
right they had a two-year follow-up and they had improved they'd lost body fat
they had improved
blood markers what was really interesting is okay they were told to eliminate
dairy right so you cut
out dairy they were told to reduce their amount of or cut out completely um
processed plant foods like
white flour and sugar and all this type of stuff they were told to increase
their fruits and vegetables
and they were told to increase their meat consumption and they got you know
improved health markers all
across the board right now 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 so they kept their meat
recommendations
the same they got out a processed junk food right and trans fats and stuff that
you'd all agree
we should get out of our diet right they took out milk out of their diet and
they increased the
amount of plant foods so it's very clear that the benefit did not come from
increasing meat consumption
it came from increased plant food consumption or i think the benefit is
decreasing
bullshit right yeah it's a two-fold thing right you cut out things that are
inflammatory and you put in
things that are anti-inflammatory you cut out things that are low in
antioxidants you incorporate things
that are high in antioxidants so that was the major benefit it wasn't from this
from increased meat
consumption who's saying it is from increased meat consumption not me no i'm
just saying that was the
benefit of a paleo diet is going in a more whole food plant-based direction i
think that's what everyone
says the idea is that you eliminate processed foods you eliminate sugar you
eliminate these things that
are just filled but we know that it's not just it's a two-fold difference when
you incorporate whole plant
foods there's the opportunity cost so you replace your you're getting rid of
crap and in my personal
opinion and based on the consensus you're replacing both highly processed foods
and animal foods and you're
incorporating more whole plant foods and that is the scientific consensus is to
eat a predominantly
plant-based diet you could say the same thing about the benefits you see with
vegetarian and vegan
studies comparing with standard i agree i agree you're removing a lot of the
crap i agree but what
what studies have you got comparing um a neutral or diet to you know a whole
food plant-based diet we
don't have them so we have to infer and when we infer we have to rely on
experts that are experts in their field
right we don't we don't turn to to chris and go okay can you tell us more about
nutrition anthropology
and urology than all of these experts i think that's i agree you shouldn't just
listen to me but
i don't think it's genuine just 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 i agree with you that we
have no studies on that and we probably won't unfortunately in the near future
because right
especially for long-term outcomes right because you can't put people on for 40
years yeah they're not
going so we 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 i think there's enough in the
literature to show and
and the academy of nutrition and dietetics recognizes that completely vegan
diets are helpful for
all the life stages including for athletes um i think that there's sufficient
evidence to go 100
but i'm not telling people that they should be doing that i'm saying people can
eat whatever they want
but i think we both agree that people should be getting out junk food right
soda and trans fats oh by
by the way on trans fats um so that's why i asked you in the beginning of the
show what what your
position was because that's the fundamental question for me is that is this
question that we're talking
about right now right which is is there sufficient evidence to to suggest that
you know everybody most
people whatever you want to say should be on 100 or even 95 percent plant-based
§24Transcript · 1:50:41–1:55:10
diet versus a plant-based diet
that contains some animal products and my argument all along has been no there's
not sufficient evidence
right but you also think that you also think that a completely plant-based diet
is likely to be nutrient deficient
and all these other things do you know do you know his history do you know how
he started out as a vegan
yeah yeah and that's why i think that there's i think there's emotional ties i
think you've
my history is not relevant you know that's an n equals one in terms of what you
presented yourself
you said that i had like burst mood and like but i've also said so you there
are people acknowledge
that there are many successful vegans and vegan athletes you've invoked the n
of one and also you
didn't follow the scientific consensus about plant-based diets when you did it
so you chose a
macrobiotic diet and you chose a raw vegan diet just those were just two
iterations right but why did you
choose those when they weren't based on scientific consensus because i wasn't
this was 20 years ago
and i wasn't paying attention to to it and you traveled around the world and
you got sick and
you attributed it to the diet which may or may not have been i didn't attribute
it to the diet
that's what i don't even know why we're talking my my experience because it's
relevant because it shows
that like i don't know why you were vegan or vegetarian maybe it was for like
animal rights reasons
maybe you felt bad for going back to eating meat so now you need to feel to
prove like the reason that
you need to the reason you need to debunk the film is because you've got a
massive business selling
supplements and protein powders and giving diet advice so our film doesn't make
you almost there's
i make very very little money selling supplements james it's not a massive
business it's it's basically a
convenience for my patients that's i'm just saying overall my business is
basically training people
right but being a clinician there's no i have i don't profit from you know
selling and like animal
product you do you do indirectly because you advise this diet so the film was
very bad for you personally
because if people believed the film which you know like the the defense health
agency they review the
film they don't care about like this myth that we should eat in exactly the
same way as our ancestors
not that we even really ate that way but they don't care about that myth they
care that what is going
to be better for warfighter effectiveness and to cut the healthcare costs of
our military so they looked
at the science independently you think they're like the defense health agency
is full of vegans i mean so you
have the film has is is neither here nor there for me but that's what we're
here for that's what you
were trying to you said that the film the reason that i'm here is because and
the reason that i came
when joe invited me and i appreciate you can probably tell you that i it took a
few invitations to get
me here it is just to provide the other side of the the view here it's not
because it materially affects me
in any way believe me i've got lots of other things as i told you in the email
that i'm focusing on so
even like my nutrition team they spend full time either consulting elite
athletes or military personnel
or they're digging into the research like our chief science advisor eight hours
a day all he does is
dig into the latest research so what you come you come on to joe's podcast and
you're supposed to like
people are supposed to believe that you are the best person to because you say
it's about the
meta-analysis and you say it's about the totality of evidence we agree but you're
suggesting is that
people should listen to your interpretation of the evidence when you get things
factually wrong
people should make up their own minds based on the evidence that we that we
have have provided and
you don't even know how to read a basic forest plot and all that is my point
because you're not certified
and you're not you look i i okay i'm again i'm not a specialist in nutrition
like i would have liked to
have bring my uh i'd like to have brought david our chief science advisor who
knows a hundred times
more about nutrition than i do and you're coming on here telling people what to
eat you said yourself
you're not an expert in nutrition and you don't know how to read the
nutritional data let's talk about
some of the claims okay let's talk about protein let's talk about protein no we're
talking about the
film let's talk about the protein so is that fair we should get to right 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 i had the the
research checked and checked and checked again i had the research checked to
make sure that it was
not cherry picking that it was reflective of the preponderance of evidence but
who was checking it
were they people who were not advocates of a whole food plant-based diet
§25Transcript · 1:55:10–1:59:51
exclusively or were they people
like because all of the experts in the film are people who are clearly aligned
with this that
perspective i interview them because they're aligned with the consensus and no
and over half of the
people i thought you just agreed that there is not a consensus that a hundred
percent plant-based diet
is better than a diet that includes a lot of plants and some animal products
yeah so so where were the
experts that would represent that point of view that it doesn't have to be a
hundred percent plant-based
diet i agree it doesn't have to be a hundred percent the film said plant-based
diets we now i'll
tell you why we only interviewed vegans for the athletes right the ones that
actually spoke on on screen
and arnold is not vegan he doesn't drink dairy he thinks it's for babies and he's
cut down meat by 80
but all the people i mean you know uh nate is not 100 vegan he's on a largely
plant-based diet eats a bit
of uh seafood and a bit of stuff like that but all the people yeah eggs as well
so all the reason
that we only put and by the way we did interview lauren cordain and rob wolf
and i can get to that as
well if you want because the anthropologists laughed in their faces those are
not the claims that you know
we're i'm talking about scientists who published these you know who are on the
team to publish the
papers that i've shared yeah like like nutrex who are funded by the industry
and we can get no not
neutral that's disingenuous to claim that all of the research that that i've
shared here is fun is
industry-funded so we can't acknowledge it but your claim that like you know
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 right like you really want to go with that like
to me it feels like you
don't have your finger on the pulse honestly i'm not trying to be rude i think
you probably know a
lot about you think about that study well the nutrex study the study that said
that red meat
it's a nutrex study okay 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 apparently giving
recommendations well guess what exponent and nutrex and companies like that are
not the ones that give
public recommendations on what people should be eating number one okay and we
talked about this
in the film with exponent nutrex is like another exponent so if you look at
their recommendations
first of all frank who uh frank who is now the chair of uh nutrition at harvard
he took uh what will
its place said the panels blanket recommendations that adults should continue
to uh their red meat
consumption habits is highly irresponsible walter will it said it's the most egregious
abuse of data he's ever seen and if you want to follow their recommendations if
you could put up
uh slide 92 so they did the same thing in 2017 uh for the sugar industry so
there was a meta analysis
in the uh annals when you say they you mean the neuter same come so that well
so it was so 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 okay they're just exonerated red meat apparently and
processed meat so this is
the same company says at this 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 so they did a meta analysis saying that don't worry about your
intake of sugar at all
that was what their meta analysis conclusion it came to and then two years
later the day before the
kiln's get film came out and do you really think that's a coincidence do you
think that the so let
me tell you something okay the of our email subscribers do you know the email
address of the person
that opens and views our emails the most it's from the beef checkoff program
and they've been doing
that since we started so they signed up for our mailing list they look at when
the film is coming out
and you don't you think it's a coincidence that the day before us the film
comes out they release
a paper exonerating red meat and cancer and the same thing so if you're going
to buy into the neutral
rec study about red meat and cancer then to be fair you've also got to buy into
their conclusions about
sugar because they were paid i'll tell you who they were paid by okay so um so
financial support for that
paper was funded by the technical it's called this now listen to this sounds
great the technical
committee on dietary carbohydrates of ilsi north america and isi is the
international life sciences
institute sounds pretty legit right so its members include coca-cola hershey
company pepsi company and
red bull and a bunch of others folks looking out for your best interests that
should go
okay so it would be a problem if that was the only so do you know you just you
just you claimed all
§26Transcript · 1:59:51–2:04:10
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 i get you don't have the
time you you weren't able
to read a basic forest plot to look at statistical significance and confidence
intervals okay i just
don't think that you're the one to interpret the data so the reason you don't
have a you you haven't
seen the hundreds of 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 uh for
accepting this stuff from nutirex but if you're going to accept the meta-analysis
on red meat and on uh
processed meat for cancer then you've also got to accept the 2017 study meta-analysis
if you accept
the source if you accept the source they're both the same it's the same
nutrients okay so are you saying
only if the only meta-analysis that showed no association between red meat and
and heart
disease or cancer that would be highly problematic i'm talking about the one
first i'm talking about
the one that you cited you made out this is like okay second of second of all i
have pointed out the
