As a 63 year old brain tumor survivor, red meat has been conducive to my recovery. I had to relearn how to read, write, talk and walk all over again. Nutrition plays a vital role in my ability to bounce back from such an invasive and intrusive procedure 💜🧠🥩
I've been watching your videos since the kimchi video about sodium. Thanks for making great content and for putting in the work to research these topics! I just used your meat video sources for a college nutrition course.
Everyone (except complete fools) knows your anti vegan crusade is being funded by the animal industries. You even admit your bogus videos are paid promotion. Your job is to fool people.
If vegans can use bogus sugar-industry studies (funded far more), then I don't care if his studies are funded by meat lobbies, even though that's clearly untrue.
I don't know if he's funded or not. But if you simply look at the studies he's using to further his points and actually look at their sample sizes the margins of data or read their own conclusions you can see how he cherry picked them and even leaves out when the study he used to say vitamin a levels are lower, concluded that vegans have fewer cases of heart disease. He wouldn't even mention it.
Opposed to the way he compiles his videos and presents data, you should compare the way Dr.Greger over at Nutrition Facts does it.
He's not interested in furthering an agenda besides finding the healthiest diet, or lifestyle and debunking claims from industry funded studies like 'coconut water is better than sports drinks' while independent studies find no benefits that plain water wouldn't have.
Just do your own research.
Plus keep in mind that good studies have several thousand to over 130.000 participants, the ones he uses here have as low as 18(maybe lower) and on average maybe 30-40 and i haven't found one with over 300/400 participants. The video he uploaded is not well researched at all. I'm not a licensed medical professional, but i could have done a better job at compiling significant data on this topic, leading me to believe he has an agenda and let's his bias control what he shows and what he doesn't.
Have you found articles with better sampling that show a different conclusion to what his sources are saying? You can’t outright dismiss data over sample size. You can note the strength or weakness of the evidence. If it’s weak and you doubt the findings, all you can say is you want more research done. That’s fair.
But to question his bias or agenda? Come on! Everyone has a bias. Vegans have an agenda. Dr. Greger has an agenda. You are mad that someone made a video in favor of their bias? Can we expect Dr. Greger to put out a video arguing for the pros of animal products just to be fair and balanced to both sides? The video was meant to give some critical arguments against veganism. That’s it. What is wrong with that? Vegans get all antsy with anything that comes across as critical. Why?
Vegans want “balance” when their diet is criticized but the lot of you say nothing when vegan apologists criticize omnivorous diets and only cite sources that they think back their thesis.
I think you are protesting a bit too much and a bit too hypocritically. Chill.
Later when he started talking about B12, despite already being aware of this study where they were using B12 supplements and had normal levels, he went out of his way to find a study where 81% of vegans were not supplementing and, unsurprisingly, they were B12 deficient. He then concludes from a study where the vast majority were not supplementing that "Perhaps these B12 supplements don’t work exactly like animal foods do."
Isn't that very dishonest to you?
Note he did not mention rate of supplementation, which is very important if you're trying to see if something works - see if people are actually using it...
WIL threw vegans a bone when he said it was possible to avoid b12 deficiency with supplements but he pointed out pitfalls like low stomach pH and fiber which may limit absorption. If nothing else, outlining these blind spots may help vegans who are struggling on the diet troubleshoot by reducing fiber and making sure their stomach pH is where it needs to be.
You expect the man to throw veganism a bone that vegans would NEVER throw to meat proponents and I find that unreasonable. He’s not going out of his way to only show negative aspects of veganism. He is compiling what is out there that vegans do not talk about because vegans only want to paint plant-based diets as perfect and bash anything to do with animal products.
You ask me if it’s suspicious that he didn’t mention that b12 was “normal” in the vitamin D article when he specifically said that he looked at articles at papers with “more sensitive” tests for b12?
