Carnivore pleasantly surprised me by saying: "That's was news to me - - Now I understand where you are coming from." Civilized conversation. Thank you both!
@@carnivore-muscle That's a rare trait. You have my respect and appreciation for that. I was a convinced omnivore before my conscience forced me to go fully vegan 2018. Then miraculous health improvements happened and I needed to find out why and now I practise lifestyle medicine in Finnish NHS as a physician. Always interested to hear both sides of stories.
@@soilikasanen cheers! I tried vegetarianism in 2017 and my health status and wellbeing dropped from a 7 to a 2/10 within 3 days. Doesn't work for humans like me, lol.
@@carnivore-muscle Cows titty milk doesn't suit most humans. I got rid of joint pains 2016 when switched to plant "milks", even when I still ate flesh of organicly grown bovines and pigs and hunted moose. With eggs went asthma that I had suffered for over 20 years. And yes, I was tested: No allergies for either. There are other mechanisms behind those causing problems. For example, according to egg industry funded study, 1 daily egg raised Ox-LDL-c 40% in 3 months. If LDL-c would be antioxidant, that wouldn't have happened. I'm curious where did you get the info it would be. BTW, nice chatting with you - you're the most polite carnivore I've come accross to 🙂
@@carnivore-muscle Interesting. While individual experiences may vary, a three-day period in my opinion is generally too short to draw definitive conclusions about the long-term effects of a dietary change. I feel 3 months is a better goal for a true analysis and allows plenty of time to make it more habitual and routine. Sometimes going in too hard and not taking small steps can actually backfire. Adopting a new dietary lifestyle is akin to moving to a new country. It requires time, patience, and persistence to adjust to the cultural and environmental changes. Just as it takes time to learn a new language or navigate a new city, transitioning to a new dietary pattern requires similar adaptation. As I like to say, transitioning to a new diet is like reformatting a hard drive. It can lead to temporary discomfort as the gut microbiome adjusts to the new inputs, such as increased fiber intake, higher levels of polyphenols, changes in macronutrient ratios, reduced intake of saturated and trans fats, and increased consumption of plant-based protein sources. It's also important to bare in mind that many processed foods, including cakes, pastries, pizzas, chips, ice cream, cheese straws, milkshakes, and beer, are vegetarian. While these foods may be convenient and enjoyable yet still in alignment with a vegetarian diet, they usually have a combination of refined sugars, unhealthy fats, and excessive salt. A well-planned vegetarian or vegan diet should be mostly whole, unprocessed plant foods, fruits, vegetables, whole grains, legumes, and nuts. If it's based on dairy products, refined grains, tinned foods, crisps etc then for sure, it's no better than the SAD diet.
@ezo2161 that's what iam trying to say,if the other person gets agitated little bit the carnivores are ready to say he is agitated thats why you are disqualified
@@vokul_vegan"i dont understand what you're pitching me, youre pitching me a death camp with paternity wards, dentistry, pools, orchestras, and soccer teams, you need a better vision for what youre trying to sell me. And for that reason, im out."
I think that all human beings are aware that there are ethical issues with the use and consumption of animals. I think that this is one of the most important ethical questions of our current era.
Good joke, but also a quality example. How many times does it need to happen before you start to suspect a causal relationship? When you see the same kinds of things happening over and over, in a variety of people, in a variety of situations, it's hard to NOT draw some conclusions.
@@jmnthe3rdnovel data horizontally doesn't bring you to a causal inference. It's obvious the same circumstances exist throughout. Which often are reported as being. Even if it were to be true it's quasi reductionism w small effect sizes
Prospective cohort studies cannot isolate variables well. Given the rise in most causes of morbidity and mortality despite no lack of access to nutritional information offered by traditional western medicine including vegan diets, the jury is out. Classically schooled and trained proponents of a carnivore diet are gathering very impressive statistics when looking at outcomes, in particular, in the problem areas including autoimmune disease, cardiac disease and cancer. It behooves us to keep our minds open if we really care about health. Cynthia Ickes, MD
Really because a huge meta epidemiological study found that meta analyses of prospective cohorts and meta analyses or randomised controlled trials align 95% of the time. And what is it about prospective cohorts that can't isolate variables? They use extremely sophisticated regression models that adjust for confounders with precision. Would you just say we have no knowledge on the health implications of smoking then, if that's your epistemic standard? The jury is absolutely not out on plant based diets, what on earth are you talking about? Governing nutritional bodies are all now advising higher consumption of plants and lower consumption of animal based foods, excluding fish. A whole foods plant based diet and Mediterranean diets outperform all other diets recurringly across the clinical literature. Where are these statistics in relation to carnivore diets? All I see are a lot of anecdotes on social media, with far more anecdotes saying the diet utterly ruined their health. We also have mountains of data on animal-based and ketogenic diets being terrible for long term health. If you're an MD, you're the most incompetent one on the planet.
@@kal.el123Rcts via their natural constraints are non descriptive, as virtually nothing of interest takes place within a timeframe model of weeks to months at best. Therefore the results are too obtuse to take seriously in its coordination with aspects of cohorts. Regression models are just that - models and are in no way representative of a well designed experimental model. How do you know a model can retroactively remedy a data set? What epistemic magic does one need utilise to bridge that gap? The only people who parade models it seems are ideologically driven vegans for good reasons. You have little useful data in those realms of keto and carnivore as similar to the rct conundrum it does not exist thanks to the orders of ethics boards
The area under the curve for smoking is so enormous you can't possibly conceive of a variable that would confound it to such a degree. Also the endpoints make sense with the rigorous and damning mechanistic data that exists in conjunction. And btw have some manners & watch your language when speaking with others you ignorant beast
@@ruun-z5w this is just absolute waffle. In the domain of study matter; RCT’s are controlled interventional studies that are the gold standard of assessing causality. The findings of Mendellian randomisation studies have exactly the same findings as well. RCT’s are the model we use to achieve the epistemic virtues of the domain. Do you have a better model to more efficiently & accurately achieve the goals of the domain? If not who gives a shit what you think. In an a posteriori sense as well, prospective cohort studies align with RCT’s 93% of the time in the domain of clinical dietetics. So based upon the evidence we have, I’ll stick with scientific consensus instead of random faceless moron off TH-cam
@@ruun-z5w “The only people who parade models….are vegan.” Yeah you’re right, all the clinical dieticians on the planet, all the scientific researchers, epidemiologists, statisticians who work in the field - all of them - vegan. Definitely not a completely delusional, low IQ take. By your absurd epistemological standards not only do we not know anything about internal medicine, we must have absolutely no idea on the health outcomes association with smoking. Since regression models don’t meet your absurd epistemic standards. The reductio for this view is you being agnostic about whether little kids, elderly people, lung cancer patients, should smoke or not. This is as utterly braindead as your claim vegan diets aren’t optimal for anyone. No wonder you ended that comment with an “X” like an utter moron.
I wouldn’t really call this a debate from what I’ve seen so far, the majority of what I’ve seen is the carnivore not really making a concrete argument or preposition but instead asking a question, to which vegan gains just literally educated him on a particular topic, and for the most part the carnivore didn’t mount any counter points.
I countered every point made, whether or not people accept my response or not is up to them. You'll notice that not once did we have time for any of my statement propositions to be said. We simply did not have enough time, due to my inability to sit for long.
@@carnivore-muscle I wouldn’t say that you countered each of his points after witnessing this entire 1:40:00 video. The perception you gave was exactly what the previous commenter said. You asked some questions and raised some concerns, And then vegan went on to “educate” you with his talking points, which were seemingly much more in depth and well thought out than yours, and then you would move on to raise a different question or concern and the cycle would continue. I could make a list of at least 20 things that you didn’t counter, but doing something like that would be extremely tedious. Im sure deep down you know vegan gains is probably right. Because I’m not vegan and I feel the same way. But at least I am not scared to admit that. And I’m sure there are many others like me who watch vegan gains for the same reason. It’s just hard not to support the person who clearly has much stronger logical reasoning skills, even if my diet might not necessarily align with his. I’m sorry, but your performance was just weak plain and simple and I don’t see what your autism has to do with anything. That seems like an excuse. With 1 hour and 40 minutes, you had more than enough time to make a strong case for the carnivore community, but unfortunately, you didn’t. But I do wanna say I respect you for staying calm and keeping your composure.
@@sssect I don't think you understand the complexities of living with Autism. I also didn't have much chance to speak when I had about 4 pieces of information being thrown at me out of left field. To say there's 20 things I didn't counter, is a total utter lie. P.s. Use paragraphs, it makes everyone's life easier.
@@carnivore-muscledo you not acknowledge the fact that you raised concerns, VG addressed them, and then you just moved on to another one. You said things along the lines of “that’s news to me” “if that’s true” etc, and instead of saying “hm, I’ll have to reconsider my position”, you just kept shifting your argument. You clearly were not prepared or knowledgable enough to form a coherent argument. You were just looking for a gotcha to confirm your bias, and you failed.
