Best Nutrition Book I've Read In A While

[LfcCharlie4]

Simon Hill's - The Proof Is In The Plants - https://theproof.com/book/

I am biased as have been vegan for over 7 years, but I wish I had this 7 years ago as it taught me a lot on what truly is the healthiest diet for the majority of people, the planet & then of course the ethical side of things. I also found it to not be pushy and just promote eating as plant predominant as possible. 

I feel a lot of the nutrition & wellbeing advice comes from extremes, whereas this book is solely based on the largest amount of science available. 

Its split into 3 parts, the issue with Big Food & Big Pharma & how they manipulate to push their own agendas. Everyone knows it but basically they just create confusion & fund their own research, but its interesting on what scale. 

Part 2 - Goes deep into the science around chronic diseases from Heart disease, to various forms of cancer, and then finishes with the environmental concerns facing us 

Part 3 (My favorite) - Gives 8 Principles to base eating off of, instead of hard diets it makes it into a lifestyle eventually, with tips on transitioning, key supplements, how Vegan diets can fail etc

Personally, I've always been pretty sure WFPB is the healthiest way of living (despite the rise of Liver King & similar influencers who use the odd low quality study) & this is kinda like the final nail in the coffin showing that. 

He also has a podcast & blog which is awesome

[Matt23]

8 hours ago, LfcCharlie4 said:

WFPB

What does this stand for?

What were the 8 principles?

Cheers

 

[Stovo]

I find these types of books have a lot of bias because the author wants it to be true, rather than it actually being the case.

WFPB might work for some but for most people eating a ton of red meat is actually the healthiest diet. 

[Matt23]

All I can say is that I've done veggie (with some seafood) for years, and there's been a few times I've gone back to meat for like a week or two and a similar thing happened:  Basically I get super duper brain foggy and even my vision seems clouded and unfocused.  I did it more recently, but I also did it back when I was studying for college exams and I was actually concerned I might do really poorly in them since I found it hard to concentrate and think clearly. 

Now, one thought I had was that maybe it was because I wasn't eating fully organic meat, raised well, etc., and that some of the pesticides and hormones might be causing the issue.  

I will say though, my poos look a lot healthier when I eat more meat.  I find it's also more cheap to eat meat as a source of protein as opposed to avocados, nuts, seeds, and beans. 

So, I suppose it's a tradeoff.  

I'm gunna try doing a week or so with only eating organic meats and see how I feel.

[thepixelmonk]

On 19/11/2022 at 2:20 PM, Stovo said:

WFPB might work for some but for most people eating a ton of red meat is actually the healthiest diet. 

lmao no. there's a ton of research out there that links too much red meat to a wide variety of health concerns. stating that tons of red meat is the best possible diet for most people is such a strongly biased statement I'm surprised you can talk about the biases of others.

Edited November 21, 2022 by thepixelmonk

[LfcCharlie4]

@Stovo maybe for a lot of books especially when $$$ is involved 

This guy basically only got into nutritional science after his heavy meat eating doctor dad had a heart attack at 50

And, it actually goes over the best kind of studies to back up the points- Meta analysis, randomised controlled trials (RCTs), in my research a lot of the Red meat / carnivore / Keto guys tend to pull from lab studies & case studies

I know a lot of people see short term success with Carnivore for example, but the lack of fibre & diversity is almost certainly going to create long term issues 

Personally I’m mainly interested in longevity & feeling the best, and the science is pretty clear on what diet is most likely To do that- the Blue Zones (regions with most people 100+) also support that a mostly plant based diet is what they usually eat

 

@Matt23 whole food plant based 

focus on food groups, not macronutrients- fruit / veg, legumes, wholegrains, nuts / seeds etc 

 

Be fibre obsessed (and protein aware)- high fibre = key to long life, protein for my specific goals! 

 

Diversity is key for gut health - 40+ plants per week 

 

Consider nutrients of focus - B12, omega 3s, Vitamin D, selenium, iodine 

 

When we eat matters

 

Drink water for thirst

 

Customisation is key

 

Don’t let perfection be the enemy of good

 

 

[Michael569]

23 hours ago, Stovo said:

WFPB might work for some but for most people eating a ton of red meat is actually the healthiest diet.

