Developing a deep understanding of nutrition.

[Sugarcoat]

3 minutes ago, Michael569 said:

Also @Sugarcoat @Schizophonia please can you take this to private chat? You're detailing the conversation 

I apologize. We just joke

[Sugarcoat]

5 minutes ago, Michael569 said:

@Schizophonia good response albeit largely  generated by AI. It would take too much time for me to research each of your claims in depth as I'm not familiar with this population data. 

Anyways i was arguing about the macro position of this.

If we can't rely on the evidence because it is echo chamber, what do we have to inform public? How do we make public health recommendations? 

 

So you would say for example the Nordic nutrition recommendations is a reliable source? 

[Michael569]

@Sugarcoat i know, nothing bad with joking but it brings down the quality of the entire thread. Keep it to WhatsApp maybe? 🙂

[Schizophonia]

6 minutes ago, Michael569 said:

Also @Sugarcoat @Schizophonia please can you take this to private chat? You're detailing the conversation 

Yes mea culpa.

7 minutes ago, Michael569 said:

@Schizophonia good response albeit largely  generated by AI.

Lol.

No It's just my usual way to write.

Quote

It would take too much time for me to research each of your claims in depth as I'm not familiar with this population data. 

Anyways i was arguing about the macro position of this.

If we can't rely on the evidence because it is echo chamber, what do we have to inform public? How do we make public health recommendations? 

My criticism wasn't on the echo chamber dynamic but the content. It was rendheaven's one.

Edited December 8 by Schizophonia

[Sugarcoat]

Just now, Michael569 said:

@Sugarcoat i know, nothing bad with joking but it brings down the quality of the entire thread. Keep it to WhatsApp maybe? 🙂

I understand you definitely are right. I will change my behavior 

[Michael569]

5 minutes ago, Sugarcoat said:

would say for example the Nordic nutrition recommendations is a reliable source? 

Absolutely 

[Sugarcoat]

Just now, Michael569 said:

Absolutely 

From my own judgment it seems good too. Thanks for the input. 

[Michael569]

@Schizophonia the comments about ancestral diet was spot on tho, sorry i ignored it.

I think you are right that with cooked diet richer in animal protein the development of human brain was accelerated to some degree  although I'm not sure whether it was just the diet or also needing to build shelter, changes in the environment , new complicated logistics (food storage, material transport etx)  migration of populations into new regions , expansion, , having to figure out new ways to live alongside changing climate etc.

I don't think we actually know the answer to that yet and whether it was the diet or the settled lifestyle that lead to farming and agriculture. 

The last book I read on ancient ancestry (Britain BC by Francis Pryor) seems to suggest that hunting gave way to farming after the end of the last ice age as more surface area became available and from that new step of human evolution slowly happened...at least in northern Europe. 

 It was probably different elsewhere. 

What i really hate are blank statements like "we evolved to eat meat" and "humans are natural carnivores" the ones all over social media. They are missing the fine details and demonstrating ignorance 

Edited December 8 by Michael569

[RendHeaven]

6 hours ago, Michael569 said:

"we evolved to eat meat"

This is crassly and rebelliously flung around only because people demonize meat and recommend limiting or forgoing meat all together, especially red meat. Vegans, Vegetarians, Pescetarians, Mediterranean dieters, Plant based advocates, new-age healers, average, well-meaning health-conscious people, and "scienced-based" nutrition studies have all formed an incestuous cohort under the unifying banner of "blame red meat."

Which is stupid, because we evolved to eat meat.

6 hours ago, Michael569 said:

"humans are natural carnivores"

This is dumb, yes. We are omnivores, and the optimal diet obviously includes animals and plants.

[RendHeaven]

12 hours ago, Michael569 said:

Assuming that's the case, I honestly see nothing else out there that would be any different.

There is very little I see in the low carb or carnivore communities that is separable from fairy tales, group hive mind thinking and almost a stage purple superstition with an appeal to palaeolithic ancestry, (usually disconnected from the actual evidence in anthropology, archaeology and palaeontology because most people don't bother to read books anymore ). All I see is an army of stage orange gym rats marching of a cliff singing "24 eggs and 2 pounds a beef a day makes being a pussy go away" and I'm not sure I buy into that. Maybe if I was 20 again, I would have. 