@@10jonchannel incorrect. I could see he wouldn't entertain the idea that the nutrition science is too weak to draw from. I can't battle heads with someone repeatedly when we have so many points to go through. Of course, you wouldn't realise this if you looked at the video with an open lens and wasn't such an arrogant bambaclat.
no, sounds like only you're the rxtard for bringing it up like you were frothing at the mouth waiting for him to say something remotely disrespectful so you can unleash your pent up angsty fury
Search up "bart kay nutrition science failure" and watch how he squirms and dodges an actual scientific debate by stipulating ridiculous things. Hes a fraud.
Are you joking? Did you see Dr Ricky's debate with Bart? He utterly annihilated him. All Bart does is appeal authority. He called himself a "logician" then didn't even know what the laws of logic are. Guy is the biggest charlatan on the planet. His entire ethos is "cave men though."
All these problems Richard brought up hasn't effected Shawn Baker and he only eats muscle meat,salt,water. Glad to hear a normal debate from this channel. Every diet has some kind of flaws and paying attention to that is important for any diet for health as it can effect people differently.
Vegan gains if you're serious about the truth debate professor Bart Kay. Guarantee you wouldn't last if you guys kept it polite. He disproves all your arguments
@@MarkRodriguez-l4m Did you not see Dr Ricky debate Bart Kay? Bart got utterly annihilated and started screaming and shouting and saying Ricky had to listen to him because he was a senior scientist lmao
You can't uniformly work out confounding variables, for example, with smoking. Some people will get lung cancer within a few years. Some people will smoke to their 95th birthday. People's genetic/ epigenetic risk when exposed to toxins is vastly different and always different.
Yes well done genius that's the entire point of confounding variables. There are many components that affect disease risk, that's why you adjust for them. And smoking is causal to lung cancer for 99% of people. You're appealing to the exception not the rule. It's a base rate fallacy.
"Plant based dietary patterns are associated with longevity, animal based dietary patterns are associated with more disease, higher mortality rates" - There's a reason why he used the words, "associated with". Like with his other point regarding the difference in cholesterol between the two diets, certain mainstream beliefs regarding nutritional science that are preached by doctors and journalists who are largely ignorant on this topic, are no longer supported by modern science. I can explain why there's a gap between contemporary science and the mainstream information to a large extent, but I'll do so by your request, so as to not write an even longer comment here. "Plant based diets are typically lower in saturated fat and cholesterol, which raise your serum cholesterol, which causes heart disease". - This is a much more complex topic than people seem to treat it as on the internet. An increasing amount of doctors around the world are actually going by total cholesterol and triglycerides these days, in order to determine the risk factor for heart disease. The science points towards that being a more reliable indicator for heart disease risk than the LDL indicator that has been used for decades. We still commonly hear that cholesterol (LDL cholesterol) is the only factor that necessitates attention, and I couldn't tell you why that is when it's become so incredibly apparent over the past two decades that even patients with extremely low LDL cholesterol do get strokes and pass away from heart disease. What science doesn't know, which is the actual trigger for heart disease, is the knowledge of what exactly it is that causes inflammation in arteries. Cholesterol builds up in inflamed arteries and causes strokes, and that, in a nutshell, is why cholesterol has always been demonized. But it's also not possible to survive without cholesterol. It's essential for the production of hormones and so many other processes in our bodies, and although it's yet to be scientifically confirmed, it's possible that moderate levels of LDL cholesterol correlates with longer lifespans. Note that I'm not claiming that it does lead to longer lifespans, but that is a possibility that's quite contrary to the common belief that it's dangerous and needs to be reduced as much as possible. It was once believed that bacteria in the body should be treated the same way. Contrary to popular belief, science often operates on "the most likely outcome based on the evidence that we have", and LDL cholesterol and the gut microbiome are two examples of things that are typically treated as facts, although no actual evidence exists that concludes that a certain level of LDL cholesterol increases heart disease risk, or that a diverse microbiome equals optimal gut health. There are certainly studies that support those theories to some extent, and population studies (epidemiological studies) tend to support a plant based diet in every single way. And that's all well and good, but despite how popular it is for people to reference epidemiological studies, it is perhaps the type of study that is most frequently found to be poorly executed and leaving out crucial variables and factors like, duration and scope, that have substantial impact on the end result. If veganism truly was as perfect as some of these studies suggest, I'd be a vegan for life - but I don't truly believe that the long-term health outcomes of veganism are quite as flawless and idealistic as those studies claim. One of the most infamous, epidemiological studies between "meat eaters and vegans" wasn't scrutinized until many years later, and the reason why it was scrutinized is because veganism was trending among young, fit and health- conscious people at the time, while the meat-eating group in the study was largely composed of diabetics and people who already had health issues while eating large amounts of processed foods that partly consisted of meat. The meat portion of the study included hamburgers and pepperoni pizzas, and yet it's been referenced endlessly as a rather pointless argument for veganism against meat eating. I don't think there's a single person on an animal based diet who would disagree that processed foods, and particularly a mix of salt, fat and carbs with other chemicals is the worst type of food you can eat that's not categorized as toxic. "Plant based diets also contain fiber, whereas carnivore diets contain no fiber at all. Fiber is protective against heart disease, strokes, cancer etc etc". - This concept is so recent and almost alien, both to people in general, as well as the science community. I would have to write another wall of text in order to respond to the supposedly protective functions of fiber, so I'm not going to do that here. My short answer to that is that I personally think there are more important things than fiber on should worry about, if they want to reduce the risk of cancer and heart disease. I don't want to start talking about ancestral diets or cavemen, or any of that stuff that some people like to mention in this context these days, but I do think it's relevant that what little we know about the history of human diets seem to suggest that we haven't been consuming plant matter for a significant time in our evolution. You're welcome to fact check me on this. The science is, of course, inconclusive in regard to getting a full picture of what humans have been eating throughout history, but the oldest, human remains that have been discovered were found to be largely carnivore based on isotope research. This does not prove anything in regard to what we ideally should be eating, but it does suggest that we've survived without fiber for a long time throughout our history. Many people start on the carnivore diet, in order to see if it can improve their digestion or rid them of IBS. And for many people, it seems to do just that. That is, of course, only anecdotal evidence for it's effect, but I imagine it will be studied more in the future, as the diet is becoming more common. I have consumed fiber for about 2 weeks out of the last 1.5 years, and I can't guarantee that it works the same way for everyone else, but my gut has never before been as calm, stable and predictable as it has been during that time. Fiber is replaced with collagen and saturated fat on a carnivore diet, and that swap seems to have a dramatically positive effect on the gut for some people, at the very least. For people who are familiar with the body's process of attempting to break down fiber, it should make some sense why the absence of fiber may lead to some improvements to gut health as well. I'm trying to be as objective and neutral as possible here. Everything isn't always black and white, sometimes there are elements to both plant and animal- diets that have both positive and negative effects to them, and I think it'd incredibly disingenuous how common it is for people to exclusively present only the positives or the negatives. I'm not as convinced as Vegan Gains that fiber has all of these amazing, protective properties, but I'm also not certain that the absence of fiber only has a net positive effect in the longer-term. I'm only familiar with my relatively short experience with life without fiber (1.5 years), and in that time, I couldn't have wished for better results. "I'd be more concerned with vitamins and minerals on a carnivore diet. Particularly vitamin C. You can eat brain, thalamus gland... he also mentions folate (B9), and that it causes dehydration and electrolyte imbalance" I don't think those two suggested options are commonly eaten on a carnivore diet. Vitamin C exists in liver, which is something a lot of carnivores also don't seem to consume. From what I'm aware, vitamin C and copper are two common nutrients that carnivores potentially risk becoming deficient in over time, if they don't consume liver. I'm not sure why he believes that vitamins and minerals are more concerning for carnivores. If there's any argument for a carnivore diet, it's how bio-available and easily accessible all of the essential nutrients are, and how sustainable it is without supplementation (provided it includes some amount of liver). Ascorbic Acid (vitamin C) competes with glucose for uptake, so the absence of carbs on a carnivore diet should reduce the requirement for vitamin C by a significant amount. I'm not as convinced as some carnivores on the internet are, that it eliminates the need for dietary vitamin C. Ideally, you'd eat some liver every once in a while or take a supplement, unless that goes against your principles for whatever reason. Folate is also found in abundance in liver. The electrolyte imbalance, and particularly the temporary lack of magnesium leading to muscle twitches, was something I experienced during my first month or so on the diet. I don't know how other people are affected by this. Consuming bone broth regularly eliminated the issue with muscle twitches, and I shouldn't have been so conservative with my salt intake when I started. I'm not familiar with the dehydration he refers to.
"while the meat-eating group in the study was largely composed of diabetics and people who already had health issues while eating large amounts of processed foods that partly consisted of meat. The meat portion of the study included hamburgers and pepperoni pizzas, and yet it's been referenced endlessly as a rather pointless argument for veganism against meat eating." This is what so many vegans choose to ignore. I've been eating over a pound of organic ground beef or turkey every day for the past year and both my total cholesterol and triglycerides are in the middle of the reference range.
Vegan Gains, you can not continue to only debate people that you think you will beat. Please challenge one of the dragons, debate Bart Kay! Topic: Vegan vs Carnivore - Health outcomes.