Not to mention the carnivores on Twitter coming down with 300+ LDL and requiring bypasses ? 

The damage to the human health and premature shortage of human life that quacks like Paul Saladino and Shawn Baker are causing may one day result in criminal persecution, it probably should because the evidence is there to prove it.

Red meat is one of the very few foods where the link to chronic disease is so strong that it is probably causative.

Edited November 21, 2022 by Michael569

[aurum]

2 hours ago, Michael569 said:

Not to mention the carnivores on Twitter coming down with 300+ LDL and requiring bypasses ? 

The damage to the human health and premature shortage of human life that quacks like Paul Saladino and Shawn Baker are causing may one day result in criminal persecution, it probably should because the evidence is there to prove it.

Red meat is one of the very few foods where the link to chronic disease is so strong that it is probably causative.

What do you make of these studies, which seem to link damage from red meat mostly to processed meat?

https://www.healthdata.org/research-article/health-effects-associated-consumption-unprocessed-red-meat-burden-proof-study
 

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2885952/

It seems to me that these debates are are just way too binary and simplistic. Red meat is either “good” or “bad” for you.

My thinking is that we need to consider more variables. Is it processed meat? How much meat? What’s the rest of your diet look like? Do you regularly exercise and are otherwise healthy? Etc

[Michael569]

@aurum i was mainly reacting to the claim that "tons" of it are beneficial.

The study you linked does actually show strong association with stroke and borderline association with diabetes (with trend towards harm although the confidence intervals do not fully cross 0 mark ) even for red meat although CHD was non significant. Also this is an old study superceded by newer evidence sich as Hooper 2020.

I agree with you that  we need to look at the bigger picture. For example in certain cultures whereas malnutrition is common, consumption of some red meat reduces premature mortality and heart disease linked to poor nutrition and malnutrition. That's a well documented thing.

We have to look at each of these systematic reviews individually and break them apart.

* What's the average consumption across population of each cohort?

* What's the average BMI, Age etc 

* How much saturated fats do they consume per week on average? Is that average enough to cross the threshold effect?

In American and European studies those outcomes often show harmful associations because red meat is frequently consumed alongside a hypercaloric diets and if replaced by things like polyunsaturated fats and carbohydrates it will probably show benefits

The thing with red meat might he the high content of saturated fats and ApoB containing lipoproteins that accelerate atherogenesis.l (this is a pathophysiology of heart disease) 

At lower thresholds, <30g, saturated fats do not have this effect it seems and many systematic reviews pool low exposure and high exposure studies together, effectively diluting the data. Not to mention lot of people fry red meat on saturated fats like butter and coconut effectively increasing the SFA load. 

Considering its consumption is something more of a luxury rather than the necessity in developed countries , and also considering that the association is probably neutral at best and probably harmful at worst, it may just not be worth the risk. Anyone who eats it fairly regularly does so let's say 2-3 times a week at portions of 150-300 grams per portion, at those amounts, the statistical risk is crossing the safe dosage.

But hey, to each their own. We always need to account for other things but where high saturated fats food is concerned factors like being active may not be enough to offset the damage 

Guess I'll leave it there

Edited November 21, 2022 by Michael569

[aurum]

1 hour ago, Michael569 said:

The thing with red meat might he the high content of saturated fats and ApoB containing lipoproteins that accelerate atherogenesis.l (this is a pathophysiology of heart disease) 

 

Peter Attia seems to agree with this:

Takes a couple minutes but they get there from the timestamp.

Saladino of course does not buy the ApoB theory. His whole thing seems to be that atherosclerosis only involves LDL due to insulin resistance and damage to the endothelium.

Then he takes it a step further by arguing that red meat is necessary to thrive due to high micronutrient content, high bioavailability, the evolutionary precedent (humans historically ate meat) and the lack of anti-nutrients.

