Transcription
[music] >> Hi, I'm a scientist with nearly 30 years of experience. And the truth is that humans are carnivores. In this video, I'll break down the biggest three reasons that seem to prove this. Let's get into it.
But science says meat kills you and plants [clears throat] heal you. Well, let's be fair and objective. Why does almost everyone believe that that's what the science says? Well, science doesn't actually say anything. Scientists do. Scientists are required to publish every year to remain employed as scientists. And so, their goal is relevance, importance, interest, intrigue, shock and horror, and satisfying their funding source. Their interest as as a scientist is not the objective truth. Science, a disciplined process by which scientists are expected to provide insights, remains steadfastly silent. It has no voice.
Science requires a properly controlled experiment to be able to inform on cause and effect. Sadly, many scientists forget this fact because it is convenient, i.e., at odds with the goals of scientists themselves for their own gain that I've just outlined. Experimental protocols that do exist are typically small scale, short term, and assess only proxies of health, rather than actual health outcomes. These proxies are usually based on a lot of guesswork, much of which is easily shown to be false. Further, these experiments [music] typically get nowhere near enough control to isolate anyone input as that relates to the outcome being measured in a cause and effect manner. I'll talk about uncontrolled impacting factors in a minute.
Every single large-scale, long-duration study that you will see that talks about hard health outcomes of any kind over any decent period of decades, or indeed longevity itself, is an associative study of some kind. Associative studies are not experiments, and they cannot inform us on cause and effect, either. People were followed for a number of years. In these studies, no experiment is being done. Nothing is being isolated from the unlimited number of other parallel impacting factors. The classic example of confounding impacting factors is this. People who eat a well-balanced diet live longer. Sure. At large, however, they also tend to be of higher socioeconomic status, education status. They tend to exercise more, smoke and drink less, etc., etc. It's called healthy user bias, and it totally removes the ability to ascribe the longevity noted to the diet.
Here's the verdict on nutrition and health science. Let me be very clear. No science linking diet of any kind to actual health outcomes exists anywhere. None. All of what does exist is constructed consensus and mechanistic speculation based position statements. Look at it this way. If any good science really did exist, no position statement would be needed. And the nutrition debate would be over. It's clearly not over.
So, why do I think humans are adapted as carnivores primarily? And that carnivore is the ideal diet for humans. Let's go. Reason number one. Nitrogen isotope testing establishes it. Any animal eating more than 70/30 meat and fat plant material is classified as carnivore. But what the what does that have to do with humans today? Let's say in the last 13,000 years. Well, genes change very slowly and humans have not changed much in the last 13,000 years at all. Well, we're shorter. We have smaller bodies on the whole. We're less muscular. We have smaller brain cavities, smaller jaws, and a host of problems related to a diet rich in plants to which we are not adapted. Mhm. Do we still have some genes that are are from our ancient plant-eating origins some 5 million years ago, sure. These were not deleted from our genes because they caused no problems for us. Example, salivary amylase, so we can break down carbohydrates.
This form of skeletal remains testing of nitrogen isotopes, the N14 N15 type, tells us how much meat versus how much plant-based protein a human ate while it was alive, definitely. Even if that skeleton is over 100,000 years old. The answer for humans or human skeletal remains from all over the world as early as 100,000 years ago right up until 13,000 years ago is 80/20 or thereabouts, meat versus plants. Anthropologists tell us that humans have probably been eating almost exclusively meat and [music] fat for about 5 million years, in fact.
So, now that we know what humans have eaten, we know how natural selection has molded our bodies, our physiology, our organ systems. What does this mean for you? Well, if you're a human, then you are best adapted to a diet of 80% meat and fat or more and 20% plant material or less. I'd suggest you eat only plants that were in existence 13,000 to 100,000 years ago, mind. So, in summary, it seems you are best adapted to a carnivore diet if you are a human being. So, that is how you should probably eat.
Reason number two. You do not need any carbohydrates in your diet at all, not one single gram ever. Ah, but you might say just cuz you don't need it, that doesn't mean no carbs is optimal. Well, you should do what you feel is right for you, of course. However, unnecessary intake of carbohydrates causes blood sugar to become elevated in a dangerous manner. This can lead to serious damage to tissues, as sugar will directly cause this damage to occur. Some of the excess sugar is also stored as fat, and over fatness is also a serious health challenge. This particular kind of blood sugar profile is also a direct cause of inflammation around the body, and inflammation seems to be a vital starting point for diabetes, heart disease, many forms of cancer, dementia, and early death.
As I said, there is no cause and effect proof of any health outcome as it relates to any aspect of diet, sure. But the mechanistic speculation here seems to be much more robust than any idea suggesting fat is bad. I'll cover that in another video. What does this mean for you? Well, if what I've said about carbs makes sense to you, then you'll want to severely limit your intake of carbs. That's not advice, by the way, it's my professional opinion. So, summary. Do you need to eat carbs? No, not one single gram ever. Is there, or are there good reasons it seems to limit carbs to very low levels? Yes, it seems there are. And so, it's my professional opinion that that's what you should probably do. I'd suggest as a good number, less than 50 g of carbohydrates total on a daily basis. Again, that's just my opinion. You do you.
Reason number three. Yes, that's three. Good. Plants alone cannot supply all the nutrient that you [music] need. Meat and an animal fat can. Oh, but meat has no vitamin C and no fiber, so I must be lying. Well, meat does, in fact, contain vitamin C, and as it turns out, perfectly enough. But how do we know that? Well, millions of people around the world now eat a carnivore diet, and many of them have been doing that for many decades [music] already, actually. And there have been exactly zero cases of reported and established scurvy in that population. Okay? Uh as far as fiber goes, fiber is not a dietary requirement for human beings. That's a fallacy. Um see the video I've linked on the screen and also below the video in the show notes. It's covered there. Um the cancer versus fiber argument is another example of poorly disciplined social of work. There's no experimental evidence for this cancer claim.
Um what is missing, though, or insufficient from a plant-based diet? Well, vitamins B12 and B2, DHA EPA omega-3 oils, choline, a fully bioavailable calcium, vitamin D3, fully bioavailable protein, creatine, carnosine, taurine, zinc, and a host of others. Mhm. For support regarding these assertions, just do a search on the interwebs. It's all covered there. You just need to learn to search openly for information instead of blindly believing cultists, really. So, in summary, plant-based diets are destitute of nutrition and are not therefore a good idea for humans.
Okay. So, now that we have the top three reasons that you are a carnivore biologically pinned down, so what? What does that mean for you? Does it mean you have to be 100% carnivore forever now? And what if you're still worried that there might be nutrients in plants you'll be missing? Well, we can't actually get much of the useful plant nutrient anyway. As the plants stop us from getting it by chemical defense mechanisms. If you doubt me on that, go and look at a bunch of vegan online activists, influencers, who claim to have been plant-based for over about 10 years. And then I think you'll agree with me for the most part. Like I did herbivores, animals that are herbivores, can get those nutrients. They're evolved for it. Why not? And we can get those nutrients from eating those animals. That's how the food chain works. Ethics, by the way, has nothing to do with it. Nature cares not one jot for ethics.
So, here is the thesis. Meat and animal fat seems to be the ultimate superfood for humans. We have eaten this way almost exclusively for millions of years. We are adapted for it. Therefore, >> [music] >> absolutely. We tend to have problems if we eat more than a very small amount of carbohydrates sooner or later. And we cannot apparently thrive throughout the lifespan on a plant's only diet. We are carnivores, period. Thanks for watching.