Here’s a fun fact: cyanocobalamin is the prevalent form of b12 in the “plant” world. Bacteria make it and it’s found in mushrooms, yeasts, and algae. There are even supplements with this form but it’s not bioactive. The body has a low conversion rate for it. And it still competes with methylcobalamin (the active form of b12) for sites and interferes with its activity. Less sensitive b12 tests will count both forms as b12 and it’s possible to have a higher level of the inactive form.
Also cyanocobalamin is paired with a cyanide molecule which is a poison that the body has to detoxify, and that may pose some problem for people if their immune system is compromised. Sensitive tests will look for methylcobalamin levels and make sure that it’s adequate and it may check for cyanocobalamin to make sure that’s low enough. Heck, vegans can simply make sure their supplements and fortifications use methylcobalamin.
Like I said, vegans are the ones going far and out of their way to prove WIL wrong and the best you can come up with is complain about what he omits even though it’s reasonable to assume his omissions are to focus on data that he believes is more relevant to his position, which is that there are problems with the vegan diet; and there are. You are not even denying it. You are just mad that he’s not talking about any positives as if you expect something none of you have ever offered to meat-based proponents.
You want me to admit his video has a bias? Sure. But that’s not a reason to dismiss it. Vegans and vegetarians have a bias and they exercise on it. Does WIL have an “agenda”? Yes, he’s pro-meat. Vegans have an agenda. They are total, without exception, abolitionists. So what is it that you are looking for? Fairness? Balance?
Vegans only need that if their position is weak and they need pro-meat to take on handicaps for their benefit. Nutrition Science has been plant-based focused for over 60 years. It first got its funding from Vegetarians. The mainstream health guidance is plant based focused. Most SAD diets are still 70% plant-based. When you Google for nutrition resources you get plant-based resources authored mostly by vegans and Vegeterians.
Vegans and Vegeterians already have a head start on meat based guidance and STILL plant based folks are triggered to their core when anyone has anything even the tiniest bit critical to say of their guidance. I find that hilarious. What it tells me is that deep down vegans and Vegetarians know their diets suck. They hate it but hold on for other ideological, dogmatic, religious, cultural and ethical reasons and they will lie and tell the world how great their diet is. Some will devote whole careers to prove and defend these diets but all that effort can be undone when folks just compare the nutritional value of a steak to raw soy beans or kidney beans. Compare liver, kidney, heart and spleen to the dozens of ingredients that go into Beyond Meat.
Compare grassfed butter to margerine. Compare a pastured egg yolk to JusEgg or tofu. Compare caviar, clams, oysters and muscles to mushrooms and seaweed. Compare whole dairy to unfortified almond or oat milk. Look at what goes into the industrial factory production of nutritional supplements.
Vegans will happily say “I’m healthy” after 3, 5, 10, 15 years on a vegan diet but most are lying. Jon Venus and Yovanna ended up dropping veganism after they were exposed as cheagans. That Vegan Teacher was recently outed by a guest who found a Slim Jim (a meat stick) in her fridge and she couldn’t think up a lie fast enough so she asked the camera to be cut. Cheaganism is common among vegans and Vegeterians who secretly consume animal products while condemning meat and promoting a vegan lifestyle.
You really want to come here and accuse WIL of dishonesty when plant based nutrition guidance is built on lies, misinformation, eating disorders, antinatalism, misanthropy, and religious zealotry?
15 years is nothing to an average life expectancy of 70-78 years. And we won’t see the full effects of veganism until we see the grandkids and great-grandkids of lifelong vegans. But you can find videos of what plant-based placentas look like. Vegan children are coming into the world already starving. https://youtu.be/wU0LWT2ReU4
You have yourself a great day.
I’m done arguing. I’m not going to stay here arguing for each reference you want to nitpick at.
Here it is claimed two times that "84% of vegans" quit their diet. This is not true.
The Article states: "84% of vegetarians/vegans abandon their diet". The combanition of former 'vegans' and vegetarians is described. The author of the article probably calculated the following numbers from page 2 of the paper:
1.166÷(1.166+221)= 0.84...