Dragons? Lmao. The guy just screams, shouts and appeals to authority. He thinks rodent studies are a better indicator of human health over clinical human trials. He's an utter joke
Richard has that classic Jason Blaha physique and same depressing personality but who could blame him, quite obviously all those carbs he is eating are destroying what little is left of his muscles from when he used to eat meat and is now somehow being transformed into lard! 😮
And these animals you speak of are which ones exactly? Care to provide an example? Not challenging you just genuinely curious to why you’re talking about. Thank you for your time brother.
Humans are omnivore there is no doubt about that. These huge herbivores can build that much muscle because they are practically huge fermentation tanks. It blew my mind that the cow's food isn't the grass. The grass is the food for the bacteria in her gut which she in turn digests. It blew my mind.
@@Insight-musicYes, but that doesn't tell us much. Elephants are strong and tough but heavily focussed on stamina, although their sheer size makes up for this when they for instance have to protect their young from a pack of lions or hyenas. The strongest mammals, in terms of fast-twitch muscle fibre, and relative to their size, are mustelids like the weasel, stoat, honey badger, wolverine and polecat, and they're obligatory carnivores. Not sure how this is relevant anyways, gaining muscle from hypertrophy training is just a matter of combining the right ratios (approximately) of proteins so we get all the essential amino acids our bodies cannot synthesise (or not effectively enough), and making sure we meet all the necessary micronutrient intake to synthesise neurotransmitters and hormones from. While this is more of a chore while going vegan, it absolutely can be done. Theoretically we could also mix the right kinds of plant-based proteins and fats, add minerals and vitamins, and create a proper diet for carnivore animals. Vegan cat and dog food is actually a thing, it just requires synthetic micronutrient additives like taurine etc.
Yeah. But both diets are incredibly restrictive and stupid. The new adventist 2 study was huge and the evidence is mounting that vegans don't do much better than regular meat eaters. I think Juliette Autumn made a video about that. Pescetarians outperformed all others in longevity and that confirmed what we know from the mediterranian diet too: Fish oils are very healthy.
@@EbonyPopeThe pescatarians didn't do better, they had significantly higher cancer, heart disease and overall cardiovascular rates and the vegan men lived the longest in the study. Look at the groups of men. Vegans did the best out of all groups on average. Nuance.
@@80slimshadys I was talking about all cause mortality. That is the most important for life expectancy. Not specific cancers. The results: The adjusted HR for all-cause mortality in vegans was 0.85 (95% CI, 0.73-1.01); in lacto-ovo-vegetarians, 0.91 (95% CI, 0.82-1.00); in pesco-vegetarians, 0.81 (95% CI, 0.69-0.94); and in semi-vegetarians, 0.92 (95% CI, 0.75-1.13) compared with nonvegetarians. We have known about the positive effects of fish oils for quite some time. The Mediterranean diet isn't regarded as one of the most healthy for nothing.
@@marckorhammer Yeah I'm not a fan of pills. I try to get my nutrients from my food. Apart from that I don't get the obsession with diet. As long as you keep junk food out you're golden. The rewards are minuscule between the diets at best. The much bigger factor is physical activity which has huge consequences later on.
@@shashoewhat a load of bullshit. Notice the absence of wrinkles from my skin, despite being shredded. There really are a load of nasty pieces of shite on the internet, pathetic.
CM was outmatched here. This was more of an interview by CM than a debate. He was so unprepared. Bart Kay vs VG would be the " mother" of all debates...
@@egg399. there's literally no evidence it helps autoimmune issues in any way. This is all reliant on one charlatan influencers word. There is a good amount of literature on plant based diets helping autoimmune issues.
Well done Richard I think you won that debate. Also I was shocked because it was a civil pleasant debate. I stopped watching your videos years ago but know when someone pulls apart your arguments you presented on here you start to rant and call people names. I was shocked to see a cogent intelligent knowledgeable young man I'm guessing you have matured a bit? Has someone who is nearly twice your age and 28 years Type one diabetic I know low-carb is the best diet to control my blood sugar and it was great you acknowledged it can be a benefit in some cases (caveats excepted). If I was to debate you. I would have had someone like Bart Kay in my corner to debunk the papers you presented but I understand and appreciate where you are coming from with what you said. So the best replacement would be Zoe Harcombe, who would prove your studies are not worth the paper they are printed on. I know the 10mg of Vit C comes from a study by the dread Ancel. The second person I would need to help debunk the Diet-Heart Hypothesis (LDL is causal in CHD) I would have Dr. Malcolm Kendrick. I was very impressed with your knowledge but I have seen many videos and read some books that explain the problems with all your arguments, but Johnathan is young busy man unlike me. I knew everyone one of your points has a counterargument.
"Debunk" the papers? Bart Kay was presented with a massive meta analysis proving him wrong and all he said was "no they're wrong I'm a senior scientist I now better." Guy is so delusional he thinks rodent studies are more valuable than controlled human trials. He's a total moron.
How can you be insulin sensitive if you are constantly eating carbohydrates? Surely that will cause insulin insensitivity in cells? The pancreas is ok but the rest of the body is insensitive. VG didn’t mention insulin readings when talking about elevated glucose readings.
@@hiker-uy1bi Well you keep stuffing your face with them for years and years I think you’ll find that they do. It’s not an instant thing. Here’s my question to you. If type 2 diabetics follow a low carb high fat diet why do most of them reverse their diabetes?
Body makes cholestherol because it is needed for cell linings and for hormone production. Cholestherol is so important, that liver makes ALL cholestherol needed. All ingested cholesterol is extra and therefore harmful. Vegan Gains had couple of typos: Insulin is needed more when one is insulin resistant (not sensitive). And in mentioned LDL study population had no hypertension but they had hypercholesterolemia AKA raised LDL-chol.
@@perijon00 You know I used to wonder why professors at medical school were so dismissive of questions they deemed to be stupid and obvious / not worth explaining but after 6 years of experience and realizing human nature that no one cares about the truth (like yourself) I finally understand them
@@scoop2448 lol I love it. First they say you'll die in a year, then 5 years, then 10, now it's decades. I'll take my chances of getting heart disease from eating just meat lol
@@BirdyVlad heat failure usually takes a while lol, heart attacks are number1 cause of death and i don't think their cholesterol is low... yes I'm sure some is needed but even real carnivores don't eat meat everyday.... and we(humans) are not carnivores
This is interesting. How can there even be a debate when there are tonnes of observational studies on the modern man and his diets but basically no studies of the prehistoric human diets? So for over 2 million years, humans ate primarily meat as hunters and gatherers. Somehow we survived, evolved and even our brains grew steadily until 10,000 years ago. 10,000 years ago we started with agriculture. Since then our brain size has shrunk. Whether that's a coincidence or not is up to you. In the last 100 years, humans have primarily eaten plants and less meat for each decade. In that time we have become industrialized and have been able to study our current diets, which are plant-based. So all observational studies are centered around the modern-day man and what he has been eating for the last 100 years or so, but we totally neglect what we ate for 2,000,000 years before that. I get that those prehistoric people are not alive to fill in the forms for observational studies done by modern researchers and can't contribute to the studies. But isn't it crazy that we totally rely on observational studies based on the modern mans diet and what he has been eating for like 100 years when our ancestors ate completely differently for several millions of years before that? I think it's insane.
I think it’s insane that you believe “pre-historic humans” were any healthier than modern day ones. Our life spans are steadily increasing, along with our intelligence, so I don’t know where you got that notion from. PS. They ate plants too, along with other primates.
@@carnivore-muscle it's not because of plants, it's because of excessive caloric intake from ultra-processed ''food'', pesticides, water and air pollution, chronic stress and poor sleep etc. Most people barely eat plants, all they eat is animal products and refined wheat flour, which has barely any fiber, minerals, vitamins and antioxidants.
@@leonardoschenkelsouza4241 I've had tests on my gut microbiome, the plants destroyed it. You can also not consume calories, they are a measurement of heat energy in a closed thermodynamic system. We are an open system, therefore it cannot be applicable. Please do further research.
Vegans come in all shapes and sizes, just like non-vegans. Bottom line is you can easily hit the targets for the carbos, proteins, fibers, fats, vitamins & minerals with a vegan diet. Studies have shown time and again vegans don't have deficiencies. Not only you can find sustenance but you can thrive as a vegan at top level. There is NO necessity for meat.
@@mor9n243 Stop obsessing about protein. As long as you hit your calorie intake, and those calories are made up of healthy plant-based calories, you will be hitting your protein. And stop pretending you know anything about nutrition, what vegans eat or how to cook vegan. Tofu averages animal flesh in gram for gram protein content, while seitan has about 3 times as much protein as cow's flesh or lamb. You should really be focusing on that saturated fat on your animal based sources and stop seeing enemies where they're not.
No centenarian carnivores, some centenarian vegans. That is the most important metric. What good is having your best physique and fitness in your 20 s and 30 s (if that's even the case) and then dying in your 50 s or 60 s.
@@julioandresgomez3201 Oh, your right. What good is having an average physique and fitness in your 20s and 30s( If that's even the case) and then dying in your 50's or 60's on a vegan diet then?
