Dr. Peter Attia: Hack, Liar and All Round Disgusting Individual

 

Apparently Peter and his buddy Gary Taubes just love themselves some crappy pseudoscience. Both of them are funded by the Arnold Foundation, with substantial ties to animal agriculture industry lobbying.  Marion Nestle notes the Arnold’s working relationship with a National Restaurant Association and the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association consultant.

So let’s go over the bogus arguments in this hour long lecture of idiocy.

He starts off by citing a Siri-Tarino et al. Am J Clin Nutr. 2010 study, saying no significant evidence could be found showing saturated fat intake is associated with an increased risk of coronary heart disease (CHD) or cardiovascular disease (CVD).

The Siri-Tarino meta-analysis only looked at prospective epidemiological studies.  We’ve known since the 1970s that epidemiological studies don’t have the statistical power to show an association between saturated fat intake and heart disease. The only studies that have the power to show the relationship come from dietary change experiments.

He goes on to cite Chowdhury et al. in support of his nonsense.  This study looked at a mix of observational and randomized control trials.  Same issues again with the observational data, but the RCTs in this case only looked at supplementation of omega 6 and 3 polyunsaturated fats.  So this tells us absolutely nothing about the role saturated fats play in CVD, it only tells us that supplementing more polyunsaturated fats isn’t going to protect us.

Dr. Walter Willett, chair of the Department of Nutrition at Harvard School of Public Health, discussed the Chowdhury et al. study here, saying, “this meta-analysis contains multiple serious errors and omissions, the study conclusions are misleading and should be disregarded.”  Dr. Michael Greger discusses both the Siri-Tarino and Chowdhury studies and their flaws here. (I highly recommend taking the time to watch that short video by Dr. Greger as it pretty much destroys all of Attia’s arguments from here on out.)

Then Attia goes on a long rambling history lesson about Ancel Keys that makes no real point at all, other than to bad mouth Keys ground breaking epidemiological work.  Keys work at the time was the best science that could be done on the subject.  Keys findings are what led to the hundreds of dietary change experiments being done, which showed us conclusively that saturated fat is the main culprit behind cardiovascular disease.

Then Attia gives a lecture on the subject of “correlation does not equal causation”, while bad mouthing epidemiological data.  I find this hilarious, given that the only studies he’s cited so far in favor of his position are epidemiological studies.  30 minutes in, he’s still rambling about Ancel Keys.

Then he starts attacking the Framingham Heart Study. He notes that the FHS found no association between men with a total cholesterol over 300 and those with a total cholesterol under 170 with the amount or type of fat consumed.  Again, this study lacks the statistical power to making a significant finding.  This is probably why the data he cites remained unpublished.

When we look at metabolic ward studies, where they lock people in a lab and completely control their diet, we can see that the addition of saturated fat raises cholesterol so consistently that you can actually create a mathematical formula that will predict exactly how much saturated fat is required to raise your cholesterol by a given number of points.

Then he starts going on about more epidemiological data that counters what Keys found.  Again, arguing about epidemiological data as it pertains to CVD and CHD at this point is nothing more than a red herring argument.  It’s pointless to argue about since we have randomized control trial dietary change experiments that show conclusively that dietary saturated fat and cholesterol are the primary risk factors for disease.

Then he cites the 1981 paper by Shekelle, saying that even though the paper concluded that eating a high fat diet was a contributing factor for heart disease, we should ignore the paper because they found saturated fat in the diet wasn’t significantly correlated to CHD.  Again, another epidemiological study that suffers from statistical power problems, but the authors were smart enough to understand this, which is why they came to a conclusion that was opposite to what their own data suggested.

Now he’s back to talking about 1970s and 60s data from unreferenced sources, claiming that in 1963 Hungarian researchers found a benefit for eating a maximum of 1.5 oz of fat per day, while in 1965, British researchers found no benefit to eating 1.5 oz max per day.  It’s impossible to refute since the source isn’t cited.  I suspect something funny was going on with the diet in the British study.