If you seperate 'vegans' and vegetarians:
1.037÷(1.037+167) ->~86%vegetarians
129÷(129+54) ->~70%vegan [not 84%]
'Vegans' quit less even though it is more difficult.
The problem here is that no ethical vegan cares about statistics with influence of non-ethical vegans. Ethical ones have huge motivations that non-ethical have not.
This [https://iep.utm.edu/animals-and-ethics/] is a great summary of one major point of animal ethics. Everyone who talks about vegans has to know about these life-changing arguments.
Great video, as always. I'll definitely be using this as a resource in future conversations.
I know the carnivore stuff is a bit of a side topic, but I would like to challenge your emphasis on vitamin C a bit:
Muscle meat has more than enough vitamin C to reach optimal levels on its own. In the past, fresh meat was known to be an effective cure for scurvy, documented in Lancet volume 123.
Optimal intake of vitamin C seems to be around 10 mg/day. Even the lowest C meats have around 16 mg/kg, so around 600 gram (1.3 lbs) a day should meet that level, and that's cherry-picking the lowest value.
And there's reason to suspect C needs would be lower in a carnivore context. A main use of vitamin C is carnitine synthesis. As the name suggests, meat is the best source for that, so needs for synthesis would be declined. Vitamin C competes with glucose for uptake, so it's also likely that any low carb context will reduce C needs relative to the high carb context that 10mg number was found within.
Got even more interested in studying the possible benefits of adding raw meat to a carnivore diet. And even fresh kill raw meat, several substances decompose after hours of the kill, like liver and muscle glycogen.
Maybe you'd want to make a video/post about this Joseph, like the 900 eggs experiment.
As a 63 year old brain tumor survivor, red meat has been conducive to my recovery. I had to relearn how to read, write, talk and walk all over again. Nutrition plays a vital role in my ability to bounce back from such an invasive and intrusive procedure 💜🧠🥩
I've been watching your videos since the kimchi video about sodium. Thanks for making great content and for putting in the work to research these topics! I just used your meat video sources for a college nutrition course.
I have followed your work on YT for some time, happy to discover your substack. And again, the incredible work you do and bring it to us. Thanks!
Everyone (except complete fools) knows your anti vegan crusade is being funded by the animal industries. You even admit your bogus videos are paid promotion. Your job is to fool people.
If vegans can use bogus sugar-industry studies (funded far more), then I don't care if his studies are funded by meat lobbies, even though that's clearly untrue.
I don't know if he's funded or not. But if you simply look at the studies he's using to further his points and actually look at their sample sizes the margins of data or read their own conclusions you can see how he cherry picked them and even leaves out when the study he used to say vitamin a levels are lower, concluded that vegans have fewer cases of heart disease. He wouldn't even mention it.
Opposed to the way he compiles his videos and presents data, you should compare the way Dr.Greger over at Nutrition Facts does it.
He's not interested in furthering an agenda besides finding the healthiest diet, or lifestyle and debunking claims from industry funded studies like 'coconut water is better than sports drinks' while independent studies find no benefits that plain water wouldn't have.
Just do your own research.
Plus keep in mind that good studies have several thousand to over 130.000 participants, the ones he uses here have as low as 18(maybe lower) and on average maybe 30-40 and i haven't found one with over 300/400 participants. The video he uploaded is not well researched at all. I'm not a licensed medical professional, but i could have done a better job at compiling significant data on this topic, leading me to believe he has an agenda and let's his bias control what he shows and what he doesn't.
Have you found articles with better sampling that show a different conclusion to what his sources are saying? You can’t outright dismiss data over sample size. You can note the strength or weakness of the evidence. If it’s weak and you doubt the findings, all you can say is you want more research done. That’s fair.