funded uh industry-funded research is four to eight times more likely right
yeah to do and going back to
that dairy one by the way do you know that when they did their meta-analysis
they they doubled and
tripled and quadrupled up because when they looked when the the meta-analysis
that analyzed the meta-analyses
the multi-analysis included um the studies multiple times you see what i'm
saying yeah because they
took into account each time and so when the industry floods the scientific
research with their funded
studies again if they find a study it doesn't turn out studying other studies
and coming to the same
conclusion and adding those on as if it's an additional study is that what you're
saying uh no it's so look if the
industry fund studies and it only did you decide if you're in a beef industry
or a dairy industry
are you going to put out studies that aren't in your favor no right and you
also they don't have
to you spin it and so what you do is like if you want to make uh beef look uh
if you want to make
saturated fat look um okay or if you want to make cholesterol okay you can you
know you can switch
things around the study to make it look good if you want to like 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 if you give uh if you go from 10 eggs a week to 12 eggs a week it
doesn't raise your
uh serum cholesterol so that's how they did the study but if you go from no
eggs a week to one
egg a week it does increase your because there's something called the
cholesterol plateau so what
the industry does is it tricks you it does but then when you look at eggs and
outcomes like cardiovascular
disease you don't see well you do but we're getting off track i was just making
a point that industry
funded studies sway the results of the meta-analysis right and i think that's i
think that's fair and
it's done with the sugar industry and it's done with it was done with tobacco
and again i'm not comparing
the the amount of increased risk of cancer from tobacco that was never a claim
that was made it was the
playbook that is used by the drug industry by the meat industry by the sugar
you know by the sugar
industry uh by the dairy industry 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 if you're going to accept that if you're going to cite
that as evidence and
they're going to cite that the fact 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 that was not the
only study that i know
i know it's not i know it's there's many other meta-analyses 2010-15 we can
look at them
you know if well let's do that okay but can i just yeah let's do that
one let's look at those studies so but again they're funded you know they're
including studies
that are funded by industry and so unless you can pass those out and say is
that really
you're saying we can't rely on any study no i didn't say that that's the straw
man i said that
i said that you would really need to look at the way in which a study is
designed to see if it was
viable and you also have to replicate the studies you know like studies have to
be replicated and so what i'm
saying is so there's a can i just finish the last point now i'll let you show
as many studies as
you want because again you can show as many studies as you want you can't prove
that you're not hand
picking them to suit your bias you are the one that quoted this study it shows
that your finger's not
on the pulse because hundreds of like top scientists have written letters or
are joined in the same letter
to the alza internal medicine asking for those studies to be retracted and
§27Transcript · 2:04:10–2:09:40
there's now an investigation
into the annals of internal medicine yet you are citing an investigation it
doesn't prove nothing
has been it doesn't prove anything but it shows you i am i was aware of that
controversy and and you
can't but you can't even read forest plots it's not it's not it's not the
controversy is not surprising
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 so and do you
know who the that study
was funded by um but can you just put up slide 93 uh just as just to show that
um anyway so just it's
not just me saying this i mean the you know the scientists who traded the meat
guidelines didn't
report past food industry ties so that so that's because remember most people
are listening scientists
who discredited meat guidelines didn't report past food industry ties the lead
researcher bradley c johnston
said he was not required to report his past relationship with a powerful
industry trade group i don't know what
that trade group is but if you scroll down well you can't say it was a gem
there's oh it's a slide
i can tell you in the first one the sugar one it was that pepsi and all this
stuff although they make
it they they make a non-profit with a fancy sounding name right and then they
back it all with industry
funding same with the the meat study that that's why i don't understand why he'd
use it if you were
being objective like you're saying oh there's other studies but why name this
one as though it's got
validity because so you feel like they they concocted this study and released
it right before your film
i think it's likely that it was tied into the to the film but it doesn't matter
whether it is i'm
showing that to to to um 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 um who's part of the leadership team at
neutra recs he's the
advanced chancellor of dean and agriculture and life sciences at texas a m
right texas a m is
partnered with the beef checkoff program right and as part of neighbors uh and
this is also discussed
in the new york times slide 94 and there's actually it goes a lot deeper than
that it actually goes back
to um brazilian government but let's see slide 94. slide 94 is just talking
about research group that
discounted risks of red meat has ties to program partly backed by beef industry
so anyways so this
doesn't necessarily mean what they're saying is incorrect and this is where it
gets slippery right
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 it's a shitty company that chose it and
it handpicked which
studies are included analysis too because you've had plenty of time to explain
this yeah to get to your
point chris you agree with the founding with the 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
and the culprit is when you're looking at these epidemiology studies that you're
you're looking at
the overall diet of these people and asking them do they eat meat you're not
asking what is the quality of
the food they eat yeah so i agree that conflicts of interest are a problem and
i um and you know
the the editorial that was published in annals alongside of this study said um
this is sure to
be controversial but it's based on the most comprehensive review of the
evidence to date
because that review is inclusive those who seek to dispute it will be hard-pressed
to find appropriate
evidence so and who wrote that the meta-analyses had uh studies covering
millions of participants
over 34 years there are several other medicine analyses that have been done um
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
um
so 2017 let's see if i can give you the title jamie maybe you can google it or
something
contemporary review of the relationship between red meat consumption and
cardiovascular risk
quote from that study the review concluded uh 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 and recommended doses you have 2014 meta-analysis of 13 studies
um there it is again these
these are this one jamie is uh called association between total processed red
and white meat consumption all cause
cardiovascular disease heart disease uh mortality and this is a good uh example
of what you were just
saying joe there was a slight increased association um between red meat
consumption and cardiovascular mortality
um and then at the end no no significant associations observed between any type
of meat and and heart
disease mortality results of the present meta-analysis indicate that processed
§28Transcript · 2:09:40–2:14:43
meat consumption could increase
mortality these results should be interpreted with caution due to the high
heterogeneity observed in most of the
the analysis as well as the possibility of residual confounding meaning healthy
user bias uh lippy
in a meta-analysis of 11 studies of red meat consumption and heart disease
concluded the 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 and then um this is one of the
largest that was done let me give you the title of this jamie
um red and processed meat consumption and risk of incident coronary heart
disease that should bring
it up um that's by misha et al conclusion consumption of processed meat but not
red meat is associated with
higher incidence of heart disease the uh and diabetes these you know so there's
a bunch
um of meta-analysis that have been done over the years that reached the same
conclusion and we could
you know look at the same same this is for heart disease but there are also
some for cancer
so it's not just that study there are many others right as well there are many
analysis on the other side so
you can present studies here so the people that's true there are meta-analysis
on the other side
right and you can present you can present the data for the people listening and
it appears like the
proponent of sevens is that but your guidelines for diet they're not in
alignment for saturated fat
they're not in diet for cholesterol they're not in diet for the amount of
carbohydrates for normal people
they're not in line with the consensus for carbohydrates for athletes i've i've
said a range of
carbohydrates could be appropriate all i'm saying is you are not in alignment
with the scientific
consensus and you claim that we cherry-picked in the film right but you handpick
studies to back
up your bias 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 point out
yourself you can't even
read a forest plot so he reads conclusions right he reads conclusions in
writing
but has not looked at the actual data so you haven't been able to establish
when i was like
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 uh their funding was from and i'm
telling you that the
industry is funding studies to sway things in their favor and you point it
shows that you don't have
your finger there's no doubt about that why why didn't you point to those last
time you're why did you
point to an industry-funded study i have those before but in the last one why
why point out in
the new direct study you know when it was clearly invalid the scientists wait
wait wait not clearly
invalid it it wasn't representative of the scientific evidence they they handpicked
the studies that were
including they used the poor they used the grade method do you know what the
grade methodology i do
okay and it was and you think that's appropriate for assessing food rather than
supporting some
nutrition organizations right including well very few it's not a scientific
consensus
so what is the national academy of let's see here it just basically used the
methodology that wasn't
appropriate for looking at what they were looking at it's just the same with
the siri torino and the
chowdhury studies they they they they the what they were looking for could
never have been found the
association between saturated fat uh and cholesterol levels it could never have
been found based on the
methodology that they used but again we still agree with that we still haven't
got to protein and i
you know we'll get to that yeah let's go but let's see so so the it's
absolutely true i've never claimed that
there aren't studies showing correlating red meat with right so you showed up
so you show the ones that
you're i never have claimed that and i've said those those studies are highly
problematic for all of
the reasons that we i've talked about on the last show and on previous shows
healthy user bias problems
with data collection food frequency questionnaires relative versus absolute
risk uh confounding like uh you
know not looking at physical activity and the biggest confounder of all not
looking at diet quality
so i'd love to go to diet quality because i know you like to use matt lalon's
work which has never
been published which obviously was built in what i have not used matt lalon's
work in connection with
diet quality i'm talking about food patterns like healthy food pattern in terms
of nutrient density
which is a part of diet quality you have referred to matt lalon's work
we're going we can i'm happy to talk about that i'm talking about still the
problems with i'm still
talking about the the research on red meat being problematic because it doesn't
consider the overall
§29Transcript · 2:14:43–2:19:42
diet pattern right but again your views 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 there how can you be
you recognize that you have to look at the totality of evidence you have to be
able to dig in and look at
where the things are pointing you yourself said i am not an expert in nutrition
and you said and again
i'm not either and which is i don't even know why we're sitting here having
this discussion honestly
like we should get some real experts in we could do that too and i can you know
we can you can 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 i mean i don't even like to say size really because to me it's not
really my position
like i think your position is a lot better than the standard american diet the
opposition is really like the
carnivores right well your position yeah that's the opposite your position
though is in defense of your
film yeah i'm defending the film and i think in response to his critique and
how do you think i'm
doing so far well with b12 it was a home run for sure well i think there's lots
of other other things
but well the thing about we still haven't really shown whether or not there's
evidence that see that's the
problem with all this stuff when you're dealing with these epidemiology studies
you it's it's so hard to
figure out what's what i agree what what what are these people eating who are
these people are they
drinking are they doing drugs like what what what is the overall health quality
based on i agree and
that's why we look at how much of it is based on their diet so and that's why
we look at scientific
consensus could you just bring up slide one because do you agree with him or
you dispute what he's
saying about scientific consensus would you agree that you're not in line with