Then he cites the 1973 Minnesota Coronary Study.  Here’s what that study actually looked at:

The Minnesota Coronary Survey was a 4.5-year, open enrollment, single end-time double-blind, randomized clinical trial that was conducted in six Minnesota state mental hospitals and one nursing home. It involved 4393 institutionalized men and 4664 institutionalized women. The trial compared the effects of a 39% fat control diet (18% saturated fat, 5% polyunsaturated fat, 16% monounsaturated fat, 446 mg dietary cholesterol per day) with a 38% fat treatment diet (9% saturated fat, 15% polyunsaturated fat, 14% monounsaturated fat, 166 mg dietary cholesterol per day) on serum cholesterol levels and the incidence of myocardial infarctions, sudden deaths, and all-cause mortality.

And we’re supposed to be surprised that the treatment group had more deaths?  That’s the best he’s got to support his nonsense?  The treatment group was still eating a 38% fat diet and 166 mg a day of cholesterol!  We know from studies done by Ornish that when total fat is lowered to 10% and saturated fat and cholesterol are lowered to zero, cardiovascular disease is reversed. And we also know that when carbs are consumed along side animal protein the insulinogenic effects of the meal are nearly doubled.  Given this information, it makes sense that the treatment group ended up with more incidents.

In the AHS-2 study, composed of 96,000 people followed for 6 years, 8% of which were vegan, and 28% of which were vegetarian, they compared the vegans to the meat eaters and found vegans/vegetarians had far lower incidences of cancer, heart disease, diabetes… basically every bad thing you can think of was lower in the vegan/vegetarian groups compared to the meat eaters.  Further, the meat eaters in this study ate much smaller portions of meat and were in better health compared to the general population.

Why is he still rambling on about studies done in the 1970s?  Why is he ignoring the hundreds of other dietary change experiments that have been done in the meantime?

Now he’s back to the Framingham study.  Still rambling on about the history of cholesterol computation. He’s claiming that based on the study’s findings, LDL is a marginal predictor of heart disease, so we should ignore it and instead focus on HDL, since the study concluded that raising HDL lowered disease risk.  So by his logic (not the paper’s), since eating saturated fat raises HDL, we should eat saturated fat.  I mean wow. Way to twist the findings.

It’s worth noting that subsequent studies have found that saturated fat raises LDL at a rate that is higher than it raises HDL when consumed with dietary cholesterol.  To quote one study, “The ability of saturated fats to raise LDL cholesterol is enhanced by increased intake of dietary cholesterol as well as baseline LDL cholesterol concentrations.” (and that study was written by Ron Krauss, who is funded by the National Dairy Council, National Cattleman’s Beef Association, and the Robert C. and Veronica Atkins Foundation!)

This dietary change study found that adding cholesterol to a diet with saturated fat increased LDL cholesterol levels about 5 times more than just the saturated fat alone.  So coconut and palm oils are bad, but it’s those hamburgers and eggs that are really going to kill you.  Here’s a short video that covers this subject in much greater detail.

He goes on and on about HDL and triglycerides.  It’s worth noting that Ornish found that when he put people on a whole food plant based diet, their HDL dropped and their triglycerides increased, yet they still showed a reversal of their heart disease through angiography.  So that basically blows his whole theory about HDL and triglycerides out of the water.

Then he covers the MRFIT and LRC trails, which were drug control trials. I don’t find it surprising that there were virtually no differences between them. Again, he ignores conclusions of the studies authors claiming that the data doesn’t support their assertions, while ignoring the reasoning behind the authors claims.

Bad mouths the NIH consensus conference. No evidence presented.

