Bart Kay on Carnivore Diet & Nutrition Science (Facts vs Myths)

Bart Kay on Carnivore Diet & Nutrition Science (Facts vs Myths)

July 29, 2019 100 By William Morgan


(light bright music)
– Hello, everyone, and
welcome to BioHackers Lab.
I’m your host, Gary Kirwan,
and on today’s episode I have Bart Kay.
Bart is a former Senior
Lecturer in clinical physiology
and exercise physiology, nutrition,
research methods and statistics.
He has published a number
of peer reviewed articles,
as well as book chapters.
He has also consulted with
the New Zealand All Blacks
rugby team, and the New Zealand Army,
and Australian Defense Force.
Bart, thanks, so much, for coming on
for an episode for today.
– Gary, that’s my pleasure,
pleased to be here.
– Yeah, and we were saying,
I was telling you offline,
how I’ve had people on my
YouTube channel comment
that I need to speak to you.
Yeah, of course, that sent
me down the rabbit hole,
and I binge-watched some of your videos,
and I got to try and learn
a bit more about you,
and I think you’ve got
some interesting things
to share with people today,
both your personal story, but then also,
with your history in academia
and nutrition itself.
To begin with that question then,
what I’d like to find
out is, do you think that
the way nutrition is taught nowadays is
the way it should be taught?
– Well, I mean, the short answer to that
has to be, absolutely not.
The reason being, is that
those who currently hold
sway and teach nutrition,
talk about nutrition science
being evidence-informed.
And having looked into that
in quite some depth
over a number of years,
I have to respectfully,
absolutely disagree.
The industry itself
is
dreadfully lacking in
scientific discipline.
There is
vast reliance on
non-experimental protocols,
in terms of inferences
about what is good for us,
and what is not good for us.
Things like epidemiology,
which has its place
in informing knowledge, but cannot
establish cause and effect.
Things like industry money
coming into research.
Yeah, basically, our entire paradigm
of what is good for human
nutrition has become
warped, twisted, and banged out of shape,
beyond all recognition.
So the short answer is no, no good.
– And when you were
lecturing, did you find that,
did you start noticing
those trends, those issues?
– Absolutely, and it became apparent to me
from day one, as a student,
before I even had any
qualifications of my own.
I’ve always been someone
who’s thought analytically,
I’ve always understood inherently
the disciplines of science.
What is the scientific method?
How do we establish
a cause and effect?
This causes that, this is good
for you, that is bad for you.
And straight away, as soon
as my nutrition lecturer
started speaking, it was
like, hang on Charlie Brown.
No way, is this good, valid, disciplined,
balanced information, it was
just nonsense from day one.
So, yeah.
– Yeah, and so, when it
comes to the research
and the science parts, what do you think
the hindrance is there?
Why aren’t there the studies
that are looking more at
causation versus the correlation stuff,
with epidemiology studies?
– Yeah, that comes down,
basically, to research ethics.
When we want to make an assertion about
what is good for us over
the lifespan, as a human,
in order to do a cause
and effect study there,
what you would have to do would be take
a sample of a number of
genetically identical twins,
and you’d need to split that
population in half at birth,
or before birth in fact,
which is made difficult
if twins are in the same
womb, but there you go,
and you would have to
subject one of those twins
to a lifetime of one
protocol, and the other twin
to a lifetime of the other protocol,
and then measure the outcomes
in those two populations.
So obviously, ethics will
not allow us to do that,
not now, not in the future, not ever.
That’s the problem with
nutritional science, it becomes
an associative,
inferential,
this is our best guess,
pseudo-science.
And that allows it to be
well and truly open to abuse,
industry money, lack of discipline,
epidemiology, et cetera.
– And so, what are some of
the big myths that you think
are going out there in
nutrition, at the moment.
I’m guessing, because
even though, as you said,
it’s very hard to pin
down cause and effect,
would you say there’s certain things
that are just like Captain
Obvious, like just don’t do that,
it’s not gonna be good for you?
– Yeah, yeah, there, and I’ve got sort of,
well, the four or five
examples I could go to there.
The first, is probably
the most pervasive piece
of nutritional pseudo-science
mythology that’s out there,
that anyone who has lived
in this century would say
straight away to you, is this whole idea
that the consumption of saturated fat
is associated with heart
disease, atherosclerosis,
and that it’s a problem, in that respect.
There has never,
not only has there never been
any causal evidence for that,
because, obviously,
what I was talking about
with ethics, you can’t do it.
And an animal model is one approach,
we can use mice in a lab.
Well, that’s great, except
mice are not genetically,
biologically programmed to
eat the same foods as humans,
or have the same lifespans as humans.
They have different metabolic systems,
so that’s not gonna be any good.
We can’t subject humans to, you know,
take one twin and feed them low fat,
take the other twin and feed them high fat
throughout their lives, that can’t happen.
So we use this associative data.
And then you go to the associative data
on the consumption of saturated
fat versus heart disease,
and there’s not even an
associative thing there.
A classic study was the classic
study by Patty Siri-Tarino,
I think it might’ve been about 2014,
don’t quote me on the date of it.
But, basically, Patty
and her colleagues did
a major meta analysis
on a number of studies.