the scientific consensus
my my general dietary recommendations yeah probably some aspects of it but not
all aspects but generally
i mean come on i don't think that's what do you think the scientific consensus
chris what do you
think the scientific consensus is when it comes to dietary recommendations uh
well it's changed a little
bit in the past few years definitely was low fat although that is changing a
little bit i agree some
recognition of different fats different you know may have different effects etc
would be limiting red meat would be limiting saturated fat um limiting
cholesterol eating
a lot of plants and whole foods uh limiting you know limiting sugar and refined
this is a scientific
insight but hold on please what is that based on what do you think that's based
on
that's based on you know mostly observational research and then some mechanistic
studies
and some rcts but even rcts if you're comparing again like uh some of the
studies that are cited for
example in uh david goldman's papers they're comparing a standard american diet
with a plant-based diet
so in in a random in a crossover trial randomized trial that's not comparing
apples to apples but anyways to
get back to your question i would say about half of what i of what i recommend
is consistent if we use
the factors that i just said eating whole foods and uh not eating processed and
refined foods limiting
sugar all of that the areas where i differ are red meat saturated fat but not
always i think they're
that's individual and depends on how people actually respond to saturated fats
yeah um and eggs and
uh total fat content depending on legumes and grains i think they're they can
be part of a healthy diet if
they're well tolerated and you do think that like the research has shown a
whole food plant-based diet
versus standard american diet people are getting improvements on that yeah yeah
i think everybody
i definitely think there should be more standard american some people i've
found don't do well with
grains and legumes especially people with digestive issues so you know for them
maybe not but i don't i've
never argued well that uh grains and legumes are you know like i'm not a paleo
strict paleo kind of
advocate and you pointed out last time um i think it was ronda patrick that
talked about it too
obviously i watch your podcast and um you know you pointed out about these hormetic
stressors that we
talked about earlier and so you know these people that are talking about anti-nutrients
in food
they really don't know what they're talking about yeah because they don't know
what they're talking about
and yeah it's it's a really common thing and they're basically look the
landscape of food is enormous
the landscape of dietary requirements and of of health it's enormous and you
know just you talking
about spending thousands and thousands of hours combing over this research can
attest to that yeah
and chris i think you can as well i mean we're this is a very complicated issue
and there's a certain
amount of bio bio variability different people have different physical
requirements different
nutritional requirements but i think we're trying to zoom in on what is
§30Transcript · 2:19:42–2:24:20
actually bad for you and what
is actually good for you i think we agree on i think we all agree everyone here
agrees that you you
basically need a certain amount of vegetables in your diet 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 there's certain dietary requirements that i think we're all in
agreement on sure 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 you know why is it bad and what what is it bad when it sits alone or is
it bad when you're
eating it with vegetables which is what we're recommending in the first place
so if we're recommending that you
eat it with vegetables and these vegetables do have the 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
so we i think mostly we're in
agreement here you're you're defending your film well rightly so i think there's
a bunch of claims that
were untrue well clearly you've proven with the b12 issue he said some things
that made you look like
you were saying things that were inaccurate and uninformed and he's done that
with a bunch of other
things too though okay and so he did it with protein let's go to protein before
we get to that can i just
show what the consensus actually is on on diet yes okay so can you just bring
up slide one and i mentioned
this earlier but i didn't show it um so 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 because it's like not vegan necessarily like
mainly from plants yeah i mean
the proportions are a question mark there depending on and then the um actually
slide three would be uh
the fao the food and agricultural organization of the united nations
appropriately planned vegetarian
including this is fine this is academy of nutrition dietetics okay
appropriately appropriately planned
vegetarian including vegan diets are healthful nutritionally adequate and may
provide health benefits
for the prevention and treatment of certain diseases that's a weird the
appropriately planned is a weird
way of phrasing well it is and it's also a little bit unfair because it's sort
of it's sort of um
it sort of says like well if you if you eat an omnivorous diet it doesn't need
to be appropriately
planned to eat whatever the hell you want yeah that's a good point these diets
are appropriate for all
stages of the life cycle including pregnancy lactation infancy childhood adolescence
older adulthood and for
athletes so these women that you hear that are getting arrested because their
babies are malnourished
because they're following a vegan diet appropriately planned is the key yeah i
would agree with that
i said that at the beginning of the last of the show they're i acknowledge that
they're very healthy
high-performing vegans you know people on plant-based diets right if they do it
right and and if and if
someone wanted to take your advice would they have to do that right and plan
that or would it just be
like i think okay so sorry agrees that you have to plan out your diet if you
want to exercise
properly you've got to have a plan you've got if you want to eat properly you've
got to have a plan
right you've got a plan to go to the grocery store you've got to plan to get
the right foods there are
some nutrients that are of you know potentially bigger concern i think on vegan
vegetarian happy to
get into that so can we just show two more slides on the performance of
evidence so uh slide
three completely agree with appropriately planned okay good so so we recognize
that if you as long as you
plan it well you have b12 you get a wide variety of foods okay uh it's the same
one no no the slide
after that i meant for omnivores too like here we go we want people to be
thinking about what they're
eating totally and most people are eating a bunch of crap so here we go 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 that that's a
statement by frank who is the
current chair of nutrition at harvard looking at plant-based diets and
cardiovascular health
and then slide two is the fao sorry i got the slides in the wrong order is the
fao i don't know what messed
up with the doesn't look like that on my page 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 says 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
so all i'm pointing out here is that you're not in line with the consensus of
§31Transcript · 2:24:20–2:29:09
science and that you
don't have the ability to read the papers that's all i'm pointing out so i'm in
line with pretty much
everything that has been shown just just then there's only one of only one of
the paragraphs that you mentioned
even mentioned animal products and one and it didn't recommend excluding them
entirely so 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 helpful i say yes i agree i said
as much that vegan diets can
be healthful okay on the first show on the first thing uh show if they're
appropriately planned and i
don't know you know predominantly plant-based again if you look at the plate
and we see mostly plants
there and then animal products then yeah but that's that's talking about a bit
disingenuous calories i
don't you know so do you agree by calories then uh no okay so you're not in
alignment with the science
certificate consensus again i'm not in alignment with that because it's not not
on the predominantly
getting your calories from plants which is the scientific consensus you're not
with saturated fat and
cholesterol and a bunch of other things heme iron but anyway so can we get a
protein because we're
really here to defend like to defend his critiques of the film yes because you
know honestly i've got
people that watch the film changed their diet started feeling better watched
this podcast where he
debunks the film and then called me a lot you know like write me a message on
instagram saying you are
full of you shouldn't read comments it was actually it was an you know it was
an instagram like a message
don't read that anyway 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 you met he made a bunch of factually wrong
comments so let's talk
about let's get into the protein for sure
and again i like i'm not even the one that's qualified like if i'm beating him
on some arguments
like what do you think you would get if you had a real nutrition expert in here
like i'm not
qualified to do this i would like to see it okay so can i just your concerns
with the protein and just
make sure i'm understanding your argument protein quantity and protein quality
and within protein
quality it would be the amino acid profile and the digestibility is that fair
those are your
issues with those are the considerations okay protein are important we're on
the same page for
um what we're discussing right
so i i just don't know where and and again not saying that it's not possible to
get enough protein
quantity right and quality of and mix of amino acids in if you're really on it
right but it was well
planned just like if any other diet was well planned i think it's less it's
less likely that you'll get
protein right on a completely vegan diet without it is on a diet that contains
animal protein it's more
complicated uh it's not it's not more complicated what it is is if you just you
don't know yeah if
you don't know what you're doing and you've been eating 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
it's more complicated right exactly i think that's why we put resources on our
website level of knowledge
and understanding about that is pretty low in my experience right no i agree
and that's why i agree i agree
i think people people need more resources to make better informed decisions
about their health about their
exercise and so on i agree what's your position on what he said about protein
okay so you could this
i'm just quoting you from last time now you you really put me through a lot of
hours of uh extra work
now it's gone from like 3 000 to like 3 100 you know anyway so um there's just
so much wrong with
what you said that i just had to go into every single topic but anyway so three
ounces of you said
three ounces of 90 lean ground beef do you think the animal fat is not good for
you because all of
a sudden now chris is a that's not what he's saying he's talking about protein
content yeah but what was
the statement in the film film ground beef now reasoning that for protein
content no no no no no the
statement in the film was the most common um if you go to the store it's not it's
not it's not actually
not it's 80 you know anywhere from and grass-fed beef which is what i advocate
okay that's generally
leaner okay great but he was specifically talking about protein content no i
know that's what we're
going to go into right okay so listen to lean ground beef okay so but basically
what i had said and i
might become the exact words that i said but um i pretty much do because i
recorded it a number of
times so um one cup of cooked lentils or a peanut butter sandwich has about as
much protein as three
ounces of beef or three large eggs that was what i said okay i might be off on
§32Transcript · 2:29:09–2:33:29
a word but that was
what i said okay i said about as much protein okay so you go on to say three
ounces of 90 lean ground
beef well already what you did is you picked leaner beef but you know even
though you don't advocate for
that you you don't think the animal fat is bad so what you did is you picked
the leanest beef anyway
you say has 24 grams of protein i'm not sure what your source is but he does
advocate for grass-fed
beef grass-fed beef is leaner so if he's talking about what he does advocate
for that does make sense
it's right three ounces of ground lean meat okay but the thing is the point in
the film was that most
people weren't saying that most people yeah exactly you were saying i'm
defending what we said in the film
right so you were saying regular standard american ground beef has about as
much like it's about what
we're trying to point the point of this thing was not to say this is the best
foods to eat it was
just saying like you're making a comparison the regular stuff that you eat like
a peanut butter
sandwich people think no protein at all right they think you know people think
that plants have no
protein the first question you get asked well where do you get your protein
right so i said it's
got about as much protein so you say then oh and by the way i'd listen to your
30-minute
podcast trying to take down the film which came out before uh you came on on joe's
podcast 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
in what world does someone and you changed your tune a little bit when you came
on the podcast but in
when i make a peanut butter sandwich i use bread two pieces of bread how many
like is that you would
use two pieces of bread and peanut butter sandwich i think that's what i think
by definition right
it's pretty much sure so what you do on your podcast you admit that a
tablespoon of peanut butter is four
grams right okay and what is uh four times five 20. right and then by per usda
how much is uh one piece of
whole wheat bread um four or five depending on the source you look at i agree
how many pieces of bread
two yeah okay so five grams of protein in bread the one that i actually have at
home is six grams
but let's take usda okay so five five plus five is chris 10 plus 20 from the
peanut butter is 30.
