Things have become cloudier than ever and it's harder and harder to distinguish truthful information from semi-valid, biased claims. One of the fields of knowledge that are most often hazy in terms of what's objectively true and what isn't, is nutrition. Let's talk about that.
AMP 94 FINAL
[00:00:00] If you believe that thegovernment, that scientists, that doctors that big farm or the big thatanything in our society is set up in a way to make you a thriving, healthy,autonomous free thinking individual. You're sorely mistaken.
Oh my gosh. If I got a piece for you today,the beat.com. Oh, find vegan near me. I didn't even realize that. I didn'trealize this was a vegan propaganda piece, but the fact that this is evengetting exposure. Somebody sent this to me on an Instagram pretty much outragedbecause a lot of really unsuspecting unaware, typical people will fall for thiscrap.
Either want to believe that a plant onlydiet is the best diet and notice I said plant only, I didn't say plant based. Ididn't even say that plants were bad. I'm saying plant only diet, plant onlydiets, [00:01:00] a plant only diet. Can kill you. It can destroy your healthplants can also be part of a well balanced diet.
That includes animal foods. That includesreal nutrition. Plus I can tell today, let's just talk about the garbage thatis this type of this isn't journalism. This is an article published September25th, 2020. What's funny about this is they didn't even link to the research.They're talking about this kind of crap should be illegal.
Now there's a point where I thinkcensorship is. Garbage. I don't really think big tech or anybody should betelling us what is real or not real, but there's also a point where like, ifyou're going to suppress fake news and do things like that, and fact checkthing where the hell is the fact check with this garbage, like seriously.
And I know probably their own website, sothey control what's going on. But yeah, I mean like unbelievable as ketokilling your new study examines longterm health effects of fad diet. Where isthe research study? And then they do other things like [00:02:00] site. Theysay things like natural sugar, but still yet their shut shows that theantioxidants, as well as the vitamin CBA.
Okay. Blah, blah, blah, help boost themmuni protect against cancer or other disease, et cetera. Except they don't thestudies don't say that the studies are based on observing data fromepidemiological bull crap. Okay. Which is basically something sending the mailto people and say, what do you eat on a regular basis, Mark, these boxes off,do you eat one cups of ribs?
Do you eat three a week? How many servingsof broccoli do you eat? Like crap like that. And then they try to send afollowup study like 15 years later, 20 years later, and only the people respondmind you. Then they publish this paper saying. This is a study. This isresearch. It is such garbage epidemiology should even be considered research.
It should be called what it is. It'spolling. It's literally polling. So I'm not going to read this article cause sogarbage, but let's just try to find a few highlights. You may help people loseweight fast, but it's terrible for your heart in the long run. A new study ofthe, your diet has found now that the study did not find that, are you tellingme that this [00:03:00] study proved causation, that Quito is terrible forheart health?
Is that what you're telling me? Okay. Showme, study, then show me study that, that study's referencing. It's just amountain of studies all poorly done, trying to basically circle, jerk eachother, talking to each other saying, yeah, this, that whatever. And try to propup these lies that we've known are lies.
We've known these for years. And to thispoint in 2020, you can't take somebody like this. You can't take this dr.Andrew Freeman, which is basically a show for big pharma, big food, have himcome on my podcast or anybody's podcast, you know, the Carver MD or Sean Baker,or just anybody with, to common sense.
And defend these bogus claims. And I don'teven know if he's making these claims. I mean, there's a picture right there ofhim smiling saying, yeah, but this chubby cheeks and he probably is on thepayroll for this company and this right. Because obviously this is a writer whowrote it and she's like citing articles, the way writers love they do.
And they do, they love to twist things andfearmonger, and almost always do they have an agenda at play. And obviouslythis is a vegan website, so we know their [00:04:00] agenda is. So let's lookat some other errors of logic and the typical crap you see, and these puffpieces, these nutritional puff pieces that are not actually based in science,not even close to base in science.
This is just a one sided puff piece basedon epidemiology, citing studies, or not even citing a study and saying studiesshow it's like the easiest journalistic scape, goat BS ever. It's like studiesshow, or it is well known. It's like, what is it? It's not well known to me. Ieat saturated fat every day.
You want to test my cholesterol or my heartdisease risk or anything like that. It's not well known. So shut up. And thenthey, even, they even, they even point out intermittent fasting, intermittentfasting helps people lose weight, but the health effects depend largely on whatpeople eat when they are on their on cycle.
Both diets appear to work largely becauseof calorie restriction, as opposed to actual ketosis, which is again, iscomplete garbage, complete nonsense. Oh, this stuff just drives me. Nuts.Doctor was released by dr. Andrew Freeman, [00:05:00] director ofcardiovascular prevent a wellness of the national Jewish health in Denver,recommends it deludes weight and keep it off while eating a heart healthy diet.
People should eat a diet high in plantbased foods like fruits, vegetables, whole grains, nuts, and seeds, and peoplewill lose weight initially appear to gain it back. So what is it as a peerword? What does that mean? Is that your way of, of trying to skate through. Thereality that you're just blatantly spewing lies in a review of scientificstudies on ketogenic intermittent fasting diets.
So there you go. There you go. Ladies andgentlemen, in a review of scientific studies, right. Even though I believe theyshouldn't be called science, but a lot of observational studies, a lot ofsurvey. Sending the mail snail mail, and hopefully somebody fills it out. Andonly those that do fill it out are people that are probably interested enoughto feel good about themselves.