They had a sample size
just shy of 350,000 individuals,
that were studied for
20 plus years,
for their self-reported,
or self-reported intake
of saturated fat, versus the incidence
of heart cardiovascular disease endpoints:
heart attacks, diagnoses of
angina, those kind of things.
And in any case, what they found
was that there was no
statistical difference
between the lowest quartile
of saturated fat intake
and the highest quartile.
The actual relative risk ratio was
somewhere between 0.96
and 1.19.
Yup.
Even for a start, before
you say the consumption
of saturated fat is
associated with heart disease,
well, the answer there is, no, it isn’t.
That’s false.
– Yeah, I guess, again,
this is still being taught
at school levels and nutrition levels.
This is what you were
mentioning earlier, how,
yeah, what is being taught
at the nutritional levels
isn’t maybe what’s keeping up-to-date.
I guess, we could come
up with multiple reasons
why that might be.
– Follow the money, follow
the money, follow the money.
– Yeah.
– Basically.
– Yeah, and would, I mean,
even when you were lecturing,
did you see money influencing
anywhere around you,
or conferences, or any
events, or something?
Did you start going to, yeah?
– Absolutely.
And that figures, as well,
into some example, too,
of pervasive mythology in the science.
And it’s connected with the first one,
it’s connected with the
saturated fat thing,
and that’s the whole idea
that low-density lipoprotein
cholesterol is causal in atherosclerosis.
Now,
a really good
analysis was done on that very recently,
it was a 2018 paper done by
some independent scientists,
who were not from learnt,
were not influenced.
And they, basically, took the
position statement of the
European Consensus Panel
on atherosclerosis, who
wrote this great bit on paper
about how LDL is absolutely
is the cause of heart disease,
the evidence is absolutely clear,
and there’s no possible
way you could interpret it
any other way, and if you
do say LDL is not causal in,
in heart disease, then you
are a cholesterol denier.
So, you know, let’s draw
a parallel between someone
who defeats a scientific,
or a pseudo-scientific idea,
and Nazis, by using the word denier.
So let’s put a negative
connotation on those people.
But in any case, you go to the paper
of the European Consensus
people who wrote this paper,
and there’s a section
near the end of the paper
that’s about conflict of interest.
In other words, what money
was paid to the authors
of that paper by drug
companies, for any reason.
Of course, they won’t say this
is too influence the outcome
of this paper, that’s not
what they’re gonna say.
They’re gonna say, this is
for attending our conference,
or this is, you know,
for consultancy, or whatever it is.
But you look through that
statement of conflict of
interest, and it will stun you,
it will blow your mind.
It is half a page
on that,
that document.
It is, I kid you not, there
are like every single one,
but I think two of the authors
of that consensus panel
had not even one, but multiple
payouts from drug companies
that sells statin medications.
Unbelievable!
Anyway,
the 2018 paper
written by the independent scientists
goes through their paper, and actually
systematically deconstructs
their false ideology,
and shows why it’s absolutely not so.
But you’ve gotta be prepared, I think,
to go and look at the
literature, and to have
some training and statistics is helpful,
which most laypeople do not have.
In fact, most scientists don’t have
much of an idea about statistics.
Usually, academic departments
have a statistician
that academics can go to, and say,
how do I do this, how do I do that?
How do I massage this
data, how do I get this
conclusion that the people
that are funding my study
want it to come up with,
how do I make that happen?
And they can do that in all sorts of ways,
like using relative risk ratios,
instead of absolute risk ratios.
You can cherry pick your data.
You can use multiple
regression techniques,
which,
in my humble opinion,
is just another word for
making it up, basically.
It’s called adjustment
of the data, you know.
That should be the clue
that should give it away
for folks straightaway.
If you’re talking about
an outcome statistic
that is adjusted, what does that mean?
It means, we have taken the
actual statistic as measured,
and we have changed that statistic.
We have made it up, we are lying.
(chuckling)
Oh, hey, but this is,
this is a, this a great
mathematical procedure
that’s absolutely validated.
No, it isn’t.
Multiple regression, the
analogy I use for that,
is trying to extract eggs
from a cake that has been baked.
You can’t do it.
You know there’s eggs in
it, you can say for sure,
yup, there’s eggs in it,
because I put the eggs in there,
I know they’re there.
But you can’t get those eggs back.
They are gone, they are part of that cake.
And it’s the same thing with so-called,
they call it controlled variables,
when they do multiple regression.
What they’re saying is, we are associating
this with that, and
then we are adjusting it
for the age of the people.
No, that’s trying to
get your eggs out of it.
No good.
Okay?
And that’s how they pull
the wool over your eyes,
that’s the game they use.
The terminology that
people don’t understand,
they use mathematics that people can’t get
their heads around, and so,
they’re throw their hands
in the air, and go, oh,
these guys are scientists,
let’s believe them.
– Yeah.
– They’re not scientists,
they’re bought and paid for.
– And, you know, I’ve always thought
that it makes it hard then, as you said,
as a layperson, or even
a professional, just how
do you read those papers properly,
those research papers, and interpret them?
It’s kind of like you need a PhD, or
a trained statistician to truly review
a peer review paper,
that’s only published.
You go, no, that, as you
said, that’s cherry-picked,
that is missing this part, they’ve done
the wrong associations.
And yet, you know…
And I think a lot of times,
too, people only read
the abstracts, and they think
that’s it, there’s the truth.