well even on the leanest beef that you chose it was 24 grams why did you say
you needed five
tablespoons of peanut butter and i know how it came about because i think what
you do is you take
other people's work like denise minger and all these other people you read
their articles and you
take their arguments because some of the stuff that you're on your site is very
reflective of people's
other arguments on other sites so there was something that started where people
started saying you need
five tablespoons of peanut butter and in the first article it said without the
bread now i don't know why
you don't include bread in when you make a sandwich because i mean most people
do it's not
just peanut butter 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 because the one i
had i looked at it
and it was surprising like when you actually measure a real tablespoon it's
actually not that much peanut
butter and like so mine i've figured out has about like two and a half um
tablespoons and two pieces
of bread my bread has like six grams but my so my people are like 22 grams of
protein anyway white bread
would be more like two or three grams but again like we showed a piece of whole
wheat bread on there
we're advocating eating mostly whole foods that's a whole grain no one is
saying we even said in
the film you know if we wanted cherry pick we just try and push plants we said
white sugar and flat white
flour bad for you it was associated with weight gain like carbohydrates from
whole food sources
are associated with uh better lean body mass lower body fat percentage and
everything else but anyway
so i don't understand your math what i think you did is you took that article
because articles that
spread from that article forgot to put the bit in parentheses about without the
two pieces of bread
so you take five tablespoons of peanut butter at four grams a piece that's 20
grams right which
is around what two pieces of bread 10 grams so why did 24 grams of your hand-picked
um lean
beef which you don't even necessarily like there's no reason that you should be
picking that one
that's not what we showed in the film why are you comparing 24 grams to 30
grams why didn't you say
four tablespoons of peanut butter fair enough fair enough got it wrong
it wrong again okay so this is what it's frustrating when i watch the show
because like every five
minutes i'm hearing something that's just factually incorrect well that's why i'm
§33Transcript · 2:33:29–2:38:37
here that's why i'm
here now again appreciate the both of you so can we just look at actual the
breakdown of all these
different uh things so again the peanut butter sandwich is 22 22 grams but that's
maybe a little
bit more than the other argument was the quality of the protein we'll get to
that but quantity first so
if you go to bread uh on slide five i don't need to do this you've agreed you've
agreed right okay so
and lentils if you're under slide eight oh no no sorry what you haven't agreed
on is i'm going to say
two tablespoons of peanut butter and two pieces of bread okay fair enough say
for what i'm just going to
say like the comparison roughly i mean you can put a bit more protein protein
content yeah i'm just going
to show okay so three three tablespoons so can you just three and a half
tablespoons of peanut butter
and two pieces of bread no no no no i'm going to show you how i'm going to show
you i'm going to back
up what i said in the film so let's just go through the slides quickly if that's
okay so slide five
and apologies to all the listeners who don't get to see all my slides tell them
to go to youtube yeah here
we go so what this is uh usda so i don't know where you get the numbers from
but i went to the usda site
unfortunately it changed in october so it's not quite the same as when we were
making the film but
anyway one uh slice of bread uh five grams of protein and you accepted that
right okay good uh the peanut
butter two tablespoons eight grams you accepted that you expect that um two
tablespoons of peanut butter
has eight grams yeah okay we could have more i have like more but whatever okay
here we go so you
agree that 18 grams of protein for the peanut butter that's the sandwich we
showed in the film whole
wheat bread peanut butter okay so the next slide um and again i'm being very
conservative on this like
in the amount so now we look at lentils one cup 17.9 grams of protein that is
usda again would you
accept that yeah i haven't looked at this but but i mean it's like it's like
yeah i know that in the
large you can on the left side one i accept usda is absolutely okay good but
you accept usda when it
comes to this but not in terms of recommendations we're talking about yeah if
we're talking about
quantity of you accept okay okay okay so we're on the same page this is
something that's been clearly
measured this is not something like recommendations no okay sure so but we're
on the same page we're
taking this as a source okay okay so now if we go to slide uh uh nine uh no
sorry the one that you just
had um the one with the eggs yeah yeah yeah there we go so three eggs um 18
grams of protein would
you say so far we've got about as much protein in the peanut butter sandwich
with two tablespoons not
the five that you claim it's less i mean 18 is not 24. no no no no i'm not
saying i'm getting to
the beef 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 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
okay but you'd admit
that you can get bread that's got six grams of protein sure okay so i'm being
really conservative
just to sort of prove a point but you so far we've had a peanut butter sandwich
with only two
tablespoons of peanut butter and when seriously you try that at home joe like
actually measure
it with a measuring yeah well i talked about in the podcast i would probably
have about five
okay so um anyway i probably would too three large eggs three large eggs okay
so the 18 grams so now
we go to organic this is organic ground beef um standard organic brown three
ounces so three ounces
is 17.5 grams if you want to if you want to get into it we can get into like
because let's put 100 grams
so i can if you what's the fat percentage uh 9.2 grams
so it's half half no no no sorry it's 9.2 grams per 100 grams see we had to do
the calculation
oh but that okay but this is the regular organic ground beef if you go this in
the neighborhood of
and then what to be facts i knew you'd bring up a grass-fed beef so that i
found the lowest and the
highest okay okay so go to grass-fed beef slide 11.3 ounces this is on the very
low end so this would
probably be the fattiest meat but you wouldn't be against uh animal fat right
not typically depends on
the person and they're just talking about protein here anyway so lowest 14.4 on
the highest end i actually
think my number 18 grams okay so peanut butter sandwich 18 grams lentils 17.9
can we round that
up yeah three eggs 18 grams okay um three ounces of beef 18 grams at best right
when i looked up grass-fed
beef so it's essentially saying i'm not saying i'm not saying if you go 90 lean
you can have more protein
no doubt so you can find protein that's got higher i said about i was trying to
show that dispel the
myth that you you know plants have no protein and animal foods have all this
protein so i've just shown
§34Transcript · 2:38:37–2:43:28
you there now your second point was that the problem with um his second point
was the problem with a
peanut butter sandwich to get 18 grams of protein i think this is a fair point
you would have to eat
410 calories right so if you go to slide 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 no
no no but i just want to
go to uh quantity so can we finish quantity can we finish quantity so so can
you like bring up slide 15
so you'd admit that you can get like a decent amount of protein your argument
was you can get like
percentage so slide 15 the lentils for 18 grams of protein again if you want to
check this calculation
stop at any time i'm fine i have had this triple checked okay 18 grams of
protein 231 calories okay
because you like point i love that people like to point out the beef and then
the peanut butter
sandwich and try and compare those even though we were right on the protein now
you're trying to
pick on the calories so you didn't pick the lentils which have 231 calories uh
the next one uh slide 16
has which is about the same for beef which is about 210 calories grass-fed beef
in the first instance um
grass-fed beef in the first in slide 17 275 calories and that was on the the
one that wasn't so lean and
70 lean beef and i'm just pointing out there's different ranges um uh 417
calories for 18 grams of
protein right so fatty meat which you don't think fat like the animal fat is
bad right no okay so so so
so he's talking about the protein percentage there was less in my peanut like
there was more protein
percentage wise in my peanut butter sandwich than there was in the in the green
beef and then the
last no not the last one yeah we could have picked something with less calories
so if we pick tempeh for
example slide 19 um 170 calories so again would you say but i think his
argument was yeah the the argument
was the quality of the protein no no no no there was two arguments yeah the
part of it was you would
have to consume more calories okay but just before can i just prove it at one
point yeah so the first
part was you can't like you can't there's nowhere near as much protein and then
there was like oh it's
based on the calories so the percentage of protein is you would have to have
more calories to get the
same amount of protein which is not true you don't have to you don't have to
okay so we made a
mistake again that was not a central part of my argument no but it was a part
of it it was a part of
it though quality yeah it was quantity and quality and the quantity was broken
down to two things you
just can't get as much for like you know you just can't get as much in that
serving they're totally
wrong you'd have to have five tablespoons of peanut butter totally wrong agree
agree that you don't have
to have five tablespoons right thank you 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 agree
um for the peanut butter sandwich or just in general just in general from plant
foods
yeah i agree that you don't need to have 600 calories of of lentils right so
can we get um
slide 20 sweet potato and leak omelette from chris's site where the protein is
coming so this is from your
site 18 grams of protein 410 calories the funny thing is i typed in recipes and
i think this was either first or
second came up all i do is pick the first two high protein recipes from your
site uh because i didn't
pick the soup or the salad so that'd be unfair so i picked the first couple so
sweet potato and leak
omelette the protein coming from eggs 18 grams of protein 410 calories do you
have an issue with your
own meal no so do you have an issue with the peanut butter sandwich having 410
calories
no okay second one like i said that wasn't central to my point there was a
second there's a secondary
argument the same and not the same quantity which is not which is not which you
just admitted it's not
quality which is the ds score we'll get to the ds score in a minute and i will
show that you were wrong
again so taro and bacon hash slide 21 18 grams of protein 570 calories 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
i didn't take usda i assumed that you were not lying so i took the uh the totals
from the bottom and
but i standardized it for 18 grams of protein because we're just comparing
everything percentage wise
688 calories do you think that people should not eat that meal uh it depends on
who you're talking
about but no it's low it's low protein it's low protein right i don't think
that people shouldn't
eat it is it is it low protein uh you can't rely on that for you can't rely on
that for your protein
right so first of all it's low protein by like most people's standards but your
standards of protein are
much higher so that would be far off 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
§35Transcript · 2:43:28–2:48:08
buy the protein
powder from your website in order to make that up anyway so let's move on to
now the by the way
slide 23 largest study ever done comparing uh completely plant-based eaters
with um like study
showing plant eaters versus me 75 grams a day that was the average aren't you
supposed to have one
gram per body weight per pound of body weight no you're not like that's at the
upper end for athletes
okay yeah it's 0.8 grams this is this is how much they were actually getting
the largest study ever done
comparing plant-based eaters so you can see it's about the same and actually
per pound of lean body mass
fat-free mass the vegans were getting slightly more because they had better uh
body mass index they
were slightly leaner but anyway i just want to say it's roughly similar so your
next argument was that
athletes need more protein it's like right no it wasn't an argument because you
admitted that i
pointed it out in the show yeah so if you go to slide 20 no uh 24 i just want
to point and point
about the amount that we're actually required we're going into the amount now
we're still we're in um
yeah we're in amount for athletes because because his point is like maybe you
can get enough to
survive but not to be an athlete so i'm going to look at i don't think that was
his point i think his
point was that there's a different requirement no no no no no for athletes yeah
there's a different
requirement just to survive we weren't arguing on this point your point is you
need more his
recommendations though what he does is he pushes them to a really high end that
isn't consensus
showing that then trying to make it out that it'd be harder to get which we've
already shown you can
get enough protein for for you know of course an athlete eats more calories
therefore they get more
protein as a percentage so i just wanted to show two positions on um this and
then we can see if you
again you don't agree with the consensus of science so this is the uh joint
position paper of the
academy of nutrition and dietetics the dietitians of canada and the american
college of sports medicine
so this is for athletes okay this is just one i'm going to show you another in
a second
do you want to read it out joe because sure you might get bored of my voice
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 for kilograms per day
okay and then the next
slide uh jamie if you could bring up slide i have i agree with that and have it
in my yeah okay i just
want to make sure we're on the same page okay protein supplementation beyond a
total daily protein
take of 1.2 grams kilograms a day wait is the wrong one why are you where are
you reading that from the
big square protein you said 1.2 no i said 1.6 didn't i okay no you said 1.2 to
2 grams you read the
the thing from the last thing how did i do that did i really do that that's
pretty genius that doesn't
make any sense okay so this is what was in front of me right can you read it
again yeah oh okay i
thought i read 1.6 i didn't that's what you heard you're 1.6 oh maybe i thought
you said 1.2 to 2.