Shout out to Vegan Gains,Good guy. Please have friendly debate with Dr Anthony Chaffee M.D and Prof.Bart Kay,again,he's hot headed but give him a chance !
You cannot use the smoking example because its very different as you are comparing something which contain known potent carcinogens like Nitrosamines that damages dna reproducable in lab animals, one can also account for the quantity of cigarettes consumed by a person, in other words clear exposure, consistent studies spanning the globe show similar results, and this is close to my heart as my mother died because of smoking. Her lung cancer was a specific smokers only cancer. One another point smoking is not something required by the human body its a habit and addiction to nicotine. We are speaking specifically about nutrition and nutritional studies unable to show cause and effect.
There aren't many 100% vegans for 10 years so hats off to you Vegan Gains. What I don't like is you're still comparing the average meat eater who couldn't even tell you what vitamin B12 is to 'vegans'. Vegans are forced to look into nutrition by default unless they're really really lacking in something. A great number of you develop an interest in nutrition through this. I know of 'vegans' and suspect many more vegans aren't eating full plant based which means all this data is void. The only right way to compare diets is to use athletes and people in shape and to use vegans, real vegans eat 100% plant based. Is being a 100% vegan for 1 year really the same as being 100% vegan for 10 years?
Fish, eggs, chicken, beef , liver especially has more than enough folate to meet our needs. Folate from animal sources are more bioavailable as animal folate is in the monoglutamate form not the plant form which is polyglumate forms. Liver has all the vitamin c we need remembering when you eat no carbs your requirements are considerably less.
Cholesterol and saturated again are not causal at all. Using the word risk implies causation. You cannot use that word. You cannot win any debate. Its lost already.
@kal.el123 yes we do as Alcohol is a poison, as is sugar since the cause of t2 diabetes is elevated blood glucose and the only macro that can elevate / spike blood glucose to dangerously high-levels constantly is sugar. That is toxic. All carbohydrates are non essential which means,not needed.
@kal.el123 we don't, correct. Humans have no need for smoking, alcohol, drugs, or excess sugar to survive or maintain health. Their absence changes nothing, while their presence is consistently associated with harm-making debates about causation meaningless.
@@egg399. What on earth are you talking about? You said that “the nurses study is recall.” It’s done via food frequency questionnaires. Those are filled out daily, and don’t rely on recall. That was the point I was addressing. What you said was nothing to do with meat. Now onto your wild pivot about meat - that’s completely false. When they look at studies on meat, all processed meat is investigated into a completely separate category. When they look at red meat, it’s looking at unprocessed red meat. Any meat that is processed, is all looked at under the same category.
@@kal.el123 Why are all the food guidelines wrong then if the studies are being done? People are not getting health eating the SAD or following the food pyramid. Is it the harvard study that you are referring to?
@@egg399. The irony is, studies show that about 85-90% of people aren’t even following the recommended food guidelines. That being said, you addressed nothing I said on my prior comment. Stop being totally disingenuous and directly address the content of that comment.
You are comparing a mixed diet with a plant only based diet. There is no meat only diet vs plant based diet. No nutritional studies can show causation. None. Inferring causation is not proving causation definitively.
He already addressed this moron. Cohort studies infer causality. And RCTs & Mendelian randomisation studies are controlled human studies to address causality. Actually learn some science prior to brainlessly parroting what charlatans online say.
I commented the most charitable and tame idea on a random community post that made a dumb "har har animals taste good" joke that people should at least own the fact eating animals is immoral instead of pretending its perfectly moral and man. People literally frothed at the mouth to prove my point. The cognitive dissonance is unsettling and depressing.
This has nothing to do with nutrition, but what do you think about the new breathing exercise craze that have started in the last years, for example that Dr.Joe dispenza or Wim hoff practices. Is there alot of data in these subjects or is it more likely to just be a placebo? Keep up the good content!
I live with a severe spine disease and Autism which requires me to be heavily medicated to sit for prolonged periods. That isn't an excuse, but rather to say... look what I've achieved in spite of my severe pain.
@carnivore-muscle Hope you’re aware and know that this isn’t a dig at your accomplishments or your health situation, but your unwillingness to change your views/actions when presented with the facts.
The Adventist 2 study is out and vegans don't do much better than meat eaters. The best diet that seemed to outperform all others seems to be be pescetarian diet. Fish always seemed to be a very good for the heart but new evidence shows that it seems really to contribute to longevity.
As long as you eat fish low in the food chain that grows quickly and doesn't live near the ocean floor. Herring for instance. Sardines are high in cadnium and mercury and both salmon and tuna have high levels of bioaccumulated mercury.
@@classicallpvault8251 Sure but that is more a problem of the pollution not with the fish itself. Fish oils have really good benefits for the cardiovascular system it seems. Also there is a difference between non-organic and organic mercury. The latter as far as I remember is less poisonous so concentrations can be higher before you see any detrimental effects. That's a thing few people know.
When did humans ever have to get cronometer app to work out what they have eaten is optimal? Only now, seeing as people thing only plants are what they should eat? Humans etc have been eating fatty meat and fish for 3 million years.
Pulls up one study on carnivore, but the 10's of thousands of people on social media with testimonies that had all their numbers improve we are just gonna look past those people 😂
Of course you need to look past anecdotal evidence. Also switching to a carnivore diet will show improvement over short term, especially if your diet was sh*t prior to going carnivore.
This is something someone who has never lived as a vegan would say, but in reality our taste buds have been conditioned through culture & tradition. Our Taste buds will change after a few months plant-based and you will not feel the need to eat animals sources.
Veganism is an anti-slavery mindset, not a diet. Vegans are morality advocates, not food advocates. Would you say that someone who avoids human meat or dog meat is a picky eater? No, you just understand that eating them is wrong. It's the same repulsion for vegans.
Why are people debating information that is already well known and understood in the field of medicine? A good balance between the two is healthy. Carnivore diet is one extreme and veganism is another extreme
@@Jeremy-wp4yh ok so firstly, as mentioned vegan diets have the best health outcomes in the clinical literate. Just saying “no” isn’t an argument. What essential nutrients for muscle growth can you not get on a vegan diet? Lastly, please explain why there are so many vegan athletes and bodybuilders if this is the case also?
Vegan gains basically saying if Jonathan carries on eating a carnivore diet he won't be around much longer. Looking a Jonathan's cheek jowls I would say he's taking steroids which would explain his difficulty in understanding simple facts
@@jonascooper759 no, I'm very near contest shape. The same morons saying this would call me fat 3 weeks ago. Check back at my content and you can see for yourself 💪🏼
@@change_your_destiny420 I don’t know if VG is on peds but if Jonathan is 5% body fat I would think it’s very unlikely that he’s not peds. I don’t care if either of them want to lower their mortality or suffer irreversible health issues.
![WHAT CARNIVORE DIET DID to Her [with Laura Spath]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/MDQpBuLBw4E/mqdefault.jpg)
![[LIVE] : ONE ลุมพินี 87 วันนี้!! คู่เอก "ก้องชัย vs โชคปรีชา"](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/YN6e7HVnekw/mqdefault.jpg)
Carnivore pleasantly surprised me by saying: "That's was news to me - - Now I understand where you are coming from." Civilized conversation. Thank you both!
My pleasure, I haven't looked at the data on what he said, so I'm open to others telling the truth.
@@carnivore-muscle That's a rare trait. You have my respect and appreciation for that. I was a convinced omnivore before my conscience forced me to go fully vegan 2018. Then miraculous health improvements happened and I needed to find out why and now I practise lifestyle medicine in Finnish NHS as a physician. Always interested to hear both sides of stories.
@@soilikasanen cheers! I tried vegetarianism in 2017 and my health status and wellbeing dropped from a 7 to a 2/10 within 3 days. Doesn't work for humans like me, lol.
@@carnivore-muscle Cows titty milk doesn't suit most humans. I got rid of joint pains 2016 when switched to plant "milks", even when I still ate flesh of organicly grown bovines and pigs and hunted moose. With eggs went asthma that I had suffered for over 20 years. And yes, I was tested: No allergies for either. There are other mechanisms behind those causing problems. For example, according to egg industry funded study, 1 daily egg raised Ox-LDL-c 40% in 3 months. If LDL-c would be antioxidant, that wouldn't have happened. I'm curious where did you get the info it would be. BTW, nice chatting with you - you're the most polite carnivore I've come accross to 🙂
@@carnivore-muscle Interesting. While individual experiences may vary, a three-day period in my opinion is generally too short to draw definitive conclusions about the long-term effects of a dietary change. I feel 3 months is a better goal for a true analysis and allows plenty of time to make it more habitual and routine. Sometimes going in too hard and not taking small steps can actually backfire.
Adopting a new dietary lifestyle is akin to moving to a new country. It requires time, patience, and persistence to adjust to the cultural and environmental changes. Just as it takes time to learn a new language or navigate a new city, transitioning to a new dietary pattern requires similar adaptation.