But this extends to vegan groups, the vegetarian groups, raw foodies, keto people and all of them pretty much. All of them have their own fairy tales and biases, some more than other. 

But my point is, presuming we can't trust science and evidence to form our conclusions and have some sense of direction for ourselves and those who depend on us for guidance (parents, kids, spouses) , what else do we have to rely on? 

I am all for "common sense" and "see how it makes you feel" but then frankly eating Kinder Bueno, Nesquik and McChicken makes me feel pretty darn good in the moment but I have no illusion that they are particularly good for me in the long run. 

And common sense is a variable that's pretty sneaky and elusive. Genghis Khan thought it was a common sense to try and genocide the poor farmers of of norther & north eastern China (Xin & Song back then) because farm lands were in the way of free pastures favoured by the Mongolian pony. 

How do we even know most of the things we know? Somebody had to go form an argument that eating junk food isnt great for you? And most of us made a decision to trust into that echo chamber and agree. Maybe a degree of that is necessary to have some form of footing under your feet in a world already pretty complex and tantalising. 

Because without trusting into some sort of echo chamber, what else do you have? Its like being lost on a raft in the middle of pacific ocean, you can't help but follow the strongest current...in our case the loudest influencer or the one with the most cash to put behind advertising.

Schizo beat me to the punch so I'll comment more on the epistemology side.

I'm not anti-consensus on principle. Obviously consensus is useful, and certainly preferable to made-up ideas pulled out of one man's ass.

And powerful, centralizing consensus (such as the modern science paradigm on nutrition) is rarely entirely right or entirely wrong.

Sometimes I speak snarky (for my own amusement) so it seems like I'm irreverently dismissing decades of hard-sought insights by millions of professionals, but that is not the case. I would say I'm 80% on board with the professional rhetoric. Most recommendations are sound. Eating whole foods, limiting processed foods, exercising, sleeping well, not smoking or drinking, etc. is good advice. My only bone to pick, really, is the red meat/saturated fat issue.

Saturated fat is not only not-harmful, but is in fact, beneficial. This is so obvious to me right now that I struggle to explain it in the same way that a psychonaut can only sigh and chuckle when a skeptic tries to naysay his mystical experience.

So I am not blindly dismissing all of modern nutritional science, I am pinpoint critiquing one flawed aspect of its understanding, which is only flawed because of the echo chamber effect. If science re-did an investigation on saturated fat from scratch starting today, using a population of healthy unbiased humans, it would not find a single health risk, and this will shatter the certainty of so many medical professionals and dieticians, and nobody wants that.

The issue is that science is unable to do such an investigation "from scratch," since it is tethered to its decades of research, and frankly it does not have a truth incentive (also it's a lot harder to find healthy unbiased humans than you might think. Most healthy people are already indoctrinated into the "plants over animals" camp, which skews results. Healthy animal-based eaters exist, but are rarer, and often not studied. This will hopefully change within the next decade.)

The steering wheel on the ship is already jammed left, and it will take a herculean effort to bring it back to center, which is simply not worth it in the eyes of most professionals, ESPECIALLY since they've self-deceived into believing that leftward IS straight. For the sake of truth, the entire ship has to turn rightwards (to reach center), but the devil has gotten ahold of the entire crew which is convinced that going right is to go astray (not knowing that they are already astray, but to the left)

Edited December 9 by RendHeaven
Added more context

[RendHeaven]

12 hours ago, Michael569 said:

Not looking for a fight just tossing the ball back to your court 

I have always had nothing but respect for you

[Michael569]

7 hours ago, RendHeaven said:

Schizo beat me to the punch so I'll comment more on the epistemology side.

I'm not anti-consensus on principle. Obviously consensus is useful, and certainly preferable to made-up ideas pulled out of one man's ass.

And powerful, centralizing consensus (such as the modern science paradigm on nutrition) is rarely entirely right or entirely wrong.

Sometimes I speak snarky (for my own amusement) so it seems like I'm irreverently dismissing decades of hard-sought insights by millions of professionals, but that is not the case. I would say I'm 80% on board with the professional rhetoric. Most recommendations are sound. Eating whole foods, limiting processed foods, exercising, sleeping well, not smoking or drinking, etc. is good advice. My only bone to pick, really, is the red meat/saturated fat issue.