well no worries either way no worries protein supplementation beyond a total
daily protein
intake of 1.6 uh the squiggle means about oh okay about 1.6 grams kilograms a
day during ret
resistance exercise training provided no further benefit on gains in muscle
mass or strength and these
like really highly um and and if you look at the and i'll i'm not i'm not i'm
not going to 1.6 kilogram
a kilogram is two pounds of body weight 2.2 2.2 so we're 1.6 grams so it's less
it's 0.727272 grams per
pound if you want so you're looking at about three quarters of a gram per pound
recommended anything
over that provided no gain yeah but i want to clarify so you can see the uh the
um uh the two-phase
breakpoint analysis on the top right this chart yes okay so you can see that
you can see as the
chart goes up and then it flattens out there was no further gains in fat free
mass which is the y-axis
after 1.6 however there's a something called a confidence interval like how
confident are they
that these findings are correct and it was a very wide confidence interval so
it actually took it there
was six grams either side so it was actually up to 2.2 and down as low as one
so it's one to 2.2 the
other one the academy nutrition nutrition dietetics and the academy of sportsmen
is 1.2 to 2. so the
widest range is 1 to 2.2 so some so you think that this like recommendation
that's a standard thing
that you hear in a gym one gram per pound of body it's probably just no that's
legit that's legit at
the upper end so 2.2 grams on the upper end the 2.2 grams per uh uh per
kilogram of body weight per day
is one gram per pound of body weight so no doubt and this is what you're
talking about certain
athletes like bodybuilders strength athletes but the confidence interval means
§36Transcript · 2:48:08–2:52:53
to apply to everybody
some people could actually build optimum and this is about optimally building
muscle as fast as possible
right uh 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 is that and you said that you agree
with these ranges
of the scientific and there's some evidence suggesting that higher amounts may
be beneficial so if you go to
uh or jamie if you search for examine.com um how much protein do you need there's
an article there
and examine.com is a do you know about about them so i know who they're on a
panel of scientists
or a group of scientists a group of scientists right not not the american
college of sports medicine or
uh the indicator indicator amino acid oxidation method which is newer um if you
scroll down jamie to the
um optimal daily protein intake for athletes and similarly active adults or if
you just click on
that um you see in that paragraph uh iao studies and athletes found different
numbers because four of the 49
studies in the meta-analysis meta-analysis that had that range uh lower range
were conducted in people
um with resistance training experience the other 45 were newbies iao studies
found different numbers
female athletes required 1.4 to 1.7 uh male endurance 2.1 to 2.7 amateur male
bodybuilders
but this seems the same it says the average amount of protein required he's
probably going to get some
higher ones maximize lean mass is about 1.6 grams per kilogram it's the same
exact like we don't even
need to argue it it's like totally accepted in the sports world like whatever
but it also says some
people need upwards of 2.2 grams per kilogram for those interested in
comprehensive breakdown
it provides another link so we're in the range we're not far off on this it
says regular training male
endurance athletes require 2.1 to 2.7 grams per kilogram so that's the high
range yeah and so and
you could you did say something about 2.3 to 3.3 in one and remember in one
study you pointed out that
was just doesn't actually help you build more muscle mass but if you're trying
to lean out yeah and also i
think some of the studies that you've looked at that look at um like there's
one at 2.3 i've actually
got it on my computer i don't have in my slides but there's one at 2.1 to 3.3
you've got a mo there's
two things about that one it's when you're in a caloric deficit because of gluconeogenesis
you pull
some of the protein and you create you know you use some of the energy so there's
less protein less
for building so if you're a bodybuilder cutting for competition trying to get
down to like four or
five percent then your protein requirements go up above that's the normal range
because you're you're
basically using you're in caloric deficit you're using something for fuel and
that's also the case
with those carnivore people and a lot of keto people as well right 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 uh the oxidation of protein into glucose but so the um where are we
going so the 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
it's not based on total body weight which is what all the recommendations are
on so the the 2.3 to 3.1
in some of these studies if you did like okay if someone's 15 body fat right it
would bring it down
right it wouldn't be 2.3 to 3.1 it's 3.1 based on fat-free body mass so if you're
200 pounds and
you've got 20 body fat right you only weigh 160 pounds for this calculation got
it anyway um where we
are so you like to talk about the iao in terms of these recommendations and if
you look at slide 102 jamie
how am i doing by the way defending the film excellent you're really doing
really well good
not bad for a dumb old ufc fighter right you're not that old 41. going great i
just thought look
at what i did look what i did to the top of my head this morning i cut it i
just started the last
couple months i started shaving it with it how much protein can the body use in
a single meal for muscle
building implications for daily protein distribution showed upward of uh c1 of
2.2
grams for kilograms a day in cohort of young male bodybuilders although the
method of assessment
indicator uh amino acid oxidation technique used in this study has not received
universal acceptance
for determining optimal protein requirements so it's in that same range so i'm
not yeah but i'm
what i'm a couple things i'm not trying to point out that your iao is off i'm
saying if you want to take
your io uh the indicator amino acid oxidation index if you want to use that
then the upper
confidence level is still 2.2 so the scientific consensus i just want to like
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 first of all i've shown that foods can get that i've shown that vegans
§37Transcript · 2:52:53–2:57:21
can get sufficient protein
and i've shown that um i've shown the levels that like the scientific consensus
on the protein ranges for
athletes are not inside the consensus with these 3.3 but even if they were
there's no reason you
couldn't get it on a on a plant-based diet i didn't argue that everyone should
be eating 3.3
grams no but you but you did you made out that vegans couldn't get enough
protein and you were wrong
i didn't say they couldn't get enough i said that it's less likely that they
will get it but it's not
though if they eat like some of those recipes on your website they'll be
getting less
so you're being disingenuous chris you you like well the first recipe was that
was sweet potatoes
right was it no it was uh had eggs in it it was a second one oh no it was a
sweet potato and leak
omelette it was a taro and bacon hash and then it was breakfast of champions
with milk yogurt and eggs
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 and then they thought
the quality is not good
enough and now we can get into that let's get into that let's get into that
because this is the crux
of it right yes it's like you can get all these amino acid content of protein
first of all b12 is
an argument smash that protein is the next argument i've just smashed the
protein quantity argument and
now we'll get into the quality we certainly smashed the protein quantity versus
caloric uh intake 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 well based on what you presented you
haven't lost an argument
yet there's not one thing that you've said that that thank you that's incorrect
and i even agree
if you're going to eat some meat should be some elk that you went and hunted
yourself
so let's get into that oh yeah love this i was like really like doing like
researching for this i really
enjoyed it because there were so many flaws that i was just like i i love i i
was a truth seeker right
so i went for the search for the truth in combat you know bruce lee would say
research your own
experience absorb what is useful reject what is useless add what is
specifically your own i don't
care about all the the george dillman you know bs about you can knock people
out i don't care about
that i don't care about all these traditional styles of martial arts i care
about what is the truth
before i did this you know i thought oh yeah paleo diet makes sense i actually
switched to grass-fed
beef food because the omega-6 omega-3 ratios i started eating air-chilled
chicken 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 and that is the
truth and that is what i have
done and now we're going to expose how you were incorrect about the protein
quality so you said
what's a little disingenuous about the film they said every plant has every
amino acid well yeah nobody
disagrees with that but it does have uh does it have enough of each of them
well first of all people
do disagree with that like if you want to search does uh you know plants have
missing amino acids people
think that it's missing some of the nine essential amino acids so that's why we
put that in the film
okay and we did and i said you left off part of my quote i said every plant has
every amino acid that's
what you said but you left off the end of my quote which said every plant has
every amino acid in
varying proportions that is what i said and you left out the invariant
proportions which again i think
is disingenuous he did not complete my quote you hand picked part of my quote
to represent your view
so people number one do think that plants are completely so a lot of people
think just like you know
that people there's articles saying well no one thinks that protein gives them
energy 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 so
people were saying like
why did you put that in the film that's a straw man people don't think the
protein gives the energy
about 50 of collegiate athletes think that protein gives you energy that's why
addressing the film
anyway back to you like the dias right the disturbed adjustable indispensable
amino acid score or the pdc aas
which preceded it yeah either of those right so can you can you just mention um
why you like it and
you know what the benefits are and how it's determined how is it determined
so the benefit the dias takes into consideration amino acid profile and bioavailability
okay and how
is it how is it how is it how is it as does did not take into consideration
right it looks at crude
protein it looks at the total amount of protein absorption not the individual
amino acids because
§38Transcript · 2:57:21–3:02:03
different amino uh different immediate different individual amino acids
absorbed differently so
that was one of the benefits of the ds scoring we call it ds and pdcast or
whatever so but how is it
determined chris do you know how it's determined the ds yeah i don't know the
details
so i'm sorry i'm sorry it's like it's just it's like it's almost like comedy
that someone is talking
about these systems that does not know how okay so slide 27 and i'll tell you
one of the benefits of
the dias so and i think you might have mentioned this so i think you might know
more than your
um letting on so one of the benefits is the oro ileal digestibility so the pdcas
right that took
the whole digestive tract to what came out of the end are we looking at here so
look at this so this
is how the dias is is um brought about so basically past the ileum you can't
digest your body doesn't
absorb the protein really it's digested by the bacteria right so this is one of
the benefits of
the dias versus the pdc aas right the old system is that they saw how much
protein went through
the whole digestive tract but that wasn't reasonable right because past the ileum
you're not digesting
the protein the bacteria dressing and you're not getting it does that make
sense yes so basically
they put a pore in the pig now pdcas was mostly in rats and um this is done in
rats and there's some in
humans uh but it's mostly done in pigs because it's a more similar digestibility
to humans and they're
basically assessing how much of that protein was absorbed right and how much of
the amino acids were
absorbed 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 uh
profile requirement different so some people would say therefore dias bunch of
crap right i'm not going
to make that argument even though it's you know it's testing animals primarily
not in humans they've got
a different amino acid requirement and different digestibility capability okay
so i mean would you think that
that score is the best one to use for humans it doesn't make sense right but i'm
not going to even
make that argument i'm going to go with you and say okay ds is the best thing
out there okay okay so
even though you can question it so um you've said this is a quote from last
time when you were trying
to bash the film it's all about protein quality and this as you said is an
established science a firmly
established science he was talking to you obviously and you must have said it