Then he talks about the Cochrane Collaboration’s 2001 study, claiming that they found modified fat intake had no significant effect on longevity or cardiovascular events out of 27 RCTs.   Here’s what the study actually found:

Twenty seven studies were included (40 intervention arms, 30,901 person-years). There was no significant effect on total mortality (rate ratio 0.98, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.12), a trend towards protection form cardiovascular mortality (rate ratio 0.91, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.07), and significant protection from cardiovascular events (rate ratio 0.84, 95% CI 0.72 to 0.99). The latter became non-significant on sensitivity analysis. Trials where participants were involved for more than 2 years showed significant reductions in the rate of cardiovascular events and a suggestion of protection from total mortality. The degree of protection from cardiovascular events appeared similar in high and low risk groups, but was statistically significant only in the former.

Of course, he never mentions the bolded part of the findings.  Further, who knows what constituted a “low fat” diet.  Most trials consider 30% to be a low fat diet, which is still a ridiculously high amount of fat compared to what a plant based diet would provide.  And of course, cholesterol intake was not controlled for either.

Then the 2006-11 study that found that risk factor intervention had no effect on mortality.  Well this study only looked at using counseling and education aimed at behavior change. Is anyone surprised that Billy Bob didn’t quit smoking and stop eating his ribs when the doctor told him to? This study doesn’t tell us anything about risk factors, it only tells us that counselling has a limited ability to change people’s habits.  This isn’t some shocking revelation.

Then he talks about the Women’s Health Initiative study. This study found no reduced risk of CHD or stroke between treatment and control groups. The treatment group lowered their fat consumption by 8.2% and saturated fat by 2.9%. Again, the women in the treatment group were still eating a high fat diet.  They were still eating 29% of their diet from fat, and they were still eating loads of cholesterol, so it’s not surprising that there were no differences in disease risk between the two groups.  For comparison, the control group averaged a 35% fat diet.  The authors wanted the treatment group to hit 20%, so there was very poor compliance.

Then he talks about the A to Z trial in 2007 that compares various diets to each other.  He notes that the Atkins diet outperformed the Ornish (plant based) diet on several metrics.  It’s worth noting that he’s using erroneous claims about the results of that study.  JAMA actually published a retraction on the weight claims for that study saying, “Weight loss was not statistically different among the Zone, LEARN, and Ornish groups. At 12 months, secondary outcomes for the Atkins group were comparable with or more favorable than the other diet groups.”  – So at best the Atkins diet is a wash compared to Ornish, but it may actually be worse because the study didn’t run long enough to track mortality or cardiovascular events.  Ornish mentions this retraction in his response to The Scientific American, where he refutes many of the arguments Attia is making here.

Ornish has proven his diet reverses heart disease, and every time a low carb diet has been tested for the treatment of heart disease, it has failed.  Further, we know that a certain subset of the population is at a far greater genetic risk for the development of CVD if they consume a high saturated fat and cholesterol diet.  So it is downright dangerous to suggest people eat that way.  Some people will do fine, others will drop dead. Biomarkers don’t tell us about disease progression, and the trial didn’t run long enough to look for mortality or cardiac event risk. And it’s not just Ornish who’s reversing heart disease with a plant based diet, there’s a large body of doctors successfully treating various diseases with a plant based diet.

Then he talks about the Diet Trial in 2008, which compared low fat, Mediterranean and low carb diets.  The low carb had modestly better outcomes, but again, he’s not giving us all the information.  Here’s what the researchers considered “low fat”:

The low-fat, restricted-calorie diet was based on American Heart Association guidelines. We aimed at an energy intake of 1500 kcal per day for women and 1800 kcal per day for men, with 30% of calories from fat, 10% of calories from saturated fat, and an intake of 300 mg of cholesterol per day.

So a severely restricted calorie diet, 30% fat and 300 mg of cholesterol.  For comparison, the average American eats a diet of 35% fat.  None of the participants lowered their LDL levels after 2 years of eating any of those diets.  All of them were still at high risk for cardiovascular disease, with LDL levels well over 100.  All this study did was prove that all three diets are a surefire way to die of heart disease, including the worthless AHA diet.  I personally think the AHA should be charged with criminal negligence for recommending people eat that way.  The people at the AHA know better.