As I like to say, transitioning to a new diet is like reformatting a hard drive. It can lead to temporary discomfort as the gut microbiome adjusts to the new inputs, such as increased fiber intake, higher levels of polyphenols, changes in macronutrient ratios, reduced intake of saturated and trans fats, and increased consumption of plant-based protein sources.
It's also important to bare in mind that many processed foods, including cakes, pastries, pizzas, chips, ice cream, cheese straws, milkshakes, and beer, are vegetarian. While these foods may be convenient and enjoyable yet still in alignment with a vegetarian diet, they usually have a combination of refined sugars, unhealthy fats, and excessive salt.
A well-planned vegetarian or vegan diet should be mostly whole, unprocessed plant foods, fruits, vegetables, whole grains, legumes, and nuts. If it's based on dairy products, refined grains, tinned foods, crisps etc then for sure, it's no better than the SAD diet.
Hey, thanks for the debate. Was a good bit of fun! Hope everyone is healthy and well 🙏🏼💪🏼😋
You're definitely not.
Diddums 😆@@TimothyM8
Grow a heart and feel that way towards animals as well.
I’ll be glad to assist you on your imminent heart bypass surgery 😊
Just out of interest, what does your lipid panel look like?
Seems like a very calm and respectful debate, havent watched the whole thing yet tho.
🥊 Bart Kay vs Vegan Gains 🥊 🎙️ let's get it on!
This needs to happen
Think I would pay to see that, although Bart is kind of a bit too nuts, there's something a bit off there.
@@tallwaters9708 and VG isn't? I've seen the craziness he's said and done in the past. He's literally the vegan version of s3verge/Goatis
@@change_your_destiny420 What has VG done that is comparable?
It's not going to be a fruitful debate. I like Bart but he gets worked up too easy and will insult.
carnivore -calm and collected, if u show a little bit of emotion you are disqualified.
@ezo2161 that's what iam trying to say,if the other person gets agitated little bit the carnivores are ready to say he is agitated thats why you are disqualified
Funny how in ethics debates they will call you out for appealing to emotion
@Insight-music is that what you would have said about the holocaust camps in WW2? "You're appealing to your emotions, it's fine to keep gasing them!"
@@vokul_vegan"i dont understand what you're pitching me, youre pitching me a death camp with paternity wards, dentistry, pools, orchestras, and soccer teams, you need a better vision for what youre trying to sell me. And for that reason, im out."
@OHHHHUSBANT you're right, it was paradise in the 1940s🙄
I think that all human beings are aware that there are ethical issues with the use and consumption of animals. I think that this is one of the most important ethical questions of our current era.
Yes, meat is for the elites while convincing the poor to go vegan for “ethical” reasons and eat slave food.
not abortion? but animals we have to use for affordable food, that we couldnt transition off of if we all wanted to
There's a correlation between eating taco bell and needing to use the restroom shortly after.
Good joke, but also a quality example. How many times does it need to happen before you start to suspect a causal relationship? When you see the same kinds of things happening over and over, in a variety of people, in a variety of situations, it's hard to NOT draw some conclusions.
Correlation? It is a casuation. My friends had Taco Bell and every time they djd, they ALL have to use the loo
@@jontanneguy4960 Right so associations do infer causality
@@jmnthe3rdnovel data horizontally doesn't bring you to a causal inference. It's obvious the same circumstances exist throughout. Which often are reported as being. Even if it were to be true it's quasi reductionism w small effect sizes
@@ruun-z5w are we still talking about Taco Bell???
Hello everyone 👋
Prospective cohort studies cannot isolate variables well. Given the rise in most causes of morbidity and mortality despite no lack of access to nutritional information offered by traditional western medicine including vegan diets, the jury is out. Classically schooled and trained proponents of a carnivore diet are gathering very impressive statistics when looking at outcomes, in particular, in the problem areas including autoimmune disease, cardiac disease and cancer. It behooves us to keep our minds open if we really care about health. Cynthia Ickes, MD
Really because a huge meta epidemiological study found that meta analyses of prospective cohorts and meta analyses or randomised controlled trials align 95% of the time. And what is it about prospective cohorts that can't isolate variables? They use extremely sophisticated regression models that adjust for confounders with precision. Would you just say we have no knowledge on the health implications of smoking then, if that's your epistemic standard?
The jury is absolutely not out on plant based diets, what on earth are you talking about? Governing nutritional bodies are all now advising higher consumption of plants and lower consumption of animal based foods, excluding fish. A whole foods plant based diet and Mediterranean diets outperform all other diets recurringly across the clinical literature.
Where are these statistics in relation to carnivore diets? All I see are a lot of anecdotes on social media, with far more anecdotes saying the diet utterly ruined their health. We also have mountains of data on animal-based and ketogenic diets being terrible for long term health.
If you're an MD, you're the most incompetent one on the planet.
@@kal.el123Rcts via their natural constraints are non descriptive, as virtually nothing of interest takes place within a timeframe model of weeks to months at best. Therefore the results are too obtuse to take seriously in its coordination with aspects of cohorts. Regression models are just that - models and are in no way representative of a well designed experimental model. How do you know a model can retroactively remedy a data set? What epistemic magic does one need utilise to bridge that gap? The only people who parade models it seems are ideologically driven vegans for good reasons. You have little useful data in those realms of keto and carnivore as similar to the rct conundrum it does not exist thanks to the orders of ethics boards
The area under the curve for smoking is so enormous you can't possibly conceive of a variable that would confound it to such a degree. Also the endpoints make sense with the rigorous and damning mechanistic data that exists in conjunction. And btw have some manners & watch your language when speaking with others you ignorant beast
@@ruun-z5w this is just absolute waffle. In the domain of study matter; RCT’s are controlled interventional studies that are the gold standard of assessing causality. The findings of Mendellian randomisation studies have exactly the same findings as well.
RCT’s are the model we use to achieve the epistemic virtues of the domain. Do you have a better model to more efficiently & accurately achieve the goals of the domain? If not who gives a shit what you think.
In an a posteriori sense as well, prospective cohort studies align with RCT’s 93% of the time in the domain of clinical dietetics. So based upon the evidence we have, I’ll stick with scientific consensus instead of random faceless moron off TH-cam
@@ruun-z5w “The only people who parade models….are vegan.” Yeah you’re right, all the clinical dieticians on the planet, all the scientific researchers, epidemiologists, statisticians who work in the field - all of them - vegan. Definitely not a completely delusional, low IQ take.
By your absurd epistemological standards not only do we not know anything about internal medicine, we must have absolutely no idea on the health outcomes association with smoking. Since regression models don’t meet your absurd epistemic standards. The reductio for this view is you being agnostic about whether little kids, elderly people, lung cancer patients, should smoke or not.
This is as utterly braindead as your claim vegan diets aren’t optimal for anyone. No wonder you ended that comment with an “X” like an utter moron.
1:30:03 the million dollar question.
vegan gains isnt natural either
Neither are
I wouldn’t really call this a debate from what I’ve seen so far, the majority of what I’ve seen is the carnivore not really making a concrete argument or preposition but instead asking a question, to which vegan gains just literally educated him on a particular topic, and for the most part the carnivore didn’t mount any counter points.
I countered every point made, whether or not people accept my response or not is up to them. You'll notice that not once did we have time for any of my statement propositions to be said. We simply did not have enough time, due to my inability to sit for long.
@@carnivore-muscle I wouldn’t say that you countered each of his points after witnessing this entire 1:40:00 video. The perception you gave was exactly what the previous commenter said. You asked some questions and raised some concerns, And then vegan went on to “educate” you with his talking points, which were seemingly much more in depth and well thought out than yours, and then you would move on to raise a different question or concern and the cycle would continue. I could make a list of at least 20 things that you didn’t counter, but doing something like that would be extremely tedious. Im sure deep down you know vegan gains is probably right. Because I’m not vegan and I feel the same way. But at least I am not scared to admit that. And I’m sure there are many others like me who watch vegan gains for the same reason. It’s just hard not to support the person who clearly has much stronger logical reasoning skills, even if my diet might not necessarily align with his. I’m sorry, but your performance was just weak plain and simple and I don’t see what your autism has to do with anything. That seems like an excuse. With 1 hour and 40 minutes, you had more than enough time to make a strong case for the carnivore community, but unfortunately, you didn’t. But I do wanna say I respect you for staying calm and keeping your composure.
@@sssect I don't think you understand the complexities of living with Autism. I also didn't have much chance to speak when I had about 4 pieces of information being thrown at me out of left field. To say there's 20 things I didn't counter, is a total utter lie. P.s. Use paragraphs, it makes everyone's life easier.
@@carnivore-muscledo you not acknowledge the fact that you raised concerns, VG addressed them, and then you just moved on to another one. You said things along the lines of “that’s news to me” “if that’s true” etc, and instead of saying “hm, I’ll have to reconsider my position”, you just kept shifting your argument. You clearly were not prepared or knowledgable enough to form a coherent argument. You were just looking for a gotcha to confirm your bias, and you failed.
@@10jonchannel incorrect. I could see he wouldn't entertain the idea that the nutrition science is too weak to draw from. I can't battle heads with someone repeatedly when we have so many points to go through. Of course, you wouldn't realise this if you looked at the video with an open lens and wasn't such an arrogant bambaclat.