was established 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 okay now the fao the food and agricultural organization of the
united nations
what is their purpose chris to prevent nutrient deficiency thank you developing
countries yeah so
hunger 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 like the nation you know the like 130
more than 130 countries
right where people are starving malnutrition that is their purpose so you've
got to look at it through
the lens of that so uh if you can just put up slide 29 because i just want to
bring back these
claims up i know the slides are getting kind of boring and again apologize for
people just listening
but research focusing on protein malnutrition was largely conducted after the
identification of
quashior core and the realization that many children globally are suffering
from subclinical protein
malnutrition to address protein malnutrition the composition and digestibility
of proteins must be
determined okay so if you go to the next slide and this is by the way that was
looking at the ds score
you know you can see at the top can the ds score uh decrease protein malnutrition
then they go on to
say uh joe do you want 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 the previous their previous
method okay so we're not
in a disagreement right now i'm even going to forego like i'm not going to
argue about the animal having
different amino acid requirements or even though that's like that's pretty
funny right like why are
you assessing anyway so i'm not going to have that argument 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 over the dias
okay over the pdcast okay so now in slide uh 31 it's made for starving children
okay this is what it's made
for 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 yeah let's
§39Transcript · 3:02:03–3:06:58
just say it's legit i would agree i would say eat get your protein from meat i
would agree because
that's what it was designed for as you can see in looking at uh 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 personal athlete so it
wasn't designed for
that system 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 okay so
so would you recognize that it wasn't developed for that system yes based on
the scientific literature
but you're inferring it now for the amount that i still think it's a relevant
measure of protein
quality because it is amino acid profile and digest illial digestibility yeah
it is it is in starving
country when people are starving i agree but as you can see it's not just this
is not looking it's still
looking at amino acid profile right do you concede that it's looking at the at
the relative content
of amino acids in a particular food yes and it's looking at the ileal digestibility
which i think
is an improvement over the p 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 but right you agree probably
10 years from now probably
have a better system imagine okay but it's the best that it can kind of go off
but again it looks at
and it's not just my opinion that it's not used for that 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 the in
february right have you seen this article i have not seen this particular
article so so basically can
you look at the now in the 2018 journal of international sports of sports
nutrition slide 32 society of sports
nutrition because you like to say it's all about muscle protein synthesis right
that's an important
factor okay it has been proposed that muscle muscle protein synthesis is maximized
in young adults with
an intake of 20 to 25 grams of high quality protein about that the squirrel's
about about 20 25 grams of a
high quality protein high quality protein okay do you disagree that like eating
four or five times a day
at um 20 to 25 grams of high quality protein way be like whatever you want to
take high score
whatever under your you know the scoring system you agree with do you agree
that that is the amount to
maximize possible when it shows that that does for a four hour window acute
muscle protein is this
yeah the most of the sports uh organizations suggest that for acute protein
right intake but if you now
i again i'm going with the consensus so if you take that 20 to 25 grams four or
five times a day
multiply that what is that that's 80 to uh 100 about 120 grams of protein a day
is that is that enough for
a big athlete protein is that enough for like a 250 pound athlete i would say
no so i'm not i'm not saying
that it is i think you need more protein than that right so muscle protein
synthesis is only one
factor right can you tell me what the other factors are tissue regeneration and
repair recovery right
yeah yeah okay so i think we're on 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 you call acute short term
that's been shown to
maximize muscle proteins in this 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 because basically you're
hitting two
things you're hitting leucine you're getting 1.82 point uh 1.82 grams of leucine
which is basically
like a foreman right it's like telling the others like hey you should build
protein if you don't have
any leucine and 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 that's
what leucine is so you're
getting enough leucine and you're getting 8 to 10 grams of essential amino
acids that is what is
important in the acute stage of uh muscle proteins is this you're getting 8 to
10 grams of and we can
get more granular around like it's you know 0.0 grams per pound of body weight
but it's this is basically
accepted in fact they've shown that like even if you're 400 pounds you know you
probably you probably
don't need even more than 20 25 grams for some reason there's something in that
number about
getting the leucine amount it doesn't really matter how big you are you know
there's a small percent
of people that say you might need a bit more 2.5 or whatever but consensus is
is this 20 25 grams
and i'm sorry this is like long but it's like it's important to like break down
okay so
so by the way just going back to your deer scoring you're basically looking at
like a 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
§40Transcript · 3:06:58–3:11:32
system
for for like ib jjf or whatever that doesn't mean that that's the best scoring
system for mma right
is that fair sure yeah you could get points for like yeah whatever okay so
essentially and this
isn't just my opinion okay this is scientific uh literature not an article that
you just pulled
on on examine.com but that's not how science works you don't just pull up an
article so slide 33
and it's very clear this is just very obvious it's not it can't it cannot just
be about
short-term acute muscle protein synthesis right it can't be because you wouldn't
be hitting the
1.6 the 2.2 so this states um acute anabolic responses are not necessarily
associated with
long-term muscular gains 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
okay so you agree that it's not just about short-term muscle places okay so
what it is joe it doesn't
matter at a certain point it doesn't matter because yeah if let's say you're
gonna have four times a
day and let's say you're gonna have 160 grams of protein and you have 40 grams
right of protein four
times a day that's 160 grams so if you're going to optimize muscle mass and by
the way like how much
how much muscle have you put on in the last 15 years no i'm not sure well me
and like i put on
none right basically i'm about the same right but anyway let's just say that
you're a bodybuilder and
you and we're talking about like stack on you're trying to stack on as much
muscle as possible because
that's like even like when i get like i'm like 190 193 maybe sometimes like if
i go over 200 i just
feel slow i feel slow with the hangar and i feel like i just feel slower
punching like whatever so it's not
everyone's goal is to optimize muscle mass as quickly as possible right but let's
say that your goal is
right clearly it's not enough to do that you have to hit the 1.6 to 2.2 grams
right right once you hit
that amount you have to do two things you have to hit the muscle the the short-term
leucine threshold
and amino acid in the short term right and then you have to hit the um what are
you doing james it was
on this um so what you have to do two things you have to maximize the muscle
post instances in the
short term and you have to get enough protein during the day right of 1.6 to 2.2
is that fair
okay so once you hit the 1.6 to 2.2 let's say you have 40 grams it doesn't
matter you follow me you
even quoted uh so it doesn't matter the amino acid profile of the food is that
what you're saying no
because as long as you hit the essential amino acid amount and the leucine
amount in the four
and you can hit the leucine amount and the amino acid amount in virtually all
of these vegan forms
of protein is that what you're saying no no if you're having like first of all
you could do it
with like if you do beans rice and vegetables yeah you'd hit uh two grams of
protein for like 570
calories now again you could like you know that most athletes supplement right
yes like i can got
slides if you want scientific proof but you would accept that like an elite
athlete even more so it's like
over percent so people are supplementing with protein powder anyway they're
supplementing with branch
chain amino acids because it contains lucy nice elite athletes are yes well no
over 50 percent are
supplementing with protein powder and a higher percentage of athletes just
athletes period yeah
okay and high elite athletes are supplementing even more it's probably more
like 90 so like if your goal
is to like do something and like take creatine or um you know a protein like
you know these athletic
endeavors like you pointed out the thing that patrick does and we can get into
that by the way the
misrepresentation of um from robert ohurst of us into his um you know patrick's
records if you want
because there was a lot of claims that were made that were completely false
again um 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 proteins into this and like all of a sudden he's like oh you're
saying there's no benefit in
animal protein for an amino acid profile versus plant protein no i'm not i'm
not uh not if you're getting
enough protein so you're saying if you're getting enough protein for anyone
there's no benefit okay
i'm even talking about but if athletes and you're getting the ratio of as you
have acknowledged of
the right ratio of plant proteins no no no it's very it's not difficult at all
like i'm talking
about leucine if you were like if you were really messing up and eating like
people just don't eat
healthy you might not get enough leucine but like if you're planning to become
as big and as
strong as possible and you're dedicated do you need a specific workout plan but
this is only assuming
that you're taking supplements so we're assuming everyone's taking supplements
§41Transcript · 3:11:32–3:16:19
to achieve no no i'm saying
not at all no no you can do it with supplements and i'm not like you're not
assuming that people
are taking supplements no you can do it but are you assuming that people are
taking supplements no
on these guidelines okay you can do it on a whole food diet plant-based diet
with with just food
with b12 like just supplement b12 nothing else you can achieve the same amino
acid profile as meat
yeah i mean i want to touch on that i'm not saying that the only thing but that
is the argument
right that was what you said 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 i just want to
like don't want to like
throw everybody should do that anyway anyway particularly d3 okay so what i'm
saying is as long as you
get that amount of protein and again if you're eating um if you're exercising
to optimally build muscle
you're exercising a fair bit right yes you're burning more calories right right
so you eat more calories
i don't think i don't know where my slide is we're deep into the woods here and
this is getting really
confusing no i know but the question was but this is what his assertion was
that the amino acid profile
of meat is superior yeah it is the amino acid profile it is in context in that
is what it's important
when you look at the fao and the goals that they're doing to try and stop world
hunger it is not important
in the western world number one and not important if you're an athlete and
hitting the right but you're
getting between 1.6 to 2.0 grams per kilogram so what you're saying is that as
long as you're getting this
1.6 to 2.2 grams per kilogram yeah of protein whether it's lentils or peanut
butter or so that
you have enough amino acids to achieve the desired results yeah and it's
essentially the exact same
as if you're hitting that 2.2 grams if you're getting 2.2 grams it doesn't
matter is relevant
do you think that's true uh 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 getting
making sure you're
getting enough leucine which is low you wouldn't have to try but it's like it's
really unfair you're
saying is low yeah i would say leucine is lower and i agree but there's a
certain quantity that you will
achieve there's a plateau so it doesn't matter once you've got that amount
right the other point that
you had about protein quality is digestibility so that's the last point that i
want to address okay
how am i doing good okay so uh slide 34 because you basically claim that okay
even if there are
enough amino acids you can't digest it as well okay more precise data collected
the more precise data
collected so far in humans assessing real specific oral ileal nitrogen digestibility
has shown that the