Saturated fat is not only not-harmful, but is in fact, beneficial. This is so obvious to me right now that I struggle to explain it in the same way that a psychonaut can only sigh and chuckle when a skeptic tries to naysay his mystical experience.

So I am not blindly dismissing all of modern nutritional science, I am pinpoint critiquing one flawed aspect of its understanding, which is only flawed because of the echo chamber effect. If science re-did an investigation on saturated fat from scratch starting today, using a population of healthy unbiased humans, it would not find a single health risk, and this will shatter the certainty of so many medical professionals and dieticians, and nobody wants that.

The issue is that science is unable to do such an investigation "from scratch," since it is tethered to its decades of research, and frankly it does not have a truth incentive (also it's a lot harder to find healthy unbiased humans than you might think. Most healthy people are already indoctrinated into the "plants over animals" camp, which skews results. Healthy animal-based eaters exist, but are rarer, and often not studied. This will hopefully change within the next decade.)

The steering wheel on the ship is already jammed left, and it will take a herculean effort to bring it back to center, which is simply not worth it in the eyes of most professionals, ESPECIALLY since they've self-deceived into believing that leftward IS straight. For the sake of truth, the entire ship has to turn rightwards (to reach center), but the devil has gotten ahold of the entire crew which is convinced that going right is to go astray (not knowing that they are already astray, but to the left)

Thanks for taking time to elaborate. 

I know I had similar conversation with Jason some time ago. What you guys propose is interesting and speculative and if someone ever does that I would like to see it (or be there if I can qualify! ) The problem I see is that the sort of level of health awareness and fitness (using Jason's terms "Divine Health") is unachievable for many people for practical reasons.

Take a single mom of 2, an overloaded husband taking care of family, house , barely paying mortgage, milions of people from afro american and mesoamerican origin living in US, UK and Europe at the edge of poverty. 

You have to be a bit priviledged to even entertain that sort of idea. You would have to assume higher level of education (probably university degree level), decent income, stable family situation (free from traums, family restraints, cultural pressure and conservative parenting) and you'd need to speak English (but that is easily checked off) 

I think what you guys are proposing, correct me if I'm wrong, is almost a lifestyle that goes beyond the known risks associated with high saturated fat diet by offsetting that and almost turning it into a net positive? So that you can get the best of both world - keep died filled with antioxidants that protect the lumen of your arteries while channeling the benefits of high protein diet. Or is that off? 

With regards to the current direction of the evidence, I admit I am not 100% up to speed with the data on cholesterol and saturated fats (slowly clawing my way through) and currently heavily rely on work of other people who have done it so I can't comment about the validity of the data. But when you say "using unhealthy populations" I can't help by wonder, "how do you know that?" 

I ask because it is an argument you both have used multiple times but that begs the question: 

• what is unhealthy? 
• what would be healthy? 
• and, most importantly, what would be classifying criteria to enter the type of study that you guys would deem appropriate, if we were given a chance to do this again? 

7 hours ago, RendHeaven said:

I have always had nothing but respect for you

the sentiment is mutual. Despite our differences in opinions on small volume of topics, I'd love to do one of your workouts with you guys, do some challenges, hand stands, hikes, wrestling or whatever you crazy people do! If we stayed away from a few nutrition topics, I think we would get along pretty well 

Edited December 9 by Michael569

[RendHeaven]

48 minutes ago, Michael569 said:

I think what you guys are proposing, correct me if I'm wrong, is almost a lifestyle that goes beyond the known risks associated with high saturated fat diet by offsetting that and almost turning it into a net positive? So that you can get the best of both world - keep died filled with antioxidants that protect the lumen of your arteries while channeling the benefits of high protein diet. Or is that off? 

This is an earnest steelman. I appreciate the sincere effort to understand, even if you may have disagreements

52 minutes ago, Michael569 said:

You have to be a bit priviledged to even entertain that sort of idea.

This is fair, and likely true.