Then he talks about the 2014 diet trail, which again faces the same problems as the first diet trail.  People were still eating 30% total fat and 9% saturated fat in the “low fat” group, no limits on cholesterol intake.

And that’s the extent of “proof” in his total bullshit lecture.  It takes a seriously sick individual to twist the results of the studies he cites and ignore the MOUNTAINS of studies that run contrary to his position.  And finally, if you want to see what happened to my cholesterol levels on a vegan diet, look here.  My LDL levels dropped like a rock, and they are still declining.

It’s worth noting that low carb diets have been proven to be just as effective for weight loss as vegan diets.  Weight loss by any means, including a bad methamphetamine habit or from chemotherapy, will improve blood lipid profiles and other metabolic disease metrics.  However, that does not mean a low carb diet is a good diet for long term health.

When scientists actually measure the blood flow in people eating a diet high in saturated fats, they show signs of worsening atherosclerosis.  The same is not true of people eating a low fat high carb diet.  To quote one study that compared the two diets:

In this chronic study, we found that SFA [saturated fat] impaired endothelial function and that subjects had a marked increase in TG [triglycerides] and a fall in HDL-C on the low-fat CARB diet without an effect on FMD [arterial function]. PUFA [polyunsaturated fat] and MUFA [monounsaturated fat] diets compared with SFA reduced P-selectin concentrations. These results lend further support that a high-SFA diet is atherogenic through its adverse effect on endothelial function and P-selectin levels.

Ornish found the same in his study results.  People on the low fat plant based diet had “worse” HDL and triglyceride levels, but when he actually measured the plaque in their arteries, he could see their atherosclerosis was reversing.  Here’s another study that found the same thing with high protein diets.  The evidence against eating animal products is simply overwhelming.

Now if you want some real science, watch this:

 

  • keengkong

    It’s amazing that a place that’s supposedly devoted to Libertarian values would place so much stock in the official USDA nutritional advice. Since the USDA started giving out nutritional advice in 1980, Americans have greatly expanded their waist lines. By replacing saturated fat with carbohydrates, we increased our weight and we increased rates of diabetes. We’re just getting fatter and fatter. This is despite us following govenrment advice by eating more carbohydrates.

    I’ve lost weight using a low carb, high fat diet. it is the diet that’s most likely to be recommended to you if you go to a doctor who is a member of the Obesity Medicine Association. It’s not the only diet that works: There are plenty of vegans who do very well. The low carb, high fat diet is the only diet that has worked for me.

    I note that several studies have found that saturated fat does not increase the risk of heart disease.

    Gary Taubes and the Dr. Peter Attia have, through the Nutrition Science Initiative, selected researchers who disagree with them to conduct studies on human nutrition. The goal of the Nutrition Science Initiative is to conduct well-designed studies so we know for certain what is healthy.

    • If you define “works” as causing weight loss, I agree. Of course, a meth habit or chemo will also cause substantial weight loss.

      Over the long term, a low carb diet will dramatically increase your risk of heart disease, erectile dysfunction, colon cancer, prostate cancer, angina, coronary artery disease, etc.. etc.. etc.. That’s why I wrote the article, to point all that shit out.

      • Rounderling

        Yeah!

      • Ed

        Hello, fellow unicorn!

        Unicorn (n.) a plant-based, whole-foods, libertarian.

  • thank you

  • Cobalamin Carnosine

    Just a hint to the author: attraction to your cause > promotion of your cause > condemnation of your opponents. You are highly articulate, but you shot your article in the foot because the title makes it come off as petty. Why would I respect you as an academic after such an ad hominem attack towards this guy? I was really interested in reading information that went against the high fat low carb diet, and you lost me.