And it’s like, well, only, if
you actually read the paper,
the abstract’s wrong, so.
– And I mean, and a lot
of times, an abstract
won’t even reflect what
is actually in the paper.
They will actually outright
mislead, misdirect,
and I’m loath to use the word, but I will,
they lie about what the paper says,
because,
as I said, they’ve got
money coming from somewhere.
Usually that says, yes Mister,
or Missus, or Miss Scientist,
here is your money for your product.
Now, you are gonna find what
we want you to find out?
(sounds agreement)
I know, it’s…
It really is that cynical.
– Yeah.
And you’ve also done
peer reviews yourself,
so you’ve had to review papers.
– Yeah.
– I got to see a tweet from a doctor who,
it was fascinating to see it,
when this particular doctor,
they were trying to have
their paper published,
and they were getting emails back,
that they shared the photo
of on Twitter, saying,
hey, look this, the editor
says I could publish you,
but, this is the fee, and
then you need to reference
other articles from the
same journal for me, too,
in your paper.
And it just, it just kind of shows you how
unfair that system is.
I guess, even for someone
trying to publish their papers,
and the trouble that people go through.
– Yeah, I mean, like an example of that,
as a researcher, rather
than as a reviewer,
which as you say, I have done both roles,
I’ve been on both sides of
the counter, if you like.
I did a, I was involved in a study
a number of years ago,
where we were testing
the reliability, or
repeatability, if you like,
of taking blood lactate concentrations,
in recreationally active cyclists,
as a measure of, you
know, is this gonna be
a good performance indicator,
or is this a waste of time?
Statistically, what we
showed in the study,
was it’s absolutely, completely,
utterly a waste of time,
because,
the outcome variable is so noisy,
so messy, that to get a
statistically significant difference
between situation A and situation B,
you would need a training response
that was not physiologically possible
for a human being, like too big.
So therefore, the taking of blood lactates
as a performance
predictor, a waste of time.
And so, we wrote that study,
and we sent it off to the journals.
And the journal editor came back to us
pretty much straightaway with, yes, yes,
this is very interesting.
We like the way you’ve
done the statistics,
it’s very clear, very unambiguous.
How about we have this lovely agreement
with the lactate machine manufacturers?
They give us a little money, so, wooofff,
we won’t be publishing this.
And can I suggest you go to this journal,
it’s probably better.
And so, it took actually
seven years to finally find
a journal that would
actually publish the paper.
And finally, it was
a journal the editor of which was sick of
this kind of thing
himself, and put together
a thing called peer-review/fair-review,
whereby, the guarantee
was, that there would be
no money involved, there would be no,
there’s no sponsorship of the journal.
You would get to purely
independent reviewers,
and, you know, the
situation would be fair.
It turns out, that that particular editor
was none other than Professor
Timothy Noakes, actually,
so, thanks for that, Tim.
But, it took seven years
to get that paper through,
not because it wasn’t any good, or because
the method was no good, or
anything like, it was because
it would put noses out of joint.
And that’s just an example
of what I’m talking about,
in terms of exactly the sort of thing
that you’re talking about there.
We like to think of science
as being above reproach,
as being
some kind of ivory tower
discipline, that, you know,
is not, doesn’t involve humans,
it doesn’t involve corruption,
it doesn’t involve money,
science is trustworthy, and
it’s some kind of deity.
Sorry, boys and girls,
it’s not true.
– So, I know we sound like
we’ve been science bashing
a little bit here, and
research bashing, but,
I think it is good to sort
of get the yin and the yang.
You know, there’s good and there’s bad,
and we’re revealing a little
bit of the bad sides of things.
But, this ties into why I
always wanted to bring you on,
and what I mentioned earlier,
were people commenting,
were saying, I need to speak to Bart.
And it’s ’cause you’ve gone through
your own personal nutrition journey.
And so, I think it’s
fascinating for someone
with your knowledge base,
and your understanding
of what’s nutrition, and
you’ve decided to adopt
a carnivore way of eating.
And so, you know, it’s
a hot topic right now,
people were speaking in January 2019,
and people have been going
through their carnivore month,
their first time they’re experimenting
with going a full month, just all meats.
I guess,
in this case, I’d like
to find out in yourself,
what kind of journey did you go through,
that made you think you need
to try this carnivore diet?
– Okay.
I guess, (sighs heavily)
I’ve had a lifetime of
quite serious health issues and concerns
at various times that have come and gone,
mostly come, and not so
much gone, to be fair,
except recently.
I’ve had just about
every digestive disorder
you could think about,
I’ve had diverticulitis,
I’ve had
appendicitis, although, and
I still have my appendix,
it hasn’t been removed.
I’ve had my tonsils removed,
because they became infected,
as what’s often the way.
In the time that I was growing up,
I’ve had serious mental health issues,
I’ve had depressive issues.
I’ve had pancreatitis, which, you know,
was in my early teenage
years, and I promise you,
it was nothing to do
with alcohol at that age.
I have
had fibromyalgia in recent years.
Basically,
you name it, and pretty
much, I’ve experienced it.
And what it boils down to, is that,
to cut a long story short,
the problem is anti-nutrients,
naturally occurring pesticides,
human-added pesticides, et
cetera, et cetera, et cetera,
in plant-based so-called foods.