These days I tell my friends to just follow a "balanced diet and drink pomegranate juice." I hate to complicate things

1 hour ago, Michael569 said:

• what is unhealthy? 
• what would be healthy? 
• and, most importantly, what would be classifying criteria to enter the type of study that you guys would deem appropriate, if we were given a chance to do this again? 

Jason would propose Linoleic Acid in the adipose tissue as the test variable (measured using skin samples). After initial measurements, we can make dietary interventions to raise or lower (or maintain) adipose tissue LA across a period of time (1-5 years lol... yeah... nobody's gonna fund or participate in this one, haha...)

From there we can track any variety of markers, from autoimmune condition, cancer risk, CVD risk, bloodwork stats, inflammation markers, hormonal balance, body composition, etc.

His hypothesis is that eating a diet rich in saturated and monounsaturated fats while avoiding high PUFA foods will lead to general positive health outcomes over a period of time (relative to a PUFA-rich diet, which is the norm).

The main complaint with similar studies that have already been done is that not a single participant is truly "low LA" enough for the benefits of low LA to be made clear.

Raising LA in someone who already has high LA is actually cardioprotective (and Jason has a mechanistic explanation for this relating to lipid peroxidation theory)

But lowering LA below a critical threshold is also cardioprotective. So it's strictly wrong to announce that humans should simply eat more LA. But then you may say "but how can you know that? where's your study?" And that's exactly the problem. There is no study for this! (yet). Everyone is high LA and the possibility of a low-LA human literally does not exist on the map.

Since the introduction of seed oils into the food supply chain in the early-mid 1900s, almost every human in the developed world has been infiltrated with excess PUFA (even on the level of their mother's breastmilk), and even the health-conscious people who switch to a home cooked whole foods plant based diet end up having a mix of MUFA (which is good) and PUFA (which is bad, according to Jason) from their diet, but the negatives of the PUFA are rendered invisible by their high antioxidant intake from fruits and vegetables, and in this context, the lowered saturated fat means less circulating LDL which means less liproproteins are at risk of oxidation which means the results look good in favor of PUFA on paper (generally leading people to think that PUFA is not a relevant actor, and the focus shifts to reducing meat and increasing plants which is actually helpful in this instance, but is not a full showcase of what is possible in terms of human health).

Therefore Jason would say that there has never been an opportunity for a scientist to observe an actually low PUFA specimen (someone like Jason who literally only eats beef, milk, liver, rice, berries and pomegranate juice lol. eggs and fish in moderation for arachadonic acid and DHA respectively).

He had his adipose tissue measured and the doctor taking his measurement personally commented that they have never seen someone with PUFA as low as him. Having lived with him for 6 months last year, I can personally attest to the freaky levels of health glow that guy has - he almost feels like a cartoon character at times with how ailments deflect off of him as if he has a holy aura.

I remember getting a cat allergy attack, and he just smirks at me like "oh yeah I used to have that too. It was so much worse than what you're going through right now" and I was like "for real??" and he was like "yeah after losing all that LA i don't feel a thing" ... just yet another wild anecdote on top of everything else he has shown me (i'm sure he has mentioned by now that he completely reversed an "incurable" autoimmune condition, with picture proof, where his doctors were going to put him on meds for life. And all he did was avoid seed oils, drink pomegranate juice, and eat beef every day LOL.)

The healing power of food is real, as I'm sure you are no stranger to. Whole foods heal. Plants heal. But beef can also heal - and it saddens me that this is so hastily dismissed. I think if all sides were honest, the beef praisers (like me) and the beef skeptics (like the scientific community) would both have to admit that there is much we don't know. Is beef a time bomb, or the food of gods? I wish this convo could be opened up without prejudgements.

I think we can at least agree that beef does have notable nourishing power not just for its complete protein benefits, but also the amazing B-vitamin and mineral bio-availability. Jason would take this a step further and claim that the low PUFA of beef makes it better for health-maxing than chicken or pork, but we can leave that as speculation for now.

1 hour ago, Michael569 said:

the sentiment is mutual. Despite our differences in opinions on small volume of topics, I'd love to do one of your workouts with you guys, do some challenges, hand stands, hikes, wrestling or whatever you crazy people do! If we stayed away from a few nutrition topics, I think we would get along pretty well 

I actually live in Japan now! Hit me up if you ever plan a short visit, so many cool cultural places to discover, insane nature too : )

[RendHeaven]

Its been really hard finding 100% grass fed ground beef in japan lol.