    Are you writing for an audience who already shares your beliefs? Your title may serve you well as click-bait, but I submit that most thoughtful people rule click-bait articles out in terms of their information sources, while people who already hate this guy probably stick around to read it gleefully. If traffic is all you care about, then that’s probably fine. Although, this makes me curious as to why you would write a pseudo-scholarly article supporting your beliefs unless it was merely to flex your collection of studies to those that already share your opinion. Thoughts?

    I suspect that the article was well done and your contentions were well supported. Maybe you aren’t trying to persuade people and I have you all wrong. If persuasion IS your goal… rise above that kind of crap, man. Be better than that.

    Respect,

    CC

    • I’m sorry, I get angry when I see academics giving advice that will end up getting people killed. I can’t help myself.

      Don’t think for a minute that Attia does’t know what he’s saying is absolutely deadly. He knows it full well.

      • Cobalamin Carnosine

        Ok, that’s fair that you think that. May I ask, are you a vegan or vegetarian? A lot of animal rights folks seem to think that he is being paid for by the food industry. I happened to swing by his website because of this article and I read this:

        http://eatingacademy.com/personal/actually-eat-part-iii-circa-q1-2014

        I feel like, if this was true, he’d be eating a lot more corn and beef. Also, from what I’ve read, Peter loves to be in ketosis. Without getting too far into it, if you’re in ketosis, you can’t eat more than about 16% of your calories from protein. Nuts would really be your go-to to maintain an 80-16-4 fat-protein-carb ratio.

        Tell me if you can understand where I’m coming from when I say this: I personally find it kind of distasteful when paleo and vegan people go at it when they can both be tested as highly sensitive to insulin despite their very different diets – many of their relatives and friends still suffer unlike either of them even as they try to convert each other. Wouldn’t it be nice if we could first get people out of this massive metabolic syndrome epidemic, and then worry about ethical issues such as vegan/vegetarianism?

        I’m just saying, let’s help our struggling friends and family get rid of refined carbohydrates first.

        As a side note, my personal beef with the food industry (no pun intended) isn’t with “what” anyone should eat, but “when”. I am hoping that I can go to medical school to study the effects of intermittent fasting in humans and maybe find ways for us to help everybody, regardless of what types of food they eat to achieve the same results with some form of a fasting regimen.

        Since I asked you about your diet, I think it’s only fair to say what I eat so I can put something on the line. I consider myself a performance athlete, only because I focus on a compound lifting exercise regimen for the cognitive and hormonal benefits. In order to make optimal strength gains, I do consume animal products. I cycle my carbs, among which include many, many vegetables (and sometime sweets to spike my insulin levels after a particularly hard workout) and I even cycle my fats; protein is usually quite high.

        I test my blood lipid profile and fasting insulin levels semiannually and I test my own glucose and ketones throughout my fast. Do you believe that biomarkers such as high HDL, low triglycerides, and low fasting blood glucose are good indicators of health?

        I think that society will look back on our treatment of animals in disgust in the future. Veganism is highly ethical and I respect it. I personally can’t reconcile it with my health and fitness goals. I am very familiar with all of the essential and nonessential amino acids and there is certainly a time and a place to have some of them and a time and a place not to have some of them.

        I appreciate your response Michael, you’re very gracious and prompt. I look forward to your response.