But the fact of the matter is,
as a non-scientificy sort of,
just as an idea around it,
plants do not want you to eat them,
they are going to defend themselves,
and they’re going to do that
by discouraging you from eating them.
And they’re gonna do that,
not by running away from you,
like an animal can, or hiding from you,
they’re gonna do it by, basically,
adding poisons to their bodies.
And that’s kind of what most
plants will do.
And it’s these
anti-nutrients and poisons that
are having this affect on people,
some people more than other people.
Some people can get away with
a lifetime of self-abuse,
and not see any obvious,
or notice any obvious
sort of malaise, if you like.
Other people can look sideways
at a packet of biscuits,
and fall apart, if you know what I mean.
There is a genetic diversity, in terms of
someone’s constitution,
someone’s ability to cope
with doing the wrong thing
nutritionally, I guess,
or living the wrong lifestyle for them.
I either, fortunately, or unfortunately,
depending how you look
at it, I just do not have
the ability to abuse myself in that way.
And really, it took me until,
ohhhhh, 14-15 years
ago, maybe 20 years ago,
that I started to get this idea that,
that the problem is eating a lot things
that we’re sort of eating, and that
we actually don’t need to eat.
A lot of people
will
live in order for their
food, they will live
so they can eat, they say
food is a great source
of enjoyment for me,
if I couldn’t eat this
or the other thing, I would
sooner be dead, or whatever.
Well, tell that to
somebody who really does
have that choice, and see
if you still feel that way.
My theory has always been,
I eat so that I can live,
not the other way around.
And so, what I’ve decided,
what I should start doing
is putting things into
my body that it needs,
and not putting in
things, as a general rule,
that it doesn’t need.
So the first thing that
disappeared about 20 years ago,
were carbohydrates, because
your body does not need
carbohydrates in your diet.
There is no essential carbohydrates,
diet-wise, your body is capable of making
all the carbohydrates that it needs.
So when I did that sort
of 17-20 years ago,
I think it was, there
was a vast improvement
in my overall health.
I got to, I will call it 85% health
for most of the time.
But in recent years, things
started to slide backwards
and regress a bit, I started to have
a few more problems again.
My mental health fell apart again,
I had some stressful
situations around my exit
from academia, shall we
say, and other things.
I had a marriage breakdown
that had occurred
around that time.
I had moved to the other
side of the world, to the UK,
and I was living over there,
away from my supports,
and my friends and family,
and all that kind of stuff.
And yeah, things just took a dive.
And then, I went back
to the literature again,
sort of three and a half,
four months ago now,
and found that the
carnivore thing had emerged
by that stage, it really is
quite new, in terms of it’s
prevalence in the
literature, and in the hearts
and minds of the public.
And I read through it,
I went, yup, okay, so,
not just get rid of most of the plants,
get rid of all of them.
There is nothing in plants
that you require nutritionally,
that you cannot survive well and healthy,
and have a good long happy life without.
The folks that’ll tell you
that you have to have them,
sorry, that’s another example
of the whole pseudo-science,
the stuff that is just taken
as a given, like, you know,
oh, saturated fat causes heart disease.
People just believe that now,
because it’s been said so many times,
People will say things like, you know,
you need to have plants in your diet,
and you need to have a
balanced diet, you know.
There are two more of the
fallacies I have on my list,
of things that are just not so.
And so, that was kind of my journey.
Three and half, four months ago I took out
the last remaining vestiges
of plant matter in my diet,
and within two weeks,
I got from 85% to 98%.
And now, I’m basically 100% in remission
of all of my health concerns.
My lifelong anxiety has just dissolved,
my mental health is great.
I’m having an exciting and successful time
as a YouTube personality,
which I couldn’t possibly
have imagined doing even five months ago.
My fibromyalgia is
completely under control,
I just don’t have an
issue with it, at all.
My digestion is great.
All function is great,
everything is just basically
peachy and fantastic.
Energy levels fantastic.
Yeah, if it…
So, with my, N equals one
naturalistic observation,
absolutely, definitely,
clearly in my case,
the stuff that is in
plants was, basically,
messing my health up
big-time, that was it.
So, I’m sold.
– And again, you know, that’s why I think
it must be fascinating, where you’ve got
the knowledge base, you
know how to do the research,
but, you still have to
do that N equals one
at the end of the day, you
have to test on yourself,
and see, because it’s like,
there’s gotta be no research
on the carnivore diet,
no one’s would have done the big trials,
or big studies, or anything.
So we’re in complete no-man’s land, and
a love it that you brought it up,
that those other methodologies,
because that is something
I would have asked you, is that, you know,
you would have had to lecture to people,
have X amount of plant
matter in your diet,
so be it broccoli, or
greens, or something,
because you need to get X, Y, and Z,
for the mineral out of it.
But you, I mean, even
with all that knowledge,
you’re still happy to
go, no, I don’t need it,
it’s not necessary.
– Right, right.
So at the end of the day, what,
when you are appointed as an academic,
obviously, before that, you
will go for a job interview,
and the panel will ask you
a bunch of questions, and
they will say, you know,
one of the classic questions
that they ask, just about invariably,
is what separates you
from every other academic
that we’re gonna be
interviewing for this job?
What makes you different?
What is your selling point?