There might be some truth there, but my guess is there’s not as much as he argues. We could probably get around all those issues on a plant-based diet and some basic supplements if we wanted to.

[Michael569]

@aurum he is right, it is not the LDL per se. As in high serum LDL somehow clogs veins. The mechanisms of ApoB is that it irreversibly binds to a structure called Proteoglycans located in an area called tunica intima inside the artery.

This basically raises an alarm bell and your immune cells start getting inside as well and as it gobbles up the LDLs it starts turning into fat gorged cell called foam cell.  As the foam cell grows, it cannot get out anymore and just accumulates inside the artery. With more ApoB getting in and more Foam cells being formed, an atheroma starts forming, bulging like an erect dick under tight trousers, causing a gradual obstacle in the artery. Alongside that inflammation is now spreading, more cells getting in and accumulating in a graveyard that triggers atherogenesis, the hallmark of heart disease

(this is a hyper simplified explanation).

The LDL is a proxy for ApoB potential. Like of you have more cars on a highway the odds of collision are higher. I don't exactly know if all LDL contains ApoB. Tom Dayspring probably (an actual board certified lipidologist) has a video on that somewhere.

Btw Paul has been called out for his stuff by lipidologists and he notoriously rejects debates with people who he knows would crush him in 5 minutes like Nick Hieber or Avi Bitterman. Worth checking out Gil Carvalho's take as well. These are the nerds who actually contact reseachers to correct data in pre reviewed studies. Paul is a populist and a quack who is connected with Liver King in a business venture selling shit supplements to insecure young men.

If you wanna go a step further, check the review of Carnivore Code on Redpenreviews. Scientific accuracy is like 30%.

Thanks for sharing the Peter Attila's video, I haven't listened to that one but had it shared by multiple people. The podcast with Layne Norton was pretty good as well.

I'm not against red meat in some sort of religious zealotry. Small amounts are probably fine. I just don't like the selfish and hyenic way the data is being manipulated for the sake of profit. 

Edited November 21, 2022 by Michael569

[LfcCharlie4]

11 hours ago, Michael569 said:

@aurum Paul is a populist and a quack who is connected with Liver King in a business venture selling shit supplements to insecure young men.

I'm not against red meat in some sort of religious zealotry. Small amounts are probably fine. I just don't like the selfish and hyenic way the data is being manipulated for the sake of profit. 

 

I think that first point is so key. So many issues come from 'Well Liver King looks big & strong but X doctor looks like a twig so LK must be right!' I wonder if we will ever get to a point where when you sell a program / supplement you have to actually show you're Natty status, as so many Fake Nattys get away with a LOT 

Also, Carnivore in the short term seems to work as an elimination diet & a paper over the cracks for those who went too extreme the other way (SAD, Raw Vegan, lots of deficiencies', gut issues etc) so I can see why we see these case studies of people in the 3-18 month range, but I suspect in the next 5-10 years lots of heart issues, gut issues from lack of fibre & a range of other things will start popping up 

I would say I err on the side of Religious Zealotry just because the data seems so clear, not even to mention the environmental / ethical aspects, but as you said small amounts aren't the issue. 

 

14 hours ago, aurum said:

 

There might be some truth there, but my guess is there’s not as much as he argues. We could probably get around all those issues on a plant-based diet and some basic supplements if we wanted to.

 

I think of it like this when I'm asked 'But vegans need supplements, so doesn't that make it incomplete' 

Veganism may leave you with a cup that isn't completely full, and needs to be topped up with a few things like Omegas, Vit D, B12, Iodine. (Not that most meat eaters aren't deficient in many things, for example a friend of mine who's eaten meat heavily always has been diagnosed with B12 deficiency recently)

Whereas, diets involving meat are more likely to fill your cup up to the top, but come with the big additional risk of Heart & other chronic health issues 

SO, I'd always choose the first option since the data shows it improves the chance of longevity & combined with modern medicine that a lot of these Blue Zones didn't have it could help even further 

 