        Respect,

        CC

        • Sh Fe

          Reading this I also appreciate the response you have provided to Michael’s original points. Yes I believe in the ethical treatment of animals as well, and as yourself, I find that at the moment reconciling this with my fitness goals is difficult. Calorie density in vegetarian diets is harder to achieve, and in a busy rushed place where one has both athletic and professional goals – this is hard. Furthermore, I like the taste of meat. Where there is the option of ethically raised and slaughtered meat, I get that. However, as per the mentions of CVD risk and saturated fat intake and cholesterol, saturated fat by itself seems unfairly blamed for markers that increase arterial damage. There seems to be an interrelated aspect to fat in the presence of high GI/GL carbs inducing a sustained insulin response – as well as other components that increase oxidative stress. Suffice to say, in vegetarian diets, high amounts of omega-6 consumption vs omega 3 over time, also lead to chronic inflammatory responses and essentially CVD risk in the long run just the same. Newer research however about ketosis, is now pointing out significant biochemical advantages to very low carb and high fat. This also includes research being done by DARPA using a state of ketosis for Navy Seal divers to avoid epileptic seizures. It appears from the summary of studies, that the reduction in insulin over time on the body is one way of reducing oxidative stressors, and this can be done via vegetable consumption or meat (granted you’re aware of eating the right combination of things/ and avoiding the bad ones). Furthermore, fat intake as it affects grehlin and leptin responses allows one to achieve stable weight goals overtime without the exhaustive need to eat all the time, keeping insulin levels lower/ and facilitating ketone production that seems to facilitate a whole slew of positive physiological changes. Ultimately, Peter Attia is not a proponent of eating meat, he’s a proponent of achieving metabolic ketosis. Which in the end – has substantial health benefits. So, is Attia doing us a big disservice by bringing this to light? Ancel Keys’s research was – yes, some of the better research back then, but it was not the only and it was certainly not the best. Keys’s multiplatform regression analyses was flawed – so much so that it can be looked upon as biased. Now, are there some points that can be taken away from the study? – yes, as in further research on fat, and surprisingly sugar/ high GI foods, should have been looked into in the presence of fats. It’s also interesting that in nature, there’s very few high GI foods that also have a high fat ratio. If it’s high GI/GL, its usually not high in fat, and vice versa. Wonder if there’s something to that.

          • Do you really think human breath is supposed to smell like acetone? You are aware that acetone is expelled through the lungs as a byproduct of ketosis, right? Do you think humans have evolved to maintain a state of indefinite ketosis?

            Give me a break.

            Ketosis is the body’s response to starvation. It’s a metabolic response that humans have evolved so that we are able to deal with famines if we had a bad year of raising crops.

            If we lost the crops, we would be starving and we wouldn’t have carbs to consume. Out of desperation, we would turn to cannibalism (eating meat) of our animals or hunting wild animals. – That is why the human body produces ketones. Ketosis is a sickness response, like running a fever. It reduces our hunger so that we can scrape by until finding a new source of carbohydrates.

            I noticed you said vegans had high chronic inflammation because they ate high loads of omega 6 fats – which is something I’ve never advocated. I advocate a WHOLE FOOD plant based diet. You can be a vegan and live on nothing but Oreos and Ben and Jerry’s non-dairy ice cream. In order to have high loads of omega 6 fats, one would have to be consuming processed oils. Obviously that’s not what I’m talking about, so to bring up that argument is simply a red herring.

            A whole food plant based diet has been shown to reverse heart disease, cure diabetes, cure prostate cancer, reduce the risk of numerous cancers, reduce the risk of numerous brain disorders, reduce or cure arthritis, reduce or cure back pain, etc.. etc… etc… – one diet does it all.

          • Sh Fe

            Hi,
            you seem to jump to conclusions in what you read from my statements. I am not saying that whole plant foods are bad. I am saying that I favour research in all areas. Also, you seem to believe that a state of ketosis evolved to deal with starvation. Actually, not true, its a matter of the TCA cycle being backed up leading to Acetyl Coa overload in the mitochondrial matrix, which then leads into the pathway for ketone body production as a means to use those ketone bodies. Acetone is simple one of those ketone bodies. the other 2 have some very interesting biochemical affects. starvation is just one reason for ketone buildup, but the very notion that the krebs cycle being backed up forcing acetyl coA to start floating around….er, that’s a stretch. WE don’t know the reason why that is. It does happen in starvation, fasting, and also in some genetic diseases. Also, human evolution has led to many pathways. Its a highly complex system that is dynamic in many aspects. It does not simply rely on vegetarianism or simply meat based diets. It is very capable of handling both. It seems all compensatory methods in humanity has evolved for the sake of survival – be it from starvation or some other reason. Try to understand that what I am saying – is to look at the positive and negative aspects of meat AND plant based diets rather that the exclusivity concept. Exclusivity – to any diet, is problematic in various aspects. AND no, I don’t support animal cruelty. That’s a whole different story. I also don’t lend to the hypothesis that humans were only supposed to eat plants.

