Transcription
All right, lovelies. Thank you for joining me once again.
Well, today I'm covering all of nutrition science in 15 minutes. Challenge accepted. Look, I've studied nutrition science for well over 20 years. And unlike 99% of nutritionists who blindly believe what they are taught and just regurgitate it, basically, never questioning basic things like, well, who funded the studies? Is there any actual experimental evidence? All that kind of stuff. I've actually been involved in the research. I've published a number of articles myself, so I do know kind of what's going on in this field. Stick around till the end. That way, you'll get the full picture.
Look, I feel ill, and you won't. All right. Nearly everything you have ever been taught about nutrition is a lie. Which is why over 70% of people are overweight, obese, and the rates of chronic disease is skyrocketing. Today, I'm going to be breaking down everything you need to know about the basics of nutrition science in under 15 minutes. So, let's go.
Science is an experimental epistemology. Epistemology means a way of knowing things. In order to establish cause and effect and infer it acceptably, we need to do an experiment. An experiment involves getting two identical populations of people at the outset, locking them in a lab so that we can control and observe, keeping everything constant except for one thing which we are allowed to vary, and then we can make cause and effect statements about that. Otherwise, we're just making inferences. Which is fine, so long as you say, well, this is just an educated inference. However, that's not how things are done in nutrition science, is it?
What's the problem? Well, we can't do studies on human beings. Ethics committees hate that. They don't want us locking people in labs for a lifetime to determine the health effects of anything as it relates to anything else. The practicalities of that, well, goodness, who wants to run a lifelong study? Who could? Even if they wanted to. And who's going to pay for that? Pretty expensive stuff, huh? So, that's why that never happens.
So, as I said, what we do what we're stuck with in nutrition science, so-called, is inferential studies. Which come under two main categories, I think, really. And they are mechanistic speculations whereby authors say, "Look, we believe this is how this relates to that. Here is the proposed mechanism. We can't actually test it using an experimental study on human beings because ethics, practicalities, and finance. But, here's our best guess." Which we're then going to turn around and say here's cause and effect inference, even though it's not.
Uh the second category of studies that are done uh epidemiology, which basically are what they call prospective cohort studies, which is crazy because they're not prospective at all. They're retrospective studies on that group of people under the conditions that they were studied at that time. Not extrapolable to another population. Leads to things like the misuse of the word risk. Whenever I hear somebody say, "This increases your risk of that," I say, "My risk?" I wasn't one of those participants in that study. That study can't inform me about my risk. What was that study population? Were they representative of of me? My age? Were they my gender entirely? Or were they some mix of genders cuz I'm not a mix of genders. Sorry about that. I'm all man. Also, associative associative studies, like epidemiology, are at their very foundation and at their core totally incapable of informing on risk, period. All right. Sorry about that.
Conflict of interest is a real problem in the nutrition science. I've given examples of that in my previous videos on my channel. Perhaps you'd like to go and check them out. Have a look at that European consensus panel on LDL so-called cholesterol and heart disease. That's hilarious, that one. 100% of researchers agree with their funding source. Only that, science costs a lot of money to do. Frankly. And scientists tend not to like to bite the hand that feeds them. So, there's a bit of massaging that goes on with results. That's just the way it is.
The problem with science, or nutrition science, let's keep it topical to what we're talking about today. Uh the problem is that there are people in it. And and people are corruptible. Sorry about that. Consensus. Uh look, everybody agrees. All the scientists agree. Well, that's not science. That's sociology. Science is indicated empirically and not by whichever opinion is the most popular. The other thing that's a real problem in climate science is that people like to make false climate narratives, don't they? And uh append various things to various aspects of nutrition that have really nothing to do with anything except that which is virtue signaling. Or that which gets you that research grant. The effect of eating meat on the climate, for example. Okay. Right. Right.
All of that having been said, we can now see some of the most basic problems, issues, concerns with nutrition science. It's rubbish. Sorry about that.
>> [clears throat] >> Okay, let's now deal with my opinions from this point forward. Everything I've given you so far is a fact. From this point forward, I'm going to give you my opinions based on 20-plus years doing my own research and publishing my own research in the field of nutrition among other fields. This is what I have discovered, what seems to be supportable with some decent inference. Here's what works I have found in practice with my own clients in my own clinical practice that I've also been involved in. This is what works, I think. So, here it is for what that's worth.
How much protein do you need? Well, it seems like obviously these comments are all aimed at the middle of the bell-shaped curve, but let's say for the average Joe or Josephine, somewhere between 2 and 2.5 g of protein per kilogram of lean body mass. And for those of you that speak in freedom units, you do the conversion yourself. It's 2.2 lb per kilo. Okay? Oh, yes, but I'm an athlete. Do I need more protein? No, not particularly. It's about the same, really. Even hypertrophy athletes, muscle building athletes. So, if you think about it, how much muscle mass do they add every day, every week, every month? No matter how much protein they pack down themselves. So, no, you don't particularly need much more protein as an athlete, any kind of athlete, whatever.