Japanese wagyu steaks are stupid expensive so I can't have that every day, and the average supermarket ground beef is factory farmed grain-fed beef in really small portions (typical miniscule japanese serving size lol).

The country is built on raw veggies and raw fish after all, to great success... a testament to the resilience of whole foods.

To my dismay however, cancer rates are skyrocketing in Japan, and even my health-conscious mother who has basically eaten mediterranean her whole life got hit with stage 3 colon cancer last year (worry not, she lived and is thriving now. I have her on pomegranate juice ever since loolll) and I cannot help but suspect the seed oils.

There are some concerning animal studies about intestinal tumor growth related to LA consumption, but as usual we cannot jump to conclusions about humans.

Of course, regarding cancer it's not just one food at fault, it's a variety of environmental factors such as microplastics, heavy metals, excess blue light, and other misc. forever chemicals in cleaning/hygiene products

It's a dystopian picture but its a beautiful study.

[Michael569]

 

On 06/12/2024 at 10:17 PM, Majed said:

I am going to start:

 

I just finished listening (and watching) this over the last 48 hours. What started as pretty interesting converation with really enticing ideas being shared turned into a complete clownshow at about the turn of the second hour.  Couple comments of observation 

Robert

• excellent storyteller, I can understand why people who are not versed in nutrition and the evidence hierarchy would love to listen to him. I liked listening to him. he has a pleasant voice, he looks well for a guy reaching 70, is well articulate and avoids complex terminology most of the time 
• he brings up some interesting points about hepatic diabetes which I'd like to look more into 
• but...he is a master dodger. I mean, holy fuck the amount of twisting, slipping, deviating and mental gymnastics this guy does blew my mind. Simon had a patient of a saint. 
• he constantly hides behind mechanisms whenever Simon challenges his narative. He has managed to pick up mechanisms which are completely unexplored by the evidence which is basically a way to present unchallengeable argument (common tactic in LF communities) Whenever he had no response, he would go back to 
  • his fertility clients
  • glycocalyx
  • fibre causing colon cancer through alcohol fermentation 
  • hepatic diabetes 
  • telling an unrelated story hoping Elyn would change topic or Simon would let go of the bait. 
• I think Robert is doing some wonderful work for his patients (seems to be mostly cases of infertility) but he fails to understand that people he sees (as Simon pointed) are the outliers of the bell curve. Basically people who are unwell and likely benefit from the weight loss associated with canrivore diet and removal of inflammatory foods. He fails to see that his patients are not the average population. 
• I am not convinced Robert is actualy doing any serious research, he is almost like a storywriter, pushing emotional buttons , figuring out what triggers people is probably a savy marketer. 
• At about 02 hour, 05 minutes he has started grasping at straws unable to answer other than running into a fairy-tale land. 

Simon 

• amazing level of knowledge and familiarity with evidence 
• super clear, relatable, easy to listen to although at time overly technical for an unfamiliar listener
• too patient & too tolerant with Robert's endless side quests. Would have loved if he would make more attempts to bring him back 
• almost too soft, as if he was afraid to challenge Robert all the way till about 02:00:00 when he finally hammered down on Robert's nonsense
• can come across a bit too dry in his attempt not to deviate from the evidence, although he got progressively better at it closer to the mid of the second hour

Ellen 

• I loved the split screens, professional looking environment and sort of minimalistic settings. Excellent production quality 
• but other than that I felt Ellen was just sitting there, sending out adds and doing extremely poor job as a debate moderator 
• She was not impartial and favoured Simon's side more. She giggled at his comments but made nothing to create some barriers in the conversation. 
• She was terrible at moderating Robert's side quests, I think she is just not well versed into the topic to notice when he was going completely off-tangent. 
• it is almost as if she tried to make sure they both had a good time rather than boil up a little bit of heat which is what would be needed to get to the point more 
• the volume of adds and poor moderation made me never want to watch another of her podcasts again 

Overall, to me Simon took the upper hand from the beginnig and gradually hammering more nails on the cross while Robert dodged most questions, did not manage to form a coherent argument, presented major inconsistencies (with few interesting points) and basically contributed with almost nothing. His patient stories were interesting as are most anecdotes but in the absence of clinical setting, they are hard to verify. I could equally give 10 random made up cases from my practice to form an argument. 