differences in 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
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 so i get that you haven't seen it now i'll
take this one step further
there's only at most like two or three percent different in digestible plant
protein and you know
how it's assessed in the pigs they give them raw food so they give raw beans
raw grains and you have
said one of the reasons that it's less digestible is because of trypsin inhibitors
yeah what happens
with it and what happens when you cook you would definitely break them down are
you getting it so when
you 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 only a few percent not the 40 versus 100 that
he was claiming last time
that's old science i'm talking about current science right and there's only a
few percent difference
and they imagine that not only if you heated it that you would get equivalent
you might even get
more because you're killing the trypsin inhibitors by heating it so that whole
nonsense about the
the quantity you were wrong the quality the di score was not designed for that
it doesn't matter when
you get enough protein so as long as you get enough protein you're using
measures for a organization
that is looking at hunger i am we're talking about if people have got enough i
agree if you're in like 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 i agree but that is not what it
was designed for and it
doesn't matter the amino acid profile doesn't matter and the digestive doesn't
matter when you get enough
protein let me pause you for a second here because you've been going on for a
long time yeah i think
it's really important points chris this has not been that good for your
arguments so what are your
thoughts on what he said so far and what are your thoughts on what he's refuted
§42Transcript · 3:16:19–3:20:59
about what you had
asserted about his show i think he's made some good points and you know my my
original argument and what
we started out talking about was so you take the the film and the claims of the
film the specific claims
of the film and then you also take the the question that we started talking
about which was is there
evidence that a hundred percent plant-based diet is better than a diet that
contains animal foods
you see what you're doing that's really you see what you're doing but the
protein i mean come on and
there was a lot of claim there were a lot of claims in the film that we talked
about about
you know dairy products causing cancer dairy products contributing to
cardiovascular disease chicken and
fish causing cancer uh red meat clogging the arteries that that we uh address
and haven't had a chance
to go into detail on in this show so but there was a bunch of stuff about
protein and we're talking
about protein and what you just did that you segued into something else 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 uh quality and quantity
including digestibility and
amino acid scores i think the protein quantity uh is it's still an issue or the
question of getting
how i mean you've got to have some like logical arguments chris i'm sorry but
you're like i have
disproven your rebuttal on protein and on b12 i think the qualities and
quantities still matter
the quality the joe okay yeah yeah sure go ahead so even though that scale was
developed for the fao
there's still a difference a quantitative difference in the amino acid profile
i didn't
argue with that digestibility i didn't argue with that that was not my point do
you think 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 that's what he's saying but that just
isn't that is his
argument for protein i mean you can like come up with some other like you we
can go at nutrient if
you want to look at nutrient profiles and like then we can look at that but you've
got to admit i've
presented some good arguments in both favor of quantity i do and i hadn't seen
that last study
from 2000 and so i just want to sum it up i want to sum it up by slide 30 just
one last slide on this
well i mean yeah one not well i've got i got slides proving the outcomes as
well but if you just want
to look at this is not me this is not me making up like it's like oh i'm a
vegan i'm just making stuff
up like there's a bunch of bullshit that's put out by vegans about arguments
that are totally terrible
yeah okay and honestly i think vegans are like the worst people for for their
own movement i agree
as well like throwing blood on people that are wearing like uh fur jackets or
whatever i think
it's ridiculous right but that doesn't don't just don't lump me in and the film
in with vegans in
general you've done a far better job of explaining things here than you did
even in the film yeah but
it's very tricky it's very tricky because you don't have them out of time this
is we're three and a half
hours in right well i would have made a 10 hour film and i it was upsetting i'm
sure you would have
people say oh you for example a couple arguments that were made half of the
athletes you filmed
you didn't put in the film because they stopped being vegan completely not true
they're also a bunch
of experts we didn't put in the film that we couldn't put in and we didn't put
them in because
there wasn't room it was like i understand in filmmaking it's called killing
your babies there was
amazing scenes that were being really convincing that we couldn't put in like
the evidence in the film
is far less than one percent of the evidence that i why don't you guys do it as
like a netflix thing
where you do like wild because wild country where you do like seven hours i
would like we this we're
considering it seems like a wiser thing to do because yeah but i think like how
many people are going to
sit down how many you know how many people are going to watch this well i know
how many people i mean i
don't know how to watch the film millions but yeah so when when 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 but what what about the film do you think he hasn't refuted
your criticism
just put that last slide up yes please what is it again it's slide 34 and also
i've got a bunch
of slides showing that actually um here we go there's no research to suggest
that protein
recommendations are different for athletes allow following a vegetarian diet
than for those on an
omnivorous diet now that is the handbook the textbook that is used when you
become a board certified
specialist in sports dietetics so this what this is basically saying is what
§43Transcript · 3:20:59–3:26:13
you said earlier the amino
acid profile once you reach a certain point in a certain amount of grams and
you've got to reach
that amount anyway even with meat that's the thing okay so yeah yeah so um and
and again what about the
the film do you think that he hasn't refuted your criticisms i mean we can go i
i would love you
allow it because yeah i don't know how productive that's going to be there's
the blood flow and
endothelial function and inflammation there's the let's get to that the the
meat and let's do it let's
let's do the erection what is the other one the erection that's the most
scientific part of the movie
what was it was the other thing chris well i mean just talking about
inflammation and endothelial
function will take cancer and dairy the chicken and fish and cancer i can refute
all of that all of your
claims um do you want to look at the erection and the dolphin things they're
related to endothelial
function let's why don't we talk about research about endothelial function yeah
okay great okay that's
related so okay endothelial so so regarding close with this because we these
are gonna but can i
almost we're it's already 230. it's just a shame because like all the other
claims he made were
false all right what other ones were in the in the interview or in uh in this
in the film i think 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 that study was uh called it was from
1997. no multiple
studies and i can put them up if you want so that's 22 years um but use the
study from effect of a single
high fat meal on endothelial function and healthy subjects so this compared a
900 calorie diet both
were on 900 calories one group hat was eating 50 grams of fat and one group
with zero grams of fat
the high fat meal was an egg mcmuffin a sausage mcmuffin i'm not talking about
those two hash browns
and a non-caffeinated drink all from mcdonald's yeah i'm not talking about that
but that is that's
one you just picked one well what which one are you talking about well i got a
bunch okay well i got a
bunch that actually contradict that so um that's 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 the effect that it had on
endothelial function which suggests that a healthy omnivorous diet with plants
wouldn't have the
same impact there was a 2019 review and this is will be at cresser.co slash
game changers 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 we've
got
uh several studies that suggest that dairy and egg proteins improve endothelial
function 2015 controlled
trial with 52 subjects dietary proteins including milk and egg improved endothelial
function
2006 study adding dietary protein to a high fat meal prevented postprandial endothelial
dysfunction
we have 2009 study followed subjects for 12 weeks a low carb diet improved endothelial
function whereas a low fat diet
decreased it uh 2007 study with uh follow-up you know i mean we can go on and
on and on okay
all of these studies show that animal proteins don't uh increase and uh
decrease endothelial function
you have to know more about nutrition and it's really friendly and the plants
in the context
respond to it okay so first of all you just you compared low carbon high carb i
am not a i'm not
for health i'm not promoting high carb that wasn't the point 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 right so the claim in the film was the animal protein worsens endothelial
right because
that is the scientific consensus and we keep going back to this tell us why
tell us why that is
i mean seafood consumption protects against endothelial damage seafood is an
animal protein
mediterranean diet which includes animal products improves pulse wave velocity
blood flow markers of
atherosclerosis these are studies in the peer-reviewed literature yeah but lots
of them
so what's wrong with this so the industry funding studies what you do if you
wait wait who said anything
about these being industry funded no but what you do see is compare everything
is healthy compared
to what healthy or unhealthy compared to what so if you have a low carb diet
and you replace a bunch
of white sugar and flour you might not see it's gonna the outcome is going to
be a decrease but the
claim that was made in the film is that animal product animal proteins worsen
endothelial function
i just listed a whole bunch of studies especially those suggesting here's one
that says influence of food
patterns on endothelial biomarkers a system systematic review the conclusion
was that healthy food patterns
abundant in fruits and vegetables had a beneficial impact on endothelial
§44Transcript · 3:26:13–3:30:50
function westernized patterns
higher intakes of processed meats sweets fried foods refined grains were
positively associated information
which makes my point and then another no it makes my point which is quality
matters yeah so if you get
someone sausage mcmuffin and egg mcmuffins and and you show that i'm not
showing that my study
studies are not showing that okay but let's let him explain his studies okay so
so for example slide 71
i i purposely didn't include those studies because i don't think that they're a
good thing to compare
to so slide 71
okay this oh this is nice because there's a graph right so you can see so oh
everyone's saying like
that fat in the blood that's normal well what do you mean by normal yeah lots
of people do that that's
normal that doesn't mean it's optimal when you see the fat in the blood like
that and by the way it was a film we
couldn't throw everything in so when you see fat that's called postprandial lipemia
that means
after a meal fat in the blood right that is associated with up to a 50
decreased endothelial
function which means nest nitric oxide is produced which means that the
arteries can't open up as
much less oxygen less nutrients to the muscles okay so that is associated as
you can see in this graph
i don't know so the solid line is the uh the tried uh no the solid line is uh
how much your arteries are
dilating flow mediated vasodilation right so as the triglycerides this is after
the meal okay which
was by the way uh a shake of whipping cream and liquid chocolate and non-fat
dry milk okay as the
as you eat the meal you can see that the triglycerides go up that's the fat in
your blood see between
two and four hours it kind of peaks we measured those athletes at two hours and
again this is not
just a film it's been done for over 20 years in the scientific literature so as
you can see in the
graph right joe as the dotted line goes up that's the the appearance of more
fat in the blood
right you get that lactescence the milkiness of the blood you can see that very
clearly
that the flow mediated dilation drops so it drops by 11 okay if you look for
example does that make
sense so that when you have those fat in the blood your ability to your
arteries to expand goes down
there's no like what there's that's not an egg mcmuffin that is a milk and
whipping cream
and that's it so now if you go to slide 73
now i agree this had some so they compare now they're here yeah we can skip to
the next one that