To which I’ve always
proudly got on my hind legs
and said, I will never
stand up in front of a
paying crowd of students
and espouse fallacious dogma,
I will not do it.
Not now, not in the future,
I don’t care where the money
is coming from, I don’t care,
you know, anything else.
As an academic, there’s
a law that’s in trying,
basically, in all the Western
countries around the world,
it’s called academic freedom, in short.
Basically, it says that an
academic is, as of right,
protected by the law, they can
hold and espouse any opinion
they see fit, whether that
is popular, or otherwise,
to members of the public, students,
other staff members,
academic journals, whatever,
they are free, it’s like a First Amendment
American type thing, you are free to say
what you want to say.
So it’s absolutely protected by law.
So I always, I mean to go
and make that very clear,
I will not espouse dogma.
I will espouse how to
understand the science.
I will teach students how
to critically look at these
prevailing dogma, and to
plug every hole in them
that they can possibly find.
They just used to go, oh,
great, we’ve got someone
who is thinking, we’ve
got someone who’s new,
and cutting edge, and will, you know,
move the ball along, and
get things happening.
And then you start teaching, and then,
within a few weeks, you get
a knock on your office door,
and then your Dean comes
in and says, hey listen,
we need to have a chat about what
you’ve been saying to students in class.
And I’m like, you know,
are you out of your mind?
You know, three to four weeks
ago, you interviewed me,
I told you what I was going
to do, I’m now doing it,
I’m legally entitled to do it,
and now you’re telling me to not do it.
And then that starts a whole process of
bullying, harassment, all
these different processes
that they start invoking,
and this, and that,
and the other thing.
And that, basically is,
at the end of the day,
why I went, you know, this
academic game is not for me.
Academia was for me supposed to be about
a bunch of like minded
people getting together,
challenging the dogma,
thinking about things,
advancing new knowledge,
challenging what we think we know.
The responsibility of a scientist,
is to setup hypotheses,
and then attempt to falsify
those hypotheses, not to
support those hypotheses.
And so, this whole patch
protection, support the hypotheses,
support the funding source,
the curriculum document
says this, so that’s what we teach.
That’s anti-science, that’s
pseudo-science, that’s nonsense.
So that’s kind of where I
got to with that situation.
So, a pretty long-winded
answer, but that was,
that was basically how it goes.
– But it’s interesting, too, because then,
I’m just trying to think
of you in that situation,
when you start seeing
these people talking about
this carnivore diet,
and it seems, you know,
it’s the polar opposite,
because it’s just meat,
versus say vegan, which is just plant.
But, even in that case,
did you just think,
are these people nuts, are they crazy?
Like, do they not know that
they need to have X, Y, Z,
and other sources of foods?
I guess it is, is it, it is,
I guess it would fill
you, because it seems like
it’s challenging dogma.
But I also wondered, if
you had a period of time
when you went, no, this
must be, this is not right?
– Okay.
No, the reason being, I guess,
is that I’m fortunate enough
to have the exposure to
science both as a scientist,
as a reviewer of others, as well,
as an external consultant.
And I’ve always had, as I’ve said earlier,
I’ve always had the kind of
mind, where I’ve always wanted
to push against the traces,
I’ve always wanted to
see who’s legs I could kick out,
that was my whole thinking.
And I’ve known absolutely
since I started my undergraduate
training 20+ years ago now,
that, for example, the idea
that we must have carbohydrates
in our diet, I knew that was false,
right from the get-go, absolutely false.
And I knew that the main nutrients
in plant matter is carbs.
So when someone said,
well, you know, actually,
we don’t have the evidence yet,
we’re still looking into
it, this, the jury is out,
the science is not yet in.
But, you know, anti-nutrients,
naturally occurring pesticides,
plants protecting themselves
from being eaten, they don’t want to be,
those kind of things, it
all made perfect sense.
And so, I was prepared to try
it, because I knew absolutely
that there was no chance,
whatsoever, of developing
any kind of deficiency problem
through not consuming
any plants whatsoever.
Because there simply are
no nutrients in plants
that we cannot do without,
or that we cannot get
from the animal sources.
Yeah, no, I really
didn’t resist it at all,
it inherently made
sense, it was like, yup,
that’s the answer I’ve been looking for.
Absolutely, jumped in with
both feet on that one,
and that’s kind of how
that developed that for me.
But I know what you’re
saying, others are absolutely,
I’m gonna use the word brainwashed.
The general public, the general
person on the street
that you will talk to,
you will say to them, like, now
do plant nutrients play an important part
in human nutrition?
And they, without question,
without hesitation,
they will say, absolutely,
there’s no doubt about that, whatsoever,
we must have those nutrients,
because that’s what
they have been taught since
before they can walk, probably.
And things like, you know, is
a balanced diet a good idea?
That’s another piece of fallacious dogma.
A balanced diet, in
terms of macro nutrients,
carbs, protein, and fat,
yeah, let’s get a mixture
of all of those things,
worst possible thing you
can do for your health.
The indication is that a balanced diet
will kill you quicker than anything else,
in terms of the different dietary sort of
ideologies that are
available, and that people
are pushing out there.
You’ve got the standard American,
or standard Western diet,
the one that is put together by
the so-called nutritional authorities,
what an absolute joke that is.