Good stuff, he seems respectful and open minded and not like a total rxtard.
no, sounds like only you're the rxtard for bringing it up like you were frothing at the mouth waiting for him to say something remotely disrespectful so you can unleash your pent up angsty fury
You should debate Bart Kay. That would be the debate of the century
Search up "bart kay nutrition science failure" and watch how he squirms and dodges an actual scientific debate by stipulating ridiculous things. Hes a fraud.
1000% let's get this fight on 🥊
DO ITTTT
Veganism is the inferior diet, cope
@@Ohwowamazing you are the inferior being
Pretty polite guy -- for a murderer.
When you're at the top of the food chain no need to put up a front
you werent born a vegan so that would make you a "murderer" too. nice logic genius lmao
please enlighten us on how your diet causes 0 animal death?
you werent born a vegan so that makes you one too. nice logic lmao genius
Vegans are morally inferior to meat eaters.
Debate aside, guy sounds like that automated AI text to voice
Yes!!! It's that reddit post voice!!!
I couldn't speak for the first several years of my life. Autistic symptoms are a seemingly monotone voice. I'm sorry you are offended by this.
@@carnivore-muscle no offense, actually I like it. More of a compliment than anything
It’s a nice voice. Like he’d be a good narrator for me lmao
Vitamin C needed when eating carbohydrates.
Glutathione is antioxidant available in meat and is very protective.
Yea try this again with Bart Kay. 😅😅 go carnivore 💯💪💯
BART would get demolished ! He’s a huge scammer
Are you joking? Did you see Dr Ricky's debate with Bart? He utterly annihilated him. All Bart does is appeal authority. He called himself a "logician" then didn't even know what the laws of logic are. Guy is the biggest charlatan on the planet. His entire ethos is "cave men though."
All these problems Richard brought up hasn't effected Shawn Baker and he only eats muscle meat,salt,water. Glad to hear a normal debate from this channel. Every diet has some kind of flaws and paying attention to that is important for any diet for health as it can effect people differently.
How do you know what Shawn Baker eats and what his health is like? Accepting any anecdote as scientific evidence is an absurd epistemic standard
@@kal.el123 How do I know what he eats? Your a retard. I don't need evidence to know that.
@@kal.el123 He posts his meals and many tests he gets done showing his health.
@@kal.el123 The first step in science is intuition by the way. Maybe throw your idea of science out the window.
@@Randoverse you mean he posts pictures of food? Are you watching the guy 24 hours a day, yeah?
Vegan gains if you're serious about the truth debate professor Bart Kay. Guarantee you wouldn't last if you guys kept it polite. He disproves all your arguments
He already did,all he said iam a professor you must obey me.
@@kalyandasari1779 ohh lol
@@MarkRodriguez-l4m Did you not see Dr Ricky debate Bart Kay? Bart got utterly annihilated and started screaming and shouting and saying Ricky had to listen to him because he was a senior scientist lmao
You can't uniformly work out confounding variables, for example, with smoking. Some people will get lung cancer within a few years.
Some people will smoke to their 95th birthday. People's genetic/ epigenetic risk when exposed to toxins is vastly different and always different.
Yes well done genius that's the entire point of confounding variables. There are many components that affect disease risk, that's why you adjust for them. And smoking is causal to lung cancer for 99% of people. You're appealing to the exception not the rule. It's a base rate fallacy.
"Plant based dietary patterns are associated with longevity, animal based dietary patterns are associated with more disease, higher mortality rates"
- There's a reason why he used the words, "associated with". Like with his other point regarding the difference in cholesterol between the two diets, certain mainstream beliefs regarding nutritional science that are preached by doctors and journalists who are largely ignorant on this topic, are no longer supported by modern science. I can explain why there's a gap between contemporary science and the mainstream information to a large extent, but I'll do so by your request, so as to not write an even longer comment here.
"Plant based diets are typically lower in saturated fat and cholesterol, which raise your serum cholesterol, which causes heart disease".
- This is a much more complex topic than people seem to treat it as on the internet. An increasing amount of doctors around the world are actually going by total cholesterol and triglycerides these days, in order to determine the risk factor for heart disease. The science points towards that being a more reliable indicator for heart disease risk than the LDL indicator that has been used for decades. We still commonly hear that cholesterol (LDL cholesterol) is the only factor that necessitates attention, and I couldn't tell you why that is when it's become so incredibly apparent over the past two decades that even patients with extremely low LDL cholesterol do get strokes and pass away from heart disease. What science doesn't know, which is the actual trigger for heart disease, is the knowledge of what exactly it is that causes inflammation in arteries. Cholesterol builds up in inflamed arteries and causes strokes, and that, in a nutshell, is why cholesterol has always been demonized. But it's also not possible to survive without cholesterol. It's essential for the production of hormones and so many other processes in our bodies, and although it's yet to be scientifically confirmed, it's possible that moderate levels of LDL cholesterol correlates with longer lifespans. Note that I'm not claiming that it does lead to longer lifespans, but that is a possibility that's quite contrary to the common belief that it's dangerous and needs to be reduced as much as possible. It was once believed that bacteria in the body should be treated the same way.
Contrary to popular belief, science often operates on "the most likely outcome based on the evidence that we have", and LDL cholesterol and the gut microbiome are two examples of things that are typically treated as facts, although no actual evidence exists that concludes that a certain level of LDL cholesterol increases heart disease risk, or that a diverse microbiome equals optimal gut health. There are certainly studies that support those theories to some extent, and population studies (epidemiological studies) tend to support a plant based diet in every single way. And that's all well and good, but despite how popular it is for people to reference epidemiological studies, it is perhaps the type of study that is most frequently found to be poorly executed and leaving out crucial variables and factors like, duration and scope, that have substantial impact on the end result. If veganism truly was as perfect as some of these studies suggest, I'd be a vegan for life - but I don't truly believe that the long-term health outcomes of veganism are quite as flawless and idealistic as those studies claim.
One of the most infamous, epidemiological studies between "meat eaters and vegans" wasn't scrutinized until many years later, and the reason why it was scrutinized is because veganism was trending among young, fit and health- conscious people at the time, while the meat-eating group in the study was largely composed of diabetics and people who already had health issues while eating large amounts of processed foods that partly consisted of meat. The meat portion of the study included hamburgers and pepperoni pizzas, and yet it's been referenced endlessly as a rather pointless argument for veganism against meat eating. I don't think there's a single person on an animal based diet who would disagree that processed foods, and particularly a mix of salt, fat and carbs with other chemicals is the worst type of food you can eat that's not categorized as toxic.
"Plant based diets also contain fiber, whereas carnivore diets contain no fiber at all. Fiber is protective against heart disease, strokes, cancer etc etc".
- This concept is so recent and almost alien, both to people in general, as well as the science community. I would have to write another wall of text in order to respond to the supposedly protective functions of fiber, so I'm not going to do that here. My short answer to that is that I personally think there are more important things than fiber on should worry about, if they want to reduce the risk of cancer and heart disease. I don't want to start talking about ancestral diets or cavemen, or any of that stuff that some people like to mention in this context these days, but I do think it's relevant that what little we know about the history of human diets seem to suggest that we haven't been consuming plant matter for a significant time in our evolution. You're welcome to fact check me on this.
The science is, of course, inconclusive in regard to getting a full picture of what humans have been eating throughout history, but the oldest, human remains that have been discovered were found to be largely carnivore based on isotope research. This does not prove anything in regard to what we ideally should be eating, but it does suggest that we've survived without fiber for a long time throughout our history. Many people start on the carnivore diet, in order to see if it can improve their digestion or rid them of IBS. And for many people, it seems to do just that. That is, of course, only anecdotal evidence for it's effect, but I imagine it will be studied more in the future, as the diet is becoming more common. I have consumed fiber for about 2 weeks out of the last 1.5 years, and I can't guarantee that it works the same way for everyone else, but my gut has never before been as calm, stable and predictable as it has been during that time. Fiber is replaced with collagen and saturated fat on a carnivore diet, and that swap seems to have a dramatically positive effect on the gut for some people, at the very least.
For people who are familiar with the body's process of attempting to break down fiber, it should make some sense why the absence of fiber may lead to some improvements to gut health as well. I'm trying to be as objective and neutral as possible here. Everything isn't always black and white, sometimes there are elements to both plant and animal- diets that have both positive and negative effects to them, and I think it'd incredibly disingenuous how common it is for people to exclusively present only the positives or the negatives. I'm not as convinced as Vegan Gains that fiber has all of these amazing, protective properties, but I'm also not certain that the absence of fiber only has a net positive effect in the longer-term. I'm only familiar with my relatively short experience with life without fiber (1.5 years), and in that time, I couldn't have wished for better results.