But to question his bias or agenda? Come on! Everyone has a bias. Vegans have an agenda. Dr. Greger has an agenda. You are mad that someone made a video in favor of their bias? Can we expect Dr. Greger to put out a video arguing for the pros of animal products just to be fair and balanced to both sides? The video was meant to give some critical arguments against veganism. That’s it. What is wrong with that? Vegans get all antsy with anything that comes across as critical. Why?
Vegans want “balance” when their diet is criticized but the lot of you say nothing when vegan apologists criticize omnivorous diets and only cite sources that they think back their thesis.
I think you are protesting a bit too much and a bit too hypocritically. Chill.
I will give you a very simple example. He uses this paper https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0148235 to show vegans have lower vitamin D. This paper also assessed their B12 status and it was normal.
Later when he started talking about B12, despite already being aware of this study where they were using B12 supplements and had normal levels, he went out of his way to find a study where 81% of vegans were not supplementing and, unsurprisingly, they were B12 deficient. He then concludes from a study where the vast majority were not supplementing that "Perhaps these B12 supplements don’t work exactly like animal foods do."
Isn't that very dishonest to you?
Note he did not mention rate of supplementation, which is very important if you're trying to see if something works - see if people are actually using it...
WIL threw vegans a bone when he said it was possible to avoid b12 deficiency with supplements but he pointed out pitfalls like low stomach pH and fiber which may limit absorption. If nothing else, outlining these blind spots may help vegans who are struggling on the diet troubleshoot by reducing fiber and making sure their stomach pH is where it needs to be.
You expect the man to throw veganism a bone that vegans would NEVER throw to meat proponents and I find that unreasonable. He’s not going out of his way to only show negative aspects of veganism. He is compiling what is out there that vegans do not talk about because vegans only want to paint plant-based diets as perfect and bash anything to do with animal products.
You ask me if it’s suspicious that he didn’t mention that b12 was “normal” in the vitamin D article when he specifically said that he looked at articles at papers with “more sensitive” tests for b12?
Here’s a fun fact: cyanocobalamin is the prevalent form of b12 in the “plant” world. Bacteria make it and it’s found in mushrooms, yeasts, and algae. There are even supplements with this form but it’s not bioactive. The body has a low conversion rate for it. And it still competes with methylcobalamin (the active form of b12) for sites and interferes with its activity. Less sensitive b12 tests will count both forms as b12 and it’s possible to have a higher level of the inactive form.
Also cyanocobalamin is paired with a cyanide molecule which is a poison that the body has to detoxify, and that may pose some problem for people if their immune system is compromised. Sensitive tests will look for methylcobalamin levels and make sure that it’s adequate and it may check for cyanocobalamin to make sure that’s low enough. Heck, vegans can simply make sure their supplements and fortifications use methylcobalamin.
Like I said, vegans are the ones going far and out of their way to prove WIL wrong and the best you can come up with is complain about what he omits even though it’s reasonable to assume his omissions are to focus on data that he believes is more relevant to his position, which is that there are problems with the vegan diet; and there are. You are not even denying it. You are just mad that he’s not talking about any positives as if you expect something none of you have ever offered to meat-based proponents.
You want me to admit his video has a bias? Sure. But that’s not a reason to dismiss it. Vegans and vegetarians have a bias and they exercise on it. Does WIL have an “agenda”? Yes, he’s pro-meat. Vegans have an agenda. They are total, without exception, abolitionists. So what is it that you are looking for? Fairness? Balance?
Vegans only need that if their position is weak and they need pro-meat to take on handicaps for their benefit. Nutrition Science has been plant-based focused for over 60 years. It first got its funding from Vegetarians. The mainstream health guidance is plant based focused. Most SAD diets are still 70% plant-based. When you Google for nutrition resources you get plant-based resources authored mostly by vegans and Vegeterians.