The one that says, 65% carbohydrates,
mostly whole grains, if you please,
avoid the sugar, avoid
saturated fats, take lots of
N3 and N6 polyunsaturated oils,
have some more unsaturated
oil while you’re there.
Get lots of leafy greens,
have five plus fruits
and vegetables a day, make
sure you have lots of fiber.
Tickety-boo!
That’s one idea of the standard diet.
That’s the one that’ll kill you quicker
than anything else, right away.
If you won’t have any, if you, people say,
well, where’s the evidence of that?
Well, have a look at our
rates of obesity, diabetes,
heart disease, all these
chronic, degenerative disorders
that people are developing.
Alzheimer’s, dementia, all of those,
they are all down to that diet.
Plain and simple, cause and effect, it’s a
inflammatory situation,
that’s what’s going on there.
However, the American
Dietetics Association,
all the western dietetics associations,
the heart foundations,
the diabetes associations,
all of those associations,
they are all owned, directed
by big agriculture concerns.
Their position statements
are not based on science,
they are not based on any
evidence, they are based in money.
So that’s how that one works.
The diet that will kill
you second quickest,
is the vegan diet.
The vegan diet relies upon some evidence
that is superior to the standard diet.
There is some evidence
that they have sown,
there’s some good reason
why it’s sown, it’s because
it’s the least of a mixed diet situation,
it more relies more heavily on the
carbohydrate and
soluble fibers in the plant material,
and it eliminates most
of the animal protein,
and animal fat, well all of
it actually, again, that you,
don’t, again, if you eat properly.
And so, that
(garbling words) that risk,
or alleviates that risk
of the inflammation,
heart disease, diabetes,
existing quite so immediately.
But, down the track, it
cause other problems,
the problems that it causes are
very serious deficiency
diseases, because it’s not a diet
that is designed to meet
the nutritional requirements
of a human being.
And so, what you find,
basically, is that 84-85%, or so,
of everyone who ever becomes
vegan, leaves being a vegan,
or stops being a vegan within five years,
for healthy related reasons.
So there’s that one.
The other kind of diet
is the Ketogenic diet.
Again, it works really well, largely,
and this is misunderstood,
of course, by most,
but largely because it’s
not such a mixed diet,
in terms of the ratio of carbs and fats,
there’s more fat and less
carb, that’s very good.
And there aren’t the
nutritional deficiencies,
there aren’t the anti-nutrients,
there aren’t the pesticides
in that diet, so much.
So that’s preferable to the vegan diet.
And obviously, the top of
the pile has to therefore be
the Carnivore Diet,
because it is, you know, so
completely under-mixed.
Why am I saying that a
mixed diet is a problem?
Why am I saying that’ll kill you?
Why am I saying there’s
inflammation and stuff around that?
You need to look into a thing
called the Randle cycle.
Otherwise called the
glycerol fatty-acid cycle.
You need to understand the
workings of that thing,
and then you need to
understand how to interpret
what the meaning of it is
sufficiently well, that
you will then understand,
ahhhh, that’s why I should
absolutely not have a diet
that is balanced, in
terms of macro nutrients.
That’s why I’m fat, that’s
why I’ve got diabetes,
that’s why I’ve got
heart disease developing,
that’s why I’ll be demented
by the time I’m 55, or 60,
if I live that long.
That’s what the problem is, there.
And I actually do a
video on that very topic,
on my Patreon site, if people want to go
and check that out straight
after this podcast,
that would be a good idea?
(laughing)
– Yeah, I could land,
alright, I’ll give it to you.
Yeah, I’m not up to speed on it.
– But, like I said, that the
glycerol fatty-acid cycle,
the Randle cycle, basically,
it’s more technical
than I’m gonna represent it here,
the reason being, I’m still waiting,
you can’t have a look at
my video on Patreon, but.
In short, any time you’ve got both fat
and carbohydrate floating around,
they will both actually
antagonistically interfere
with the metabolism of each other.
And so, what you then get is the situation
which is called insulin resistance,
and that leads to diabetes,
heart disease, inflammation,
Alzheimer’s, dementia, et
cetera, et cetera, et cetera.
So that’s, that’s the take home.
– And, I find it interesting
when you were talking about
the plant matter.
So it sounds to me
that you think
that people are gonna end
up learning about plants
a bit like we learned about
butter and saturated fats,
that again, we don’t need plants.
And you think that may come
down in the next 10 or 20 years,
that it’s gonna become common knowledge,
that we don’t have to have plants?
– Okay, what I get, I don’t
even know how many times a day,
Gary, is I get people saying
to me, where is the evidence
that you’re carnivore diet
is good for you, okay?
For which the answer is, of
course, it does not yet exist
in the literature, we don’t
yet have that science,
because we’re just getting
started down this track.
And what will happen,
as that develops, and as
more and more time goes by
with more and more people
on the carnivore diet,
you stay on that diet, unlike
the vegan diet, shall we say,
you will find that these
health issues dissolve,
they go away, people heal,
they get their lives back.
They become so healthy, that
they didn’t even realize
how sick they were
beforehand, some of them.
The anecdotes will build
up, and that even in today,
things that we conceived
all about science,
like, for example, the
epidemiology, which I know
I’ve already poked holes
at, or poked fun at.
Epidemiology, all that is,
is a collection of anecdotes,
okay, a collection of anecdotes with data,
that’s what scientific data is.