"I'd be more concerned with vitamins and minerals on a carnivore diet. Particularly vitamin C. You can eat brain, thalamus gland... he also mentions folate (B9), and that it causes dehydration and electrolyte imbalance"
I don't think those two suggested options are commonly eaten on a carnivore diet. Vitamin C exists in liver, which is something a lot of carnivores also don't seem to consume. From what I'm aware, vitamin C and copper are two common nutrients that carnivores potentially risk becoming deficient in over time, if they don't consume liver. I'm not sure why he believes that vitamins and minerals are more concerning for carnivores. If there's any argument for a carnivore diet, it's how bio-available and easily accessible all of the essential nutrients are, and how sustainable it is without supplementation (provided it includes some amount of liver). Ascorbic Acid (vitamin C) competes with glucose for uptake, so the absence of carbs on a carnivore diet should reduce the requirement for vitamin C by a significant amount. I'm not as convinced as some carnivores on the internet are, that it eliminates the need for dietary vitamin C. Ideally, you'd eat some liver every once in a while or take a supplement, unless that goes against your principles for whatever reason. Folate is also found in abundance in liver. The electrolyte imbalance, and particularly the temporary lack of magnesium leading to muscle twitches, was something I experienced during my first month or so on the diet. I don't know how other people are affected by this. Consuming bone broth regularly eliminated the issue with muscle twitches, and I shouldn't have been so conservative with my salt intake when I started. I'm not familiar with the dehydration he refers to.
"while the meat-eating group in the study was largely composed of diabetics and people who already had health issues while eating large amounts of processed foods that partly consisted of meat. The meat portion of the study included hamburgers and pepperoni pizzas, and yet it's been referenced endlessly as a rather pointless argument for veganism against meat eating." This is what so many vegans choose to ignore. I've been eating over a pound of organic ground beef or turkey every day for the past year and both my total cholesterol and triglycerides are in the middle of the reference range.
I want to see you debate Dr. Chaffee. Think you can get his attention?
He's not a doctor and he's been dodging a debating with me for a while.
I'd rather see Bart Kay, he would be more entertaining. 🥊 BK vs VG 🥊
@@VeganGains😂😂😂😂😂
@@change_your_destiny420Bart would put him down in a few minutes
@@perijon00Bart wouldn't be able to cope, he'd lose it and rage quit as usual, Mr "iM a SeNiOr ScIEnTiSt". It's his thing
Boy literally didn't have one rebuttal to anything Richard said. Then says he doesn't care about the objective data. Like, what's wrong with you bro.
Because we are not going to be vegan, no matter what the "data" says
This guy sounds like the AI voice that VG has whenever someone tips his livestreams and the voice reads out the text.
Vegan Gains, you can not continue to only debate people that you think you will beat. Please challenge one of the dragons, debate Bart Kay! Topic: Vegan vs Carnivore - Health outcomes.
Dragons? Lmao. The guy just screams, shouts and appeals to authority. He thinks rodent studies are a better indicator of human health over clinical human trials. He's an utter joke
Richard has that classic Jason Blaha physique and same depressing personality but who could blame him, quite obviously all those carbs he is eating are destroying what little is left of his muscles from when he used to eat meat and is now somehow being transformed into lard! 😮
Ok post physique
One of the best debates
Muscles only grows on a scavenger diet, its not like the top three of the strongest land animals are all herbivores/frugivores.
And these animals you speak of are which ones exactly? Care to provide an example? Not challenging you just genuinely curious to why you’re talking about. Thank you for your time brother.
someone tell this dude what a gorilla is
Humans are omnivore there is no doubt about that. These huge herbivores can build that much muscle because they are practically huge fermentation tanks. It blew my mind that the cow's food isn't the grass. The grass is the food for the bacteria in her gut which she in turn digests. It blew my mind.
Elephants
@@Insight-musicYes, but that doesn't tell us much. Elephants are strong and tough but heavily focussed on stamina, although their sheer size makes up for this when they for instance have to protect their young from a pack of lions or hyenas.
The strongest mammals, in terms of fast-twitch muscle fibre, and relative to their size, are mustelids like the weasel, stoat, honey badger, wolverine and polecat, and they're obligatory carnivores.
Not sure how this is relevant anyways, gaining muscle from hypertrophy training is just a matter of combining the right ratios (approximately) of proteins so we get all the essential amino acids our bodies cannot synthesise (or not effectively enough), and making sure we meet all the necessary micronutrient intake to synthesise neurotransmitters and hormones from. While this is more of a chore while going vegan, it absolutely can be done.
Theoretically we could also mix the right kinds of plant-based proteins and fats, add minerals and vitamins, and create a proper diet for carnivore animals. Vegan cat and dog food is actually a thing, it just requires synthetic micronutrient additives like taurine etc.
I mean, if you are more concerned about antinutrients than you are about LDL, there is just nothing to talk about. There is just no comparison.
Yeah. But both diets are incredibly restrictive and stupid. The new adventist 2 study was huge and the evidence is mounting that vegans don't do much better than regular meat eaters. I think Juliette Autumn made a video about that. Pescetarians outperformed all others in longevity and that confirmed what we know from the mediterranian diet too: Fish oils are very healthy.
@@EbonyPope Supplementing DHA on a plant based diet might bridge the gap here. Could be the best of both worlds.
@@EbonyPopeThe pescatarians didn't do better, they had significantly higher cancer, heart disease and overall cardiovascular rates and the vegan men lived the longest in the study. Look at the groups of men. Vegans did the best out of all groups on average. Nuance.
@@80slimshadys I was talking about all cause mortality. That is the most important for life expectancy. Not specific cancers. The results:
The adjusted HR for all-cause mortality in vegans was 0.85 (95% CI, 0.73-1.01); in lacto-ovo-vegetarians, 0.91 (95% CI, 0.82-1.00); in pesco-vegetarians, 0.81 (95% CI, 0.69-0.94); and in semi-vegetarians, 0.92 (95% CI, 0.75-1.13) compared with nonvegetarians.
We have known about the positive effects of fish oils for quite some time. The Mediterranean diet isn't regarded as one of the most healthy for nothing.
@@marckorhammer Yeah I'm not a fan of pills. I try to get my nutrients from my food. Apart from that I don't get the obsession with diet. As long as you keep junk food out you're golden. The rewards are minuscule between the diets at best. The much bigger factor is physical activity which has huge consequences later on.
Just checking back to see if you're still washed up. Have you learned about lectins and leaky gut yet?
Holy shit he's 29 are you kidding me
for real? looks easily 40.. meat AGEs ages you
He’s also shredded rn lmao 😭 you guys are diluted 😹
@@danielltorres5895 its true those drugs age you quickly as well
@@shashoewhat a load of bullshit. Notice the absence of wrinkles from my skin, despite being shredded. There really are a load of nasty pieces of shite on the internet, pathetic.
Steroids are terrible for longevity
CM was outmatched here. This was more of an interview by CM than a debate. He was so unprepared. Bart Kay vs VG would be the " mother" of all debates...
I supplied questions to dispute the claims made, if you were unable to listen to the things I picked apart, that's on you I'm afraid. Take care.
Speaks volumes that you can't take criticism.
@@Samplaceholder it isn't criticism if it's isn't constructive or true. Wake up.
Carnivore: "Maybe the lion diet isn't optimal for most people."
I wonder why... 😁
You only need to do lion if you have autoimmune health issues.
@@egg399. Autoimmune diseases resolve better with the diet suitable for human species: WFPBD.
@@egg399. there's literally no evidence it helps autoimmune issues in any way. This is all reliant on one charlatan influencers word. There is a good amount of literature on plant based diets helping autoimmune issues.
& veganism isn't optimal for anyone xd
@@ruun-z5w The clinical literature speaks very differently. Facts don’t care about your feelings .
Vegan Gains didnt see your channel in like 3 years. You got Huge.
Dude sounds like the donation voice 😂
Well done Richard I think you won that debate. Also I was shocked because it was a civil pleasant debate. I stopped watching your videos years ago but know when someone pulls apart your arguments you presented on here you start to rant and call people names. I was shocked to see a cogent intelligent knowledgeable young man I'm guessing you have matured a bit? Has someone who is nearly twice your age and 28 years Type one diabetic I know low-carb is the best diet to control my blood sugar and it was great you acknowledged it can be a benefit in some cases (caveats excepted).
If I was to debate you. I would have had someone like Bart Kay in my corner to debunk the papers you presented but I understand and appreciate where you are coming from with what you said. So the best replacement would be Zoe Harcombe, who would prove your studies are not worth the paper they are printed on. I know the 10mg of Vit C comes from a study by the dread Ancel. The second person I would need to help debunk the Diet-Heart Hypothesis (LDL is causal in CHD) I would have Dr. Malcolm Kendrick. I was very impressed with your knowledge but I have seen many videos and read some books that explain the problems with all your arguments, but Johnathan is young busy man unlike me. I knew everyone one of your points has a counterargument.
"Debunk" the papers? Bart Kay was presented with a massive meta analysis proving him wrong and all he said was "no they're wrong I'm a senior scientist I now better." Guy is so delusional he thinks rodent studies are more valuable than controlled human trials. He's a total moron.
How can you be insulin sensitive if you are constantly eating carbohydrates? Surely that will cause insulin insensitivity in cells? The pancreas is ok but the rest of the body is insensitive. VG didn’t mention insulin readings when talking about elevated glucose readings.