Vegans and Vegeterians already have a head start on meat based guidance and STILL plant based folks are triggered to their core when anyone has anything even the tiniest bit critical to say of their guidance. I find that hilarious. What it tells me is that deep down vegans and Vegetarians know their diets suck. They hate it but hold on for other ideological, dogmatic, religious, cultural and ethical reasons and they will lie and tell the world how great their diet is. Some will devote whole careers to prove and defend these diets but all that effort can be undone when folks just compare the nutritional value of a steak to raw soy beans or kidney beans. Compare liver, kidney, heart and spleen to the dozens of ingredients that go into Beyond Meat.
Compare grassfed butter to margerine. Compare a pastured egg yolk to JusEgg or tofu. Compare caviar, clams, oysters and muscles to mushrooms and seaweed. Compare whole dairy to unfortified almond or oat milk. Look at what goes into the industrial factory production of nutritional supplements.
Vegans will happily say “I’m healthy” after 3, 5, 10, 15 years on a vegan diet but most are lying. Jon Venus and Yovanna ended up dropping veganism after they were exposed as cheagans. That Vegan Teacher was recently outed by a guest who found a Slim Jim (a meat stick) in her fridge and she couldn’t think up a lie fast enough so she asked the camera to be cut. Cheaganism is common among vegans and Vegeterians who secretly consume animal products while condemning meat and promoting a vegan lifestyle.
You really want to come here and accuse WIL of dishonesty when plant based nutrition guidance is built on lies, misinformation, eating disorders, antinatalism, misanthropy, and religious zealotry?
15 years is nothing to an average life expectancy of 70-78 years. And we won’t see the full effects of veganism until we see the grandkids and great-grandkids of lifelong vegans. But you can find videos of what plant-based placentas look like. Vegan children are coming into the world already starving. https://youtu.be/wU0LWT2ReU4
You have yourself a great day.
I’m done arguing. I’m not going to stay here arguing for each reference you want to nitpick at.
Eat meat.
Bye
Do you understand what the "more sensitive tests" are?
Here it is claimed two times that "84% of vegans" quit their diet. This is not true.
The Article states: "84% of vegetarians/vegans abandon their diet". The combanition of former 'vegans' and vegetarians is described. The author of the article probably calculated the following numbers from page 2 of the paper:
1.166÷(1.166+221)= 0.84...
If you seperate 'vegans' and vegetarians:
1.037÷(1.037+167) ->~86%vegetarians
129÷(129+54) ->~70%vegan [not 84%]
'Vegans' quit less even though it is more difficult.
The problem here is that no ethical vegan cares about statistics with influence of non-ethical vegans. Ethical ones have huge motivations that non-ethical have not.
This [https://iep.utm.edu/animals-and-ethics/] is a great summary of one major point of animal ethics. Everyone who talks about vegans has to know about these life-changing arguments.
Great video, as always. I'll definitely be using this as a resource in future conversations.
I know the carnivore stuff is a bit of a side topic, but I would like to challenge your emphasis on vitamin C a bit:
Muscle meat has more than enough vitamin C to reach optimal levels on its own. In the past, fresh meat was known to be an effective cure for scurvy, documented in Lancet volume 123.
Optimal intake of vitamin C seems to be around 10 mg/day. Even the lowest C meats have around 16 mg/kg, so around 600 gram (1.3 lbs) a day should meet that level, and that's cherry-picking the lowest value.
And there's reason to suspect C needs would be lower in a carnivore context. A main use of vitamin C is carnitine synthesis. As the name suggests, meat is the best source for that, so needs for synthesis would be declined. Vitamin C competes with glucose for uptake, so it's also likely that any low carb context will reduce C needs relative to the high carb context that 10mg number was found within.
Amber O'Hearn has a pretty great article on the topic: https://www.mostly-fat.com/empirica/2017/02/c-is-for-carnivore/
Got even more interested in studying the possible benefits of adding raw meat to a carnivore diet. And even fresh kill raw meat, several substances decompose after hours of the kill, like liver and muscle glycogen.
Maybe you'd want to make a video/post about this Joseph, like the 900 eggs experiment.