I think Simon's winning point was about 02:06:00 when he said (I paraphrase) " I know science does not have it exactly right but it is about reducing the uncertainty not about gaining exact clarity and I don't see the other side (youtubers and influencers) doing that any better. And so in the absence of that, what do people have to hold on to? " to this Robert was unable to reply and said "we are all sharing our stories". At that point it would have been better if Ellen launched another add and closed the conversation, it was painful to watch from about 02:08:00 and no further value was added. 

At about 02:10: 00 Simon made a second attempt at which point Robert asked: "tell me about glycocalyx". Are you fucking kidding me? And Ellen did nothing to this ridiculous stunt. I would want the judge to moderate heavier and to follow the conversation more actively, Simon to actually hold Robert and stop each elusive attempt. 

From this point Robert went full on grifter, turned into a random content generator and basically dug up his grave 

I can't say this was a good conversation, in fact this was an awful demonstration of why these debates are complete waste of everybody's time.

If I was a newbie, I would not have learned anything, would have remained more confused, more unclear and quite frankly a bit pissed. For a person wanting to learn about nutrition this is not a good way to go. Find good books on Nutrition 101, start there. Leave these debates and come back later (or don't) , all they do is confused the fuck out of everybody. 

My only outcome was sub to Simon who seems to be bringing interesting people on podcast. 

Edited December 9 by Michael569

[Michael569]

@RendHeaven appreciate your response. I'll take some time to ponder this and if I have time look into the literature on LA feeding. It has been on my list for a while. 

Living in Japan? Niiice !! I loved Japan, best country i've ever visited. Hope you enjoy it. 

[Schizophonia]

53 minutes ago, Michael569 said:

 

I just finished listening (and watching) this over the last 48 hours. What started as pretty interesting converation with really enticing ideas being shared turned into a complete clownshow at about the turn of the second hour.  Couple comments of observation 

Robert

• excellent storyteller, I can understand why people who are not versed in nutrition and the evidence hierarchy would love to listen to him. I liked listening to him. he has a pleasant voice, he looks well for a guy reaching 70, is well articulate and avoids complex terminology most of the time 
• he brings up some interesting points about hepatic diabetes which I'd like to look more into 
• but...he is a master dodger. I mean, holy fuck the amount of twisting, slipping, deviating and mental gymnastics this guy does blew my mind. Simon had a patient of a saint. 
• he constantly hides behind mechanisms whenever Simon challenges his narative. He has managed to pick up mechanisms which are completely unexplored by the evidence which is basically a way to present unchallengeable argument (common tactic in LF communities) Whenever he had no response, he would go back to 
  • his fertility clients
  • glycocalyx
  • fibre causing colon cancer through alcohol fermentation 
  • hepatic diabetes 
  • telling an unrelated story hoping Elyn would change topic or Simon would let go of the bait. 
• I think Robert is doing some wonderful work for his patients (seems to be mostly cases of infertility) but he fails to understand that people he sees (as Simon pointed) are the outliers of the bell curve. Basically people who are unwell and likely benefit from the weight loss associated with canrivore diet and removal of inflammatory foods. He fails to see that his patients are not the average population. 
• I am not convinced Robert is actualy doing any serious research, he is almost like a storywriter, pushing emotional buttons , figuring out what triggers people is probably a savy marketer. 
• At about 02 hour, 05 minutes he has started grasping at straws unable to answer other than running into a fairy-tale land. 