Carbs don’t cause diabetes
@@hiker-uy1bi Well you keep stuffing your face with them for years and years I think you’ll find that they do. It’s not an instant thing.
Here’s my question to you. If type 2 diabetics follow a low carb high fat diet why do most of them reverse their diabetes?
@@hiker-uy1bi definitely type 2
@Stefano-o5f sounds like genetics
@Stefano-o5f Its not always as simply as diet. You can choose your friends but you cannot choose your genetics
Body makes cholestherol because it is needed for cell linings and for hormone production. Cholestherol is so important, that liver makes ALL cholestherol needed. All ingested cholesterol is extra and therefore harmful. Vegan Gains had couple of typos: Insulin is needed more when one is insulin resistant (not sensitive). And in mentioned LDL study population had no hypertension but they had hypercholesterolemia AKA raised LDL-chol.
Cholesterol is cholesterol, if you ingest it your body makes less of it. It’s not harmful. Your body doesn’t make something that harms it
@@perijon00 Please read studies, or at least watch this debate. Thank you.
@@soilikasanenI have. Higher cholesterol is associated with higher life expectancy, to a point. It’s a bell curve.
@@perijon00 In those elderly people it was a reverse causation. People who had had infarctions were put on statins and therefore got lower LDL-c.
@@perijon00 You know I used to wonder why professors at medical school were so dismissive of questions they deemed to be stupid and obvious / not worth explaining but after 6 years of experience and realizing human nature that no one cares about the truth (like yourself) I finally understand them
Mr. Antidotal loses debate and ignores why he lost because he “feels good” lol it was entertaining I guess
Where are all the heart attack deaths of carnivores from high LDL? 🦗🦗
the diet is too new
@@concretejungle77 what does that have anything to do with carnivores not dying when their LDL is "high" lol.
@@BirdyVlad dude heart disease takes decades
@@scoop2448 lol I love it. First they say you'll die in a year, then 5 years, then 10, now it's decades. I'll take my chances of getting heart disease from eating just meat lol
@@BirdyVlad heat failure usually takes a while lol, heart attacks are number1 cause of death and i don't think their cholesterol is low... yes I'm sure some is needed but even real carnivores don't eat meat everyday.... and we(humans) are not carnivores
He sounds like the chat reader’s voice
yeah he sounds like twitch TTS lmao
nice
Vegan gains is not natty anymore lol
This is not a debate that's more of a vegan educating some uneducated person
This is interesting. How can there even be a debate when there are tonnes of observational studies on the modern man and his diets but basically no studies of the prehistoric human diets? So for over 2 million years, humans ate primarily meat as hunters and gatherers. Somehow we survived, evolved and even our brains grew steadily until 10,000 years ago. 10,000 years ago we started with agriculture. Since then our brain size has shrunk. Whether that's a coincidence or not is up to you.
In the last 100 years, humans have primarily eaten plants and less meat for each decade. In that time we have become industrialized and have been able to study our current diets, which are plant-based. So all observational studies are centered around the modern-day man and what he has been eating for the last 100 years or so, but we totally neglect what we ate for 2,000,000 years before that.
I get that those prehistoric people are not alive to fill in the forms for observational studies done by modern researchers and can't contribute to the studies. But isn't it crazy that we totally rely on observational studies based on the modern mans diet and what he has been eating for like 100 years when our ancestors ate completely differently for several millions of years before that? I think it's insane.
I think it’s insane that you believe “pre-historic humans” were any healthier than modern day ones. Our life spans are steadily increasing, along with our intelligence, so I don’t know where you got that notion from.
PS. They ate plants too, along with other primates.
@@10jonchannelfor the first time ever, our species in our current generation will live for less time than our predecessors.
@@carnivore-muscle it's not because of plants, it's because of excessive caloric intake from ultra-processed ''food'', pesticides, water and air pollution, chronic stress and poor sleep etc. Most people barely eat plants, all they eat is animal products and refined wheat flour, which has barely any fiber, minerals, vitamins and antioxidants.
@@leonardoschenkelsouza4241 I've had tests on my gut microbiome, the plants destroyed it. You can also not consume calories, they are a measurement of heat energy in a closed thermodynamic system. We are an open system, therefore it cannot be applicable. Please do further research.
@@carnivore-muscle this has nothing to do with what i said
THEIR NAMES ARE THE EXACT SAME EXCEPT IN REVERSE LMAO
True 😮
Nerd
Vegan has good genes duh 😂
Vegans come in all shapes and sizes, just like non-vegans. Bottom line is you can easily hit the targets for the carbos, proteins, fibers, fats, vitamins & minerals with a vegan diet. Studies have shown time and again vegans don't have deficiencies. Not only you can find sustenance but you can thrive as a vegan at top level. There is NO necessity for meat.
@@vasisimari92058 nah man tofu is nasty personally I just can't do it Beans are very high protein
@@vasisimari92058 just like people can get fat on things that aren't sugar
@@mor9n243 Stop obsessing about protein. As long as you hit your calorie intake, and those calories are made up of healthy plant-based calories, you will be hitting your protein. And stop pretending you know anything about nutrition, what vegans eat or how to cook vegan. Tofu averages animal flesh in gram for gram protein content, while seitan has about 3 times as much protein as cow's flesh or lamb. You should really be focusing on that saturated fat on your animal based sources and stop seeing enemies where they're not.
No centenarian carnivores, some centenarian vegans. That is the most important metric. What good is having your best physique and fitness in your 20 s and 30 s (if that's even the case) and then dying in your 50 s or 60 s.
Who told you that they die in their 60s? lol. Plenty live into their 80s at least. It's other factors that limit age really.
@@Randoverse That doesn't explain away the centenarian vegans. Ergo, still vegan>>carnivore.
@@julioandresgomez3201 You said something completely wrong and pretend otherwise. Ok kid. I know people been on the carnivore for 60+ years. grow up.
@@Randoverse when did I say that EVERY carnivore dies in the 60 s.
@@julioandresgomez3201 Oh, your right. What good is having an average physique and fitness in your 20s and 30s( If that's even the case) and then dying in your 50's or 60's on a vegan diet then?
Shout out to Vegan Gains,Good guy.
Please have friendly debate with Dr Anthony Chaffee M.D and Prof.Bart Kay,again,he's hot headed but give him a chance !
Bart Kay isn't a professor. Anthony Chaffee isn't an MD. All these carnivore morons lie about their credentials.
You cannot use the smoking example because its very different as you are comparing something which contain known potent carcinogens like Nitrosamines that damages dna reproducable in lab animals, one can also account for the quantity of cigarettes consumed by a person, in other words clear exposure, consistent studies spanning the globe show similar results, and this is close to my heart as my mother died because of smoking. Her lung cancer was a specific smokers only cancer. One another point smoking is not something required by the human body its a habit and addiction to nicotine. We are speaking specifically about nutrition and nutritional studies unable to show cause and effect.
First 💪 🌱 💜
You should debate Pottenger's Human. He's been making some really stupid claims about cholesterol and plant based diet.
There aren't many 100% vegans for 10 years so hats off to you Vegan Gains. What I don't like is you're still comparing the average meat eater who couldn't even tell you what vitamin B12 is to 'vegans'. Vegans are forced to look into nutrition by default unless they're really really lacking in something. A great number of you develop an interest in nutrition through this. I know of 'vegans' and suspect many more vegans aren't eating full plant based which means all this data is void.
The only right way to compare diets is to use athletes and people in shape and to use vegans, real vegans eat 100% plant based. Is being a 100% vegan for 1 year really the same as being 100% vegan for 10 years?
Ok what evidence do you have of this suspicion? Otherwise your moronic comment actually is void.
Bacon bacon bacon!!!
I wish they would both make an onlyfans video
Big forehead because big brain 🧠
Dr. Amen Ra
Fish, eggs, chicken, beef , liver especially has more than enough folate to meet our needs. Folate from animal sources are more bioavailable as animal folate is in the monoglutamate form not the plant form which is polyglumate forms. Liver has all the vitamin c we need remembering when you eat no carbs your requirements are considerably less.
Lmao he really does sound like that TTS voice 15:50 guy in chat said it
Cholesterol and saturated again are not causal at all. Using the word risk implies causation. You cannot use that word. You cannot win any debate. Its lost already.
Ok Bart Kay fanboy. That was already disproven when he debated Dr Ricky. And by your logic we have no idea if smoking is good or bad for health.
Also by the logic, drugs, alcohol, sugar.....we have no idea if any of them are good/bad for health?
@kal.el123 yes we do as Alcohol is a poison, as is sugar since the cause of t2 diabetes is elevated blood glucose and the only macro that can elevate / spike blood glucose to dangerously high-levels constantly is sugar. That is toxic. All carbohydrates are non essential which means,not needed.
@kal.el123 we don't, correct.
Humans have no need for smoking, alcohol, drugs, or excess sugar to survive or maintain health. Their absence changes nothing, while their presence is consistently associated with harm-making debates about causation meaningless.
The nurses study is recall.
no it was done via food frequency questionnaires. They're filled out daily
@@kal.el123 That’s not been mentioned. Also a hamburger and fries is classed as