Uh where should you get your protein from? Well, it seems like the inference, such that it is in the literature, would suggest that the most bioavailable source of protein is muscle meat of animals, and not plants. It's just the way it is. If you don't like that, sorry about that. Can't help it. That's just what the inference seems to be.
In terms of fats, what are the best fats? What are the fats you should consume? Well, animal fats. Why do I say that? Well, because evolution is a thing. Again, if you don't like that, sorry. It's just a fact. Can I prove evolution is a thing? Yes. Let me ask you this. Are your genes an exact copy of your mother's or your father's? No. Your genes are a mixture of both your parents. That's evolution. Sorry about that. Therefore, because evolution is a thing, that means positive and negative selection pressures are also a thing. Our bodies are evolved, are adapted to the consumption of animal fats. That's where we are supposed to get the vast majority of our so-called energy from. Let's do that.
How much fat should you eat? Well, you have a great instinct for that. Once you've been clean of carbohydrates for a while, and I'll deal with that next. Your instinct will be good on how much fat you should eat. So, follow your body in that regard.
All right, let's deal with carbohydrates. How much carbohydrate do you need? How much exogenous carbohydrate should you take in? How much do you need in your diet? Not one single gram ever, period. So, no carbs are required in your diet, none at all. Gluconeogenesis is a thing. That is the creation of new glucose from non-glucose precursors. Your body makes all the glucose it needs in that way. And ketosis is also a thing. And ketosis is not an alternate to gluconeogenesis when gluconeogenesis is insufficient. It's a signal. It's an energetic signal. It's a way that your body communicates. The cells of your body communicate with one another about the energetic state, and thus what the hormonal and endocrine state should be. Okay? Both of those things are a thing. Homeostasis is also a thing. It's not written on the slide, but homeostasis means the ability of the body to maintain a stable environment both internally and when that is perturbed from external sources over a wide range of conditions.
Let's deal with some common mistakes in nutrition that people make, and hopefully you won't make them once you've listened to this. Here they are.
Mistake number one, seed oils are great for your heart, though. They're heart healthy. No, they're not. Seed oils are typically high in deuterium, which is something you should go and find out about. I'll probably make a video about it at some point. I already have done several, but I'll make another one. Seed oils are also pro-inflammatory on at least one, if not two, pro-inflammatory pathways, LOX and COX for those who want to look them up as well. And seed oils are prone to oxidative damage and derangement leading to all sorts of really really problematic things such as for example aldehydes. Seed oils not good. Stay away from seed oils. Please.
Grains, grains, healthy grains they say. Yes. Mhm. You don't need any grains in your diet whatsoever. There is no such thing as a grains deficiency. Grains contain all sorts of problematic plant irritants plant toxins, plant antinutrients. I've covered that many times on videos in the past if you want to go and look that up. You don't need any grains. Or fiber. You don't need fiber either.
Mistake number three, veggies. Let's deal with the fiber again. Veggies contain fiber and fiber if anything seems to be a real problem for gut function. Go and look up Dr. Paul Mason and fiber on the YouTubes and look at that video that he made about an n equals 62 or 63 study. Found some incredible things about fiber and its apparent association with gut dysfunction actually if anything. The ideas around well you need a lot of fiber for short-chain fatty acids. No, you don't. Ketones will provide those. That's fine. And or you can consume short-chain fatty acids in the form of butter for example. Okay. So, there's that one. Well, also phytonutrients they say. You need phytonutrients. No, you don't. There are no such things as deficiencies of phytonutrients. It's a marketing term. It's a great bit of marketing. It's awesome propaganda, but it's nothing to do with human physiology or human requirements in any way, shape, or form.
Uh mistake number four, fruit. Well, once again, jolly old fiber. You don't need any of that. Still a problem. Also, fruit contains fructose. Fructose can be very problematic for liver energy status for one. Potential towards propensity for fatty liver disease perhaps. Non-alcoholic fatty liver disease, that is. An apple a day will not keep the doctor away. You don't need any fruit in your diet. There is no such thing as a fruit deficiency.
All righty, mistake number five, processed so-called food. Look, if you go into a supermarket, the best thing to do is to shop around the four external walls and stay away from everything in the middle. All that manufactured junk, all the things with ingredients panels with 20 and 30 and 40 ingredients. Pick anything like that up and look at it, put it back down. Would be my suggestion. There it is.
Okay, so at the end of the day, all of that said and done, the solution, I believe, based on 20 years of experience studying this, dealing with clients, and with my own mistakes that I've made over the years, is this. Eat a species-appropriate, species-specific diet as informed by our genetic gift, our anthropological past, and therefore our absolute clear, unassailable, and demonstrable adaptation to that diet. That being a diet consisting almost entirely of the muscle meat, not organs, muscle meat, and associated fat of mostly ruminant animals. Thank you very much. Join me next time when I'll cover something equally exciting. See you then.