As these anecdotes
develop as time goes by,
as more people join the
carnivorous lifestyle,
as people’s health
improves, as heart disease
in society melts away,
as diabetes melts away,
as fatness, overweightness,
obesity, literally melts away,
there comes a point where
you can’t argue anymore,
and you have to like sit
up and pay attention,
and go, ah, likely they were right.
And I guess I see myself
as one of the pioneers
a little bit, and, I guess,
at the end of the day,
pioneers cop the most errors, don’t they?
– That’s right.
(person garbing words)
– That’s where it’s at.
– So, again, with your knowledge base,
and your understanding
with nutrition, do you,
do you see the carnivore diet
as being sustainable long-term?
– Absolutely, without question.
It contains all the nutrients
human beings require
throughout their lifespan, yup.
– And, do you think that
you need to eat a
particular meat, or organs,
even in the carnivore
diet, is there a variety
that you need to get?
– Yeah, okay, so, what I mean,
to make it clear, I don’t
give nutritional advice,
what I do is render opinions on science.
So, none of this is to be taken by anybody
as any kind of nutritional advice.
But,
what I say, in terms of what
the science suggests to us,
is that the best meats to
really upon as our staple,
are those that come from ruminant animals.
In other words, those
animals that are herbivorous,
that have
ruminant digestive systems,
those are the ones that we
should stick with mostly.
And it’s not eating the
muscle, it’s eating the organs,
it’s eating the connective tissues,
it’s use their bones for bone broth,
that’s taking the marrow out
of the bones and eat that,
it’s getting a mixture of nutrients
and the things that we need that way.
Things of that mix, I suggest that
a generous
helping of seafood, of both the fish and
shell fish nature, at least, is good.
I know that they’re are
issues with mercury,
heavy metals, and there
is toxins and things
in our environment these days.
Unfortunately, that’s
the world we live in.
We can’t really get away with, from that,
except by, I guess, getting
rid of 99% of the people
that live on the planet,
and starting afresh,
waiting about a thousand
or ten thousand years
for the mess we’re made
to clean itself up.
Unfortunately, that’s
not gonna be happening,
so we just need to crack on, and you know,
get on with the program.
So, yup, ruminant meats, and
organs, bone broths, seafood,
plus or minus cheese, cream.
I don’t personally think
that’s there’s a place
for milk and milk products,
other than, you know, cheese.
Eggs are good, again,
as long as you’re not,
you don’t have a sensitivity
to eggs, which some people do.
Yeah, that’s pretty much
the structure of the diet.
– And again, that will
be sustainable long-term?
– Absolutely,
without question.
– And I found it interesting,
when you mentioned,
when you first went
carnivore, how you noticed
a difference, also, within two weeks.
And other people that I’ve interviewed,
who’ve also gone strict carnivore,
noticed the exact same thing,
within a couple of weeks
they noticed a substantial difference.
And as you’ve, as you’ve
mentioned, was your brain health,
your feeling of wellbeing.
And Mikhaila Peterson,
who I got to interview,
she said the same thing.
– Yeah.
I mean, one of the most
immediate ramifications of consuming
any significant amount of plant matter,
is systemic inflammation.
Your body reacts to the
pesticides and things
that exist in these plants,
by becoming inflamed.
Inflammation affects
your body systemically,
it affects your muscles,
it affects your joints,
it affects everything,
including your brain.
You brain becomes inflamed, and
basically, the trend in
all the literature nowadays
about all sorts of mental
health issues, mood issues,
sleep issues, all those kind of things,
inflammation on the brain,
people, is what’s going on there.
So if you stop consuming
those so-called foods
that are causing the inflammation,
and you allow your body to heal,
you allow the inflammation to resolve,
suddenly that fog is
lifted, and you become
suddenly aware that, I mean, most people
will come back to me in
two and half, three weeks,
and say, I did not
realize how unhappy I was.
I didn’t realize that
hauling myself out of bed,
whinging about my job,
trudging off to work, feeling tired
and exhausted chronically all the time,
I thought that was normal, I
though that was just my life.
Well, it is, if you are
consistently poisoning yourself.
If you’re knocked out on the head, pheww,
totally different story, and within
a couple of weeks, it’s amazing!
– Yeah, I’m just thinking, I’m thinking
of some of those people who are so scared
to try the carnivore diet
completely, because they’re like,
I’ve gotta have a little
bit of plants, just in case.
You know, it’s a–
– Well let me cover that one.
Okay.
You are not gonna develop any
serious deficiency diseases.
Even if I’m wrong, and the
carnivore diet is deficient,
which it’s not, but let’s say it was.
Within two weeks, you’re not gonna get
any deficiency diseases, by
not consuming any plants.
So that’s the experiment you can do.
You can go, I’m gonna give this two weeks,
perfectly safely.
I’m not gonna eat any
plant matter of any kind,
for two weeks I’m gonna
eat meats and organs,
and like that kind of stuff only,
you will never go back.
If you do that experiment,
you will never go back, I promise you.
– So what’s your nutrition
predictions for the future,
now, you do you think the
carnivore diet’s gonna end up
being taught in nutritional schools?
– I hope so, because, it
is the correct indicated
nutritional approach for
human beings, in my opinion,
based on my understanding
of the physiology,
the science, and every
observation that I’ve been able
to make in the last three or four months.