          • ” It does not simply rely on vegetarianism or simply meat based diets. It is very capable of handling both”

            No it’s not. Did you not read my post? You got 25% of people dropping dead from heart disease. They didn’t get that from eating broccoli and beans buddy.

          • Cobalamin Carnosine

            Michael,

            I would appeal to my earlier question that went unanswered, and express it in further detail: Given that you clearly value both empirical evidence as well as fasting glucose and blood lipid profiles as good indicators of health, what do you think of my 99 HDL, 84 LDL, 36 triglycerides, and 77 fasting glucose? These are, as you might say, in spite of a very high meat diet which consists of usually over a pound of meat per day. I am honestly curious as to your thoughts on this. I have been eating this way for two and a half years during which my HDL has gone up and my LDL and tryglycerides have gone down.

            I put my father on a similar diet and he dropped from 255 to 205 and all the markers of metabolic syndrome that he formerly exhibited have vanished.

            You make a strong statement: “There are no positives from eating meat – none – when put in comparison to eating whole plant foods.” Can you be more specific in quantifying that? Where plants are lacking in certain areas such as macronutrient density (especially in terms of protein content) Omega-3’s, B vitamins, iron, and other areas, meats are lacking in many essential vitamins and minerals that plants contain too. Do they not both serve their own respective purposes nutritionally, especially when compared with processed foods?

            Perhaps whole foods in general could be looked at as parts of a complete and healthy diet rather than assuming that over 7 billion people with different bodies can all process exclusively vegetables or meat and in doing so achieve their own optimal nutritional status, which is further made more specific based on what goals and lifestyle they pursue.

            I thank you and welcome this discourse! You’re all very bright people. Cheers,

            CC

          • What’s your total cholesterol? With an HDL of 99, I’m willing to bet it is higher than 150. If it is above 150, it doesn’t matter what your HDL or LDL readings are, because you’re at an elevated risk of heart disease.

            It is a complete myth that you can’t get enough protein, omega-3’s, B vitamins and iron eating plants. There has never been a documented case of a dietary induced protein deficiency, if a person is consuming adequate calories, in all of recorded medical history.

            Plants contain the perfect balance of omega-3 to 6’s in adequate amounts to maintain perfect health. Grains are loaded with B vitamins and legumes contain plenty of iron. In fact, meat contains heme iron which has been linked to an increased risk of cancer because it is a powerful oxidant.

            http://cancerpreventionresearch.aacrjournals.org/content/4/2/177

            If you lose body fat by any means, you will improve blood sugar levels. This is because intramuscular fat is responsible for block the insulin action on cellular walls, which drives up blood sugar.

            A diet that makes you sick (such as a ketogenic diet), will cause you to lose weight, and therefore it will also cause you to improve your blood sugar levels. This does not mean the diet is one that promotes optimal health.

          • Cobalamin Carnosine

            Do you have a background in dietetics, medicine, or hopefully at least nursing?

            It does very much matter what your HDL and LDL readings are; overall cholesterol is relevant in that it used to be used before we understood the clinical significance between HDL and LDL. The reason is because HDL cholesterol cleans out LDL from the blood stream, which yields less LDL which could potentially clog arteries. I really hope and I actually believe that you already know this. Your contention that HDL doesn’t matter is like saying that it doesn’t matter if you are 7% body fat, there’s studies that show a BMI over 25 is linked to health concerns. To keep things relevant, my BMI is 25.1 but my body fat is indeed 7.58% per a 3 test 7 point skin-fold and 8.2% per a bioelectrical impedance analysis.