Also, having eaten this way for 7 years, it defo takes more planning for sport / protein related goals like muscle building as you have to make the effort to reach the protein, Creatine is way more important, as are EAAS etc, but I see that as a small price to pay for the overall benefits

[thepixelmonk]

52 minutes ago, LfcCharlie4 said:

I think of it like this when I'm asked 'But vegans need supplements, so doesn't that make it incomplete' 

Veganism may leave you with a cup that isn't completely full, and needs to be topped up with a few things like Omegas, Vit D, B12, Iodine. (Not that most meat eaters aren't deficient in many things, for example a friend of mine who's eaten meat heavily always has been diagnosed with B12 deficiency recently)

Whereas, diets involving meat are more likely to fill your cup up to the top, but come with the big additional risk of Heart & other chronic health issues 

SO, I'd always choose the first option since the data shows it improves the chance of longevity & combined with modern medicine that a lot of these Blue Zones didn't have it could help even further

I've been vegan for over a decade, don't take supplements of any kind, and every blood test I've ever taken has shown no deficiencies. It can certainly be done, and even if you do take a few fortified foods or supplements, it's a very strange reaction that comes up during the veganism conversation. If someone were taking protein supplements for their gym workout nobody would bat an eye.

[aurum]

12 hours ago, Michael569 said:

Paul is a populist and a quack who is connected with Liver King in a business venture selling shit supplements to insecure young men.

 

 

47 minutes ago, LfcCharlie4 said:

I think that first point is so key. So many issues come from 'Well Liver King looks big & strong but X doctor looks like a twig so LK must be right!' I wonder if we will ever get to a point where when you sell a program / supplement you have to actually show you're Natty status, as so many Fake Nattys get away with a LOT 

Yes there is some shanigans with Liver King. And undoubtedly there can be bias there for the sake of business interests. Especially when you build a whole identity around it, e.g “I’m a carnivore”.

But I also think Paul is not that nefarious. I think his intentions are mostly in the right place. He has shown some willingness to adjust his diet with evidence (going from strict carnivore to animal-based). He just has a lot of bias.

The the thing with Paul is that he tried vegan and it legitimately didn’t seem to work for him. And that negative experience lead him to really question the narratives around plant foods.

Some of his conclusions I don’t find that bad, like: 

• Anti-nutrients are real and need to be accounted for, especially if you have a known sensitivity
• Lower bioavailabilty for nutrients in plants is real and needs to be accounted for
• Certain micronutrients missing completely from plant foods is real and needs to be accounted for
• Fat and salt are not the monsters we once believed them to be.
• Mainstream science is sometimes reductionistic, misses root causes or is even corrupt
• The standard american diet is garbage
•  I’d even grant him that (maybe) there is a historical, evolutionary precedent for humans to eat meat over plants.

But this debate over LDL levels and atherosclerosis is a big deal. With cardiovascular disease being the number one killer in the world, you have to get this piece right. Otherwise your diet is highly suspect.

I think if he can prove his ideas around atherosclerosis, then he has a legitimate case for a red meat heavy, animal-based diet. But that’s a big IF.

He needs to get some reputable, third-party group to do research and cosign on his specific ideas. It’s not enough for him to just interpret the existing literature that is out there, he needs his own studies if he’s that confident.

Paul, if you’re reading this, I’m rooting for you. If it turns out that eating meat, fruit and dairy is nutritionally optimal, I’ll be the first one doing cartwheels in the streets. I’d maybe consider even doing it under medical supervision.

But to make it a mainstream movement, you gotta prove it. Most people like consensus science and are not going to risk their lives for a pet theory. Nor should they.

[StarStruck]

Not this again. The vegan industry is making shit tons of money off of feeble minds selling the next best vegan snake oil. 