There will come a time, when the evidence
will be so overwhelming,
that it can’t be ignored.
But we’re gonna be up
against, as long as there
is money involved, is we’re
gonna be up against corruption.
Unfortunately, that’s the way it is.
We like to think that
at the end of the day,
the truth will prevail,
I have to believe that.
Yeah.
I have every hope.
– Just as a last bit, as
we’re near the end here,
do you think there are
any negative side effects
to the carnivore diet,
physiologically on the human body?
– Okay, there is one that I
have both noticed in myself,
and also heard others speak about.
For example, the Peterson’s
have spoken about it,
Shawn Baker has spoken about it,
Frank Tufano has spoken about it,
Tristan from Primal Edge Health, everyone
that I’ve spoken to about
this, have all gone,
yup, that’s right.
And here’s what it is, and
it’s not even necessarily
a negative thing
physiologically, or a reason
not to do this, it’s just
a, this is a heads up, okay?
When you eliminate the thing
that’s causing the problem,
the thing that’s inflaming
you, the plant matter,
get rid of that, your body
heals up and gets better,
you feel great.
If you go back, and you put those plants
back into our body again,
you will know about it, Charlie Brown.
Your body will say, hey,
we spoke about this.
We’ve got rid of that
nonsense, we’ve healed,
you just put it back in,
and now I’m gonna give you
a massive reaction.
You are gonna be as sick as a sick thing,
because your body is saying
to you, don’t do that,
that’s not good for me.
So, that’s something to be aware of.
If you’re gonna make this
choice, I’m gonna get rid of
this stuff out of my diet,
you’ve gotta be prepared
that if you, if you cave
in and you get weak,
and you go to a party,
and there’s sausage rolls,
and salads, and fruit,
and stuff available,
and you eat that stuff,
you’re gonna know about it.
Okay, so that’s kind of, that’s that one.
But that’s really the only,
and it’s not even a negative,
that’s just a heads-up.
But that’s the only thing I’ve come across
that anyone has been able to say to me,
that’s any kind of problem of any sort,
with the carnivore diet.
It’s just nothing but positive feedback,
it’s nothing but healing stories,
incredible healing stories.
People who have had a lifetime
of problems, like myself,
you know, and I’m by no means the person
who’s been the worst,
but, unbelievable stories.
Go and check out Phil
Escott, on his channel.
He’s got hundreds of stories
of people that have healed,
he’s helped thousands of
people by just saying,
hey, have you thought about
this carnivore diet idea?
And he’s an ex-vegan, so,
he’s one of many ex-vegans,
so there you go.
So there’s a plug for Phil, as well.
Yup, so that’s basically it.
So, in short, you have
nothing to get of the,
that’s come out.
The only thing that people
talk about often, I suppose,
if anything, is the
bottom of the sea issue.
I’ve covered that one
yesterday on my Patreon,
which you can actually see
after this, if you want.
And also, you’ll see part of that video
on my YouTube channel, on a,
on a live feed that I did last night,
if you want to go and
check that out, as well.
If you want to find my Patreon channel,
really easy, just do a Google Search
on nutrition science watchdog,
and if there’s 10 or 15
listings that come up,
I mean, you can’t miss me.
So, that’s how to find me afterwards.
– Okay, perfect, well, that’s actually
what I was gonna just ask
you, what are the social links
that you would want people to find you on?
So you’ve just mentioned
your Patreon channel.
And your, as you said,
that I can definitely see
an up and coming YouTube,
I’m waiting to see
when you cross the
100,000 people subscribing
to your channel.
– I’ve got a lot of
those, and you’re right.
– Yeah, so, so is it mainly YouTube then,
that you would say, for people
to keep up-to-date with you?
– Yeah, I mean, that’s the first protocol,
that’s the first place to go.
That’s where I’ll be doing
the entertaining stuff,
that’s where I’ll be calling
out the well known vegans
to debate, that’ll be
where I’m kind of posting
hints to some of the science.
I keep most of hard core science
to my paying customers
on Patreon, obviously.
I do need to make a living, I guess,
so sorry about that,
that’s the way that is.
So I’ve kind of got two personas,
one is the YouTube entertainer,
the guy that’s all jolly,
that comes on and uses
short words, and abuses the,
the vegans and, not in a bad
way, I abuse their ideology,
not them personally, so much.
Unless they have a crack at
me, in which case, it’s on!
Yeah, and then the other
persona is the proper scientist,
who does the YouTube, does
the Patreon instructor videos,
hey, look, for example,
the Randle cycle thing
I was alluding to.
If you want to understand
that one, you go to Patreon,
you don’t go to YouTube for that one.
So if that makes that
distinction clear, that’s…
– Yeah, it does.
– Good, okay.
– Perfect, okay, well,
I’m gonna put a link
to both your Patreon channel,
and your YouTube channel
on the show notes, for
anyone listening to this.
But I just want to say,
Bart, thank you, so much
for sharing your time and your knowledge.
I’ve really enjoyed our
interview, and I’m sure
a lot of people listening to this
are gonna love hearing what you’ve said,
and want to hear more of you.
And so, you’re gonna
get some more followers,
I’m pretty sure, from this.
– Awesome, I appreciate your time, Gary,
thank you, very much, for
having me, it’s been a ball.
(light bright music)