So they Mark the boxes. That sound good tothem. There's the healthy user bias as well. There's all these problems withepidemiology. Let me ask you this. Tell me last week, how much did you eat? Howmany calories did you eat? How many ounces of vegetables did you eat? How[00:06:00] many ounces of beef did you eat?
How many ounces of salmon of fish? How muchmilk did you drink? How much yogurt? Do you remember? And then tell me this,which of those were organic small batch bought locally from a small farmer. Howmany of those work in a package in your pantry where they organic? Were theynot? How many of those had one ingredient?
How many, those had five ingredients, 10ingredients. Do you see the many, the mirror quite literally exponentiallythousands variables that go into what somebody is actually eating. The ideathat researchers should tell us what to eat. Researchers cannot tell you whatto eat. They can only do research, hopefully good research that can point youin certain directions for things that experiment for yourself.
And then even that is fought because a lotof it is rat studies because you can't legally lock humans in a cage. If wewere to walk humans in a cage, or if we even did a prison experiment whereinmates were fed certain foods and you had control groups, And you could reallykind of test things you could even account for activity levels and sleep andthings like that.
You could get some pretty actual data andguess what? That would be very expensive study. If [00:07:00] they did it,nobody would be testing just to show that meat is good for you. And the groupthat bought that ate a lot of whole foods from the animal kingdom is beatingthe whole foods from the plant kingdom on every metric possible.
Right because who's going to pay for thatbig pharma companies. No, they want you eating processed grains and sugar andcrap because they want you buying their drugs. They want you getting sick everyyear. They want you go to the doctor every year. They want you paying a lot foryour health insurance and then subsidizing all the crap junk pharmaceuticaltoxin poison that you're just basically a walking lab rat for.
And it review of scientific studies. Whatthat means is this is an analysis of other research. This isn't any originalresearch. There's no interventional science done here. They did not lockanybody in cages or test anything. They didn't do any science whatsoever. Theytook a bunch of research. They probably put it all in a basket.
And I doubt they even had criteria forwhether the research was good or not, or done properly or not, or interventionalstudy or whether it was observational. They probably just took a [00:08:00]bunch of studies that supported what they want to believe, which is veganpropaganda. And then they pick the ones that supported their narrative, andthen they turn it into this crap where they published another study.
That is a summary of these other studies inthis one bucket so that they can perpetuate their propaganda. Do you see how,like, this is just like all smokescreen, it's kind of like this, you know, thisreminds me of, this is kind of like when corporations have a bunch of shellcompanies. Because they want to hide assets or do things or whatever, and theydon't want people to know who's behind it.
A bunch of research has done. We don't knowhow it's done. We don't know what those small bits of research are. And thenthey get put into a bucket and then other research has done kind of analyzingthat. And then other people go in like this guy and take those other papers.And they put those in another bucket and they say research shows or a metaanalysis of research or blah, blah, blah, blah.
Right. You have no idea. All the bits ofresearch done that are supporting up this narrative. There's absolutely noaccounting for the many variables. In fact that every, every bit of researchhas done is literally [00:09:00] like completely different than other research.You don't know what errors were made. You'll know what bias was going in.
You don't know who funded those studies. Ifyou believe that the government, that scientist, that doctors a big farmer, thebig anything in our society is set up in a way to make you a thriving, healthy,autonomous freethinking individual. You're sorely mistaken. These things. Arethere for one reason only to perpetuate whatever their financial incentive is.
First, whether that is drugs, whether thatis going to the doctor, health insurance, big pharma, whether that is just awebsite and wanting traffic wanting fear-mongering, you know, journalists, theyjust want eyeballs, right? That's how they make money. They get paid usuallyfor impressions and the advertisers pay based on impressions and traffic andthings like that.
Doctors, for example, if they've publisheda bunch of research, that's plant-based what is their incentive to make surethey maintain that status quo? They're not going to publish anything thatcontradicts all the research. They put out. A lot of times these doctors havewritten books that have podcasts, then YouTube channels that are all based onthis specific narrative that they've branded themselves around, [00:10:00] whois going to tear that down even when there's overwhelming evidence.
So what do they do? Confirmation bias.One-on-one and this is the danger of this kind of crap. This is the danger oflistening to doctors on most things. Especially blindly listening to them. Youget their opinion, you run it through your framework, you do your own research,and then you make your own damn decision for yourself.
That's what you have to do with anybody andeverything. Any bit of information. And our society has been marketed tothrough millions of dollars of advertising dollars for this false belief. Thatdoctors know all that. They do no harm, et cetera. But guess what? The numberthree killer in America is medical error.
Hundreds of thousands of people were thenumber one and two killers, heart disease cancer. We have literally associatesix, five. I mean, at this point, it's 1.5, 5 million or more Americans a year,1.5 million Americans a year [00:11:00] die following the advice of quacks likethis, where's the outrage. Where's your virtue signaling.
Shaming doctors, shaming people, thegrocery store for the stuff to put in the cart, like you're shaming them fortheir masks and all this crap. The world is also as mine. This is just anotherexample. I digress,
please always remember that the members ofthe ancestral mind podcast are not in fact medical professionals. They're notdoctors, they're not nutritionists. They are simply providing thisentertainment for you to do your own research and. To entertain yourselves. Soplease consult a physician before changing your diet.
Not everything works for everybody and makesure you always do your own research on everything you hear on this show andoutside.