[Loving Radiance]

Also check out his supplemental e-books:

• The Proof Food And Oil Pyramids https://theproof.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/PlantProofFoodAndOilPyramids.pdf
• Supplement Guide https://theproof.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/PlantProofSupplementGuide.pdf
• Tracking Your Progress https://theproof.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/PlantProofTrackingYourProgress.pdf
• Blood Test Guide https://theproof.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/PlantProofBloodTestGuide.pdf

[LfcCharlie4]

@thepixelmonk Yeah I agree, personally I had issues without supplements when I first went Vegan at 15 and feel optimal with Omega 3s, B12, Vit D (live in the UK haha) & a basic Vegan multivitamin. I would rather be optimal, and this is covered in the book. 

And, agree, I go to the gym, and we talk about Creatine & protein & that's no issue, it is a weird one.

Yet you bring up CVD and suddenly its vegan propoganda....

 @StarStruck Lol, the guys already a millionaire from previous brands, all profits of the book go to charity & tbh there isn't that much money in promoting people buying Fruits, Veg & Legumes. There is a lot of money in ultra processed foods tho, hence why they can lobby billionsssss

Sure there probs is some Vegan snake oil, but I don't really see the people promoting WFPB + a few cheap supplements as the issue

Sure you get the 'Vegan XYZ' ultra processed shit (which is spoken about in the book), but you that with every way of eating

the real snake oil tends to come from the fitness industry in my experience, as supplements are the big $$$ there 

16 hours ago, aurum said:

 

• Anti-nutrients are real and need to be accounted for, especially if you have a known sensitivity
• Lower bioavailabilty for nutrients in plants is real and needs to be accounted for
• Certain micronutrients missing completely from plant foods is real and needs to be accounted for
• Fat and salt are not the monsters we once believed them to be.
• Mainstream science is sometimes reductionistic, misses root causes or is even corrupt
• The standard american diet is garbage
•  I’d even grant him that (maybe) there is a historical, evolutionary precedent for humans to eat meat over plants.

 

 

Personally think Anti-Nutrients are exaggerated & easily overcome 

Fat & Salt I agree with, I'd argue the real monster is simply ultra processed foods, recent study showed just 4 serves a day (say orange juice, cereal, a meal deal sandwich & snack) = 62% higher all cause mortaility....more than smoking 

Just eat real food should be the overall message

Science is easily manipulated, just go to any Fitness Twitter and they use single studies of like 25 participants to support X point, its wild

[Adodd]

@Stovo where are you getting this information? Heart disease, cancer and diabetes hardly seem like the healthiest options. Don’t let people convince you that nutrition is as simple as the nutrition label. Real Evidence is actually not at all in favor of “tons of red meat”.

[LfcCharlie4]

17 hours ago, Loving Radiance said:

Also check out his supplemental e-books:

• The Proof Food And Oil Pyramids https://theproof.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/PlantProofFoodAndOilPyramids.pdf
• Supplement Guide https://theproof.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/PlantProofSupplementGuide.pdf
• Tracking Your Progress https://theproof.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/PlantProofTrackingYourProgress.pdf
• Blood Test Guide https://theproof.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/PlantProofBloodTestGuide.pdf

 

Yeah, they're all included in the book, just done a blood test today, maybe I'll post here as be interesting to show 7 years vegan results & Testosterone...

Oil he basically recommend cold pressed olive oil 

[Michael569]

23 hours ago, LfcCharlie4 said:

Fat & Salt I agree with, I'd argue the real monster is simply ultra processed foods,

I've been thinking more about this lately. Is it really the "processed" bit? Or is it the fact that we simply overconsume because they are hyper-palatable? If we assume that the processing itself is the problem, it would indicate that there is something in the wholefood that isn't in the processed food which makes it somewhat bad. But then dark chocolate and tofu are ultra-processed foods and I'd argue that both are health-promoting. Same for let's say chickpea pasta, tomato puree, pumpkin puree, baba ganoush, or even a wholegrain tortilla. 

I think the real issue is: 

• high sodium content (although this is being reduced across the board, at least in EU) 
• high palatability which drives overconsumption and that leads to weight gain and weight gain leads to increased chronic disease risk 
• low volume (occupies less space in the stomach and high caloric content per 100 grams of a portion 

Edited November 23, 2022 by Michael569