Simon 

• amazing level of knowledge and familiarity with evidence 
• super clear, relatable, easy to listen to although at time overly technical for an unfamiliar listener
• too patient & too tolerant with Robert's endless side quests. Would have loved if he would make more attempts to bring him back 
• almost too soft, as if he was afraid to challenge Robert all the way till about 02:00:00 when he finally hammered down on Robert's nonsense
• can come across a bit too dry in his attempt not to deviate from the evidence, although he got progressively better at it closer to the mid of the second hour

Ellen 

• I loved the split screens, professional looking environment and sort of minimalistic settings. Excellent production quality 
• but other than that I felt Ellen was just sitting there, sending out adds and doing extremely poor job as a debate moderator 
• She was not impartial and favoured Simon's side more. She giggled at his comments but made nothing to create some barriers in the conversation. 
• She was terrible at moderating Robert's side quests, I think she is just not well versed into the topic to notice when he was going completely off-tangent. 
• it is almost as if she tried to make sure they both had a good time rather than boil up a little bit of heat which is what would be needed to get to the point more 
• the volume of adds and poor moderation made me never want to watch another of her podcasts again 

Overall, to me Simon took the upper hand from the beginnig and gradually hammering more nails on the cross while Robert dodged most questions, did not manage to form a coherent argument, presented major inconsistencies (with few interesting points) and basically contributed with almost nothing. His patient stories were interesting as are most anecdotes but in the absence of clinical setting, they are hard to verify. I could equally give 10 random made up cases from my practice to form an argument. 

I think Simon's winning point was about 02:06:00 when he said (I paraphrase) " I know science does not have it exactly right but it is about reducing the uncertainty not about gaining exact clarity and I don't see the other side (youtubers and influencers) doing that any better. And so in the absence of that, what do people have to hold on to? " to this Robert was unable to reply and said "we are all sharing our stories". At that point it would have been better if Ellen launched another add and closed the conversation, it was painful to watch from about 02:08:00 and no further value was added. 

At about 02:10: 00 Simon made a second attempt at which point Robert asked: "tell me about glycocalyx". Are you fucking kidding me? And Ellen did nothing to this ridiculous stunt. I would want the judge to moderate heavier and to follow the conversation more actively, Simon to actually hold Robert and stop each elusive attempt. 

From this point Robert went full on grifter, turned into a random content generator and basically dug up his grave 

I can't say this was a good conversation, in fact this was an awful demonstration of why these debates are complete waste of everybody's time.

If I was a newbie, I would not have learned anything, would have remained more confused, more unclear and quite frankly a bit pissed. For a person wanting to learn about nutrition this is not a good way to go. Find good books on Nutrition 101, start there. Leave these debates and come back later (or don't) , all they do is confused the fuck out of everybody. 

My only outcome was sub to Simon who seems to be bringing interesting people on podcast. 

Robert is not a scientist and he does not have the courage to admit that "science" does not go his way. In this case it is better to stick to empirical reasoning. Usually people lose debates because of their ego, not their intelligence, knowledge or whatever.

Bart Kay is much better, he's actually a trained scientist. The problem is he's autistic (really lol, he's mentioned it here and there) and too aggressive to debate.

 

Edited December 9 by Schizophonia

[Michael569]

19 minutes ago, Schizophonia said:

Bart Kay is much better

Listen to his debate with Avi Bitterman and then tell me again if you still think that. 

[RendHeaven]

1 hour ago, Michael569 said:

At about 02 hour, 05 minutes he has started grasping at straws unable to answer other than running into a fairy-tale land. 

Yes, even as a pro-meat advocate it's clear to me that robert got obliterated haha.

"I don't know what a polyunsaturated fat is" at 1:08:03 is embarrassing.

The whole point of maxing out on beef is to keep PUFA low. This is why I cannot stand by carnivore proponents. Their healing anecdotes are actually real, but there's no understanding underpinning their rhetoric. Not to mention that ketosis is generally an unfavorable state to be in long-term.

Oh, and since they're getting no antioxidants from plants, and they don't differentiate between pork, chicken, or beef, and they overcook and char everything (excess heat oxidizes the animal fats prior to consumption) they're going to get fucked by CVD and then science will be in a further uproar: "RED MEAT BAD! CARNIVORE INFLUENCERS DIE FROM CVD!" and the possibility of integrating beef into a healthy sustainable diet will be further mocked. bleh

[RendHeaven]

pork is really unideal under the paradigm I'm sharing lol. sorry schizo </3

well, you don't have to believe me. and you'll be fine since you eat all whole foods with nuts, fruits, and veggies