was 11 okay so here what i've done is um the only thing i changed about this
graph is i put the um
green dots for the plant-based meal and the red dots for the animal-based meal
so they were eating
korean barbecue egg milk oil mayonnaise rice and vegetables and on the other
hand they were having
uh a vegan meal of soup kimchi vegetables orange juice apple so it was matched
for calories at 800
calories the green is in red and the sorry the green is plants and the red is
animal-based so
i don't know if you want to go into but basically i mean you decide something
for
but again please try to remember a lot of people listening oh sorry do you want
to read the no
you mean you can if you want but here changes of serum triglycerides were
negatively correlated
with changes of fmd flow mediated flow mediated dilation no doubt well low carb
diets often will lower
serum triglycerides and they can not not postprandially not postprandially not
after the meal for which is
important to test because that lasts for six to eight hours and what do you do
again you eat another
animal-based meal so the next part joe this is that go ahead then how is it
that triglycerides go down
over time if your body because your body adapts to it so joe can you read uh
the second book the study
suggest that acute htg that's uh uh hyper triglycerides that's the fat in the
blood basically
causes endothelial dysfunction via enhanced oxidant stress and that and this
may pave the way for the
development of our artherosclerosis and that's a mouthful atherosclerosis under
chronic conditions
so what that's saying like in the short acute means short term and chronic like
long term basically
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 and if you go to slide
75 remember that
chart that we looked at with the green dots and the red dots 8.2 percent
decrease in fmd two hours
following the animal-based meal 2.7 percent increase in fmd two hours following
the plant-based meal
okay so you got less blood flow so chris makes out there's no science no
evidence it was just this
crazy thing that they made up it was the co-chair of the cardiovascular
committee for the nfl that has
been researching this for years i didn't say that james i said there was a lot
of other evidence
contradicting it so right but you're choosing we want to bring up a study you
§45Transcript · 3:30:50–3:35:56
can uh effects of
dietary carbohydrate restriction versus low fat diet on flow mediated dilation
this is what you've been
talking about no because you're not comparing it to the diet that i'm
suggesting after 12 weeks peak
flow mediated dilation at three hours increased from 5.1 percent to 6.5 percent
in the carbohydrate
restricted group and decreased from 7.9 to 5.2 percent in the low-fat diet
right 12 week low
carbohydrate diet improves postprandial vascular function more than a low-fat
diet right because
the low-fat diet has a bunch of like white flour and stuff in it that's the
thing that's what it is
off often the low-carb diets due to to the diets with animal if we're talking
about protein the claim in the
film was that animal protein causes endothelial dysfunction somehow we've
gotten off talking
about fat and i've just i'm not i just mentioned many studies that show that
that dietary proteins
including milk and egg improve endothelial function no they don't fish okay
they don't study right here
joe so what are these you can't you can't just say a study right because i i'm
chris can bring up
dietary proteins improve endothelial function under fasting conditions but not
in the postprandial state
with no effects on markers of low-grade inflammation this is in the greatest
journal of nutrition 2015
study okay but dietary proteins doesn't even necessarily mean animal-based
proteins right no it
says including milk and egg including yeah i'm not this the bottom line is that
he can present any
study i'd have to dig into it see the funding whatever because it's always what
it's compared
to so you can show a huge benefit for eggs if you compare it to lard right you
can there's all
this was not these were proteins that included soy soy milk and egg and they
all improved endothelial
function yeah and then another another situation showing dietary protein milk
or soy to a high fat
meal prevented postprandial endothelial dysfunction and then there are the two
low carb studies that
i mentioned 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 there are studies of
the mediterranean diet
which is a healthy diet pattern that includes some animal products include
improve pulse wave velocity
seafood consumption protects against endothelial damage yes compared compared
to beef it does
review that's can i just say like for example you said you were trying to refute
the study about
the increased risk of cancer colon cancer between um vegetarians and non-vegetarians
right the three
times increased risk for those who had white meat like fish or chicken once or
twice a week and then
you go to a meta-analysis which is not comparing um you're comparing fish to
bacon or beef of course
these aren't comparing anything that these are controlled trials that look at
dietary proteins
milk right again and egg but chris first of all you admitted that you don't
even know how to read
the science is that fair do you honestly feel qualified to read even a single
paper yes but you don't know how
how to read a forest plot i took a master's level research methodology class so
these are these are
i'm referring to studies that are in the peer-reviewed literature honestly it's
like and you haven't
answered the question like how if if if protein impairs endothelial function
why are studies showing that
milk and egg don't do that george dillman george dillman did a study you know
showing that like the
heart rate went up when he did like a knockout without touching someone just
because you can show
studies that i can't like i haven't had a chance to read and dig into doesn't
need me that my point is
valid i have shown studies no no i gave like the film has been reviewed and has
been accredited by the
defense health agency yeah we've heard that right so you think that they like
the science you're basically
your your your debunk which you failed miserably to debunk the film right i
have proven again and
again that your points were invalid i have presented data with healthier meals
you thought i was going
to go to the feeding someone mcdonald's i didn't i showed one with just
basically dairy just dairy
increasing and i've showed three or four studies with dairy proteins and i am
talking about and i'm
interfere with endothelial function and actually improve it the bottom bottom
line is joe right
that at each step of the way chris is not in line with the scientific consensus
okay not on protein
recommendations not on definition of carbohydrates not on uh endothelial
function not on heme iron
he's just not he's just like you shouldn't be having him on to say he's he's he
said himself he's
not an expert in nutrition he is unable to read us and unable to read a single
study and understand it
i am not qualified either that's a mischaracterization okay then tell me tell
me the
the confidence interval of of this in in the forest plot so listen i'm
§46Transcript · 3:35:56–3:40:24
presenting i've i've never
anyone can say anything about i have not put myself out like i'm the the expert
that that is
um but that's what people are doing these studies that's what people are doing
these studies in the
same way that you did you collected information from the scientific consensus
which some leading
researchers with thousands of years thousands there is not okay go ahead there's
there are many experts
that would disagree yeah but it's the same thing with like climate change or
whatever same no it's not
the same at all it's absolutely not the same that there's the 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 it's not
even close to that parallel is that the scientific consensus says that we
should be in predominantly
plant-based diets and that vegan and even vegan diets are appropriate are
helpful for all state
of life cycle i've shown that you can get enough protein i've shown that the
quality ds scoring doesn't
matter i've shown that the b12 stuff that you got is completely wrong like what
else do you want me to
show you you want me to show you that like 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 you
didn't point out that the study said um uh they didn't oh vegetarians have
lower creatine sores
therefore it may affect performance they didn't test it 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 and we know that creatine
is ergogenic 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 so despite lower creatine
which we know the
most studied supplement they're getting that because their intake of creatine
is lower yes and then so
and so when they're supplementing they see a bigger response you could look at
that the other way you
could say you should have more creatine in their diet and they then they wouldn't
need to supplement
with that to get the bigger response right but i'm saying it points out that
despite lower creatine
salts which we know are ergogenic which are performance enhancing they still
have equivocal
fat-free mass muscle and power output and time to fatigue and when you add
creatine in you get a
benefit 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 and by the way meat eaters also tend
to supplement that
trying to bodybuild with creatine as well so i'm saying that despite the fact
of lower creatine which we know
is the prop would you argue that's like the probably the most well studied and
best um supplement that
we know of that can help uh muscle muscle gain yeah okay fair enough so despite
lower creatine
people on plant-based diets can still have as much muscle mass and when they
hate creatine they get
even more than the meat eaters and i've got a bunch of science to prove that
too so basically joe
if someone watched the last episode where he tried to debunk the film for two
hours and fifty minutes
do you feel that i've fairly addressed a lot of the critiques and i've going to
address a lot more
he talks about nutrient quality he likes to refer to like diet quality says
that we're lowering um
we're lowering certain nutrients yeah vegans are low typically in b12 and d
calcium and zinc because
they eat a bunch of but meat eaters are low in about nine so he likes to point
to a nutrient
score which favors a paleo type diet that's not comparing equivalent vegans vegans
and vegetarians
in general are uh do you know they smoke less they have a higher uh drink less
they have a higher diet
quality in general because they do all comparing apples to apples right because
they do all of the
things that are better for health including eating a plant-based diet because
he thinks that just the
only one thing that they don't do better is more more plants well he's saying
that you lump in meat
eaters with people that eat the standard american diet when you say meat eaters
you're not talking about
people who are eating organic but when we're talking about when we're talking
about american gets 60
of their calories from ultra processed and refined foods that's why that's why
they're nutrient but
that's what they are saying you just said that you're not comparing like joe rogan's
and his diet
versus an equivalent no yeah but all i'm saying all i'm pointing it out is that
you are saying that vegans
are typically more deficient in certain nutrients they are in certain nutrients
but that's because a lot of
people aren't smart and don't like 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
§47Transcript · 3:40:24–3:42:18
amount of amino acids
they're doing it you just they're balancing it out and you've got a variety you
don't have planning it
i don't even think about it i don't count how much protein i'm taking i just
eat a wide variety and
if a really good source actually is nutrition facts.org and he's got this
useful thing called yeah he
doesn't like that because it's not in alignment what's wrong with nutrition
facts.org oh it's it's just
it has a very strong um plant-based agenda yeah because they well because they
follow the science
so anyway forget all of the useful videos are on there they do like three
minute videos for people
to learn about the science it gives all the uh the references 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 whether you're eating meat or not all of the evidence showing like how
much legumes how much
fruits how much vegetables you know the flaxseed and you know these types of
things so it's just like it's like a
fridge magnet you can throw in your fridge and um james you made an excellent
point uh chris do you
have anything to say in closing no thank you for i mean i really appreciate
time sorry if it felt a
bit combative no you knocked it out of the park you did a fantastic job i think
you do i mean it makes
me consider well the let me explain my position coming in here i felt like you'd
put your film out i
felt chris felt the same way having you in here while he debunked it was just
going to be a waste of
time you had put your position out he was going to chance to but i've also felt
that would be unfair
to not have you come in and explain and refute his debunking and i think you
did a fantastic job
i really appreciate you having me on my pleasure and uh love to come back on
and talk about yeah whatever
man let's do that next time awesome okay thank you chris thank you james bye
everybody
i'm sorry i felt it was combative
you