            Since we’re both coming from a point of genuine care about making sure neither of us is eating a harmful diet, I don’t suppose you’d offer your body fat or fat-free mass so that we can make sure that your vegan diet has afforded you the most optimal biomarkers for the predictably lowest risk health trajectory? I mean it Michael, I’m not being facetious. I wouldn’t follow my diet if I didn’t think it was, obviously, the best for me – and I mean no disrespect but I am curious if you are falling into the trap of scientism.

            I appreciate your last video. However, this video doesn’t indicate any facts about the numbers that I’ve given and other than extra information to digest, which I appreciate, I’d have to regard it as a red herring in terms of this argument.

            I don’t recommend that people do intermittent fasting, I simply want to do more research to discover its clinical capacity. Perhaps I will have the opportunity to do some much-needed research on veganism as well to find out how we can use it to the benefit of society.

            In a similar way, Peter Attia, it appears, wants more research on Ketosis. All of his statements are couched in hedges and caveats on how he is not recommending anyone do Ketosis, but how further research into cellular metabolism could help us understand what is happening in this process and if there is a clinical application for it.

            This is to say, I would avoid making blanket statements about health, especially in terms of recommendations on what people should or should not eat if you lack the proper qualifications. Do you agree that some people would do better on a non-vegan diet, or do you truly believe that we should all be vegans?

            Have a great day,

            CC

          • Cobalamin Carnosine

            Pardon my Typos… end of the semester exhaustion!

          • You never answered my question about what your total cholesterol is, and the first thing you attempt to do in your reply is attack my credibility rather than addressing the facts I’ve presented.

            I have a BMI of 24, and I’m around 15% body fat. I weigh 190 and I’m 6’2″.

          • Cobalamin Carnosine

            Can you quote me attacking your credibility? I think I just asked you what kind of qualifications you had. I’m not interested in an conversation in which my views are misrepresented.

            If you’re trying to end the conversation, I understand. Intimidation seems like a pretty weak approach though. I won’t lose any sleep if you ban me, but for someone who is an author on a libertarian website, I’m surprised that you’d go so far as to silence my speech.

          • Cobalamin Carnosine

            Also, just so you know, and since I already gave you my numbers…The equation for total cholesterol is: LDL + HDL + (triglycerides/5). So yes, it’s over 150.

            If you scroll up, you could extrapolate from my posts that my intention was to share ideas and maybe learn some things from each other even though we might not agree. I don’t think that we have this goal in common.

            Have a great day,

            CC

          • You’re right, I don’t think we have this goal in common. I don’t think you are here to actually learn anything, you’re here because you want to justify to yourself that the diet you’re eating is a healthy one.

            It’s not.

            Given your cholesterol level, you are at an elevated risk of heart disease. I recommend keeping a close eye on your erections. If they start to get weaker, your arteries are probably getting clogged.

            I already did extrapolate that your cholesterol was above 150, but you still haven’t told me what it is exactly.

          • Pat Hancock

            “Plants contain the perfect balance of omega-3 to 6’s”
            Yes true but you are not able to convert it efficiently enough to really get enough, and when you get older it gets even worse, even Dr Greger and Dr Furhman recognize this to be true and advise supplementing with marine algae oil which is vegan and often grown in labs so no toxins are present

          • Pat Hancock

            actually checkout Valter Longo on fasting and reduced calories with longevity and body repair, its seems that the presence and abundance of food inn the modern era was not the norm having no food or just a little food was the norm, and since are bodies have not had enough time to evolve our actual default state biologically where we seem to thrive is little to no carbs, fasting and low calorie meals, I am vegetarian doing keto only consuming pastured eggs occasionally and salmon even more seldom, a keto diet is doable without consuming tons of animals products

          • That’s just absurd. You got a billion skinny asians living long lives on high carb diets and they aren’t starving. People having been eating whole grains as far back as the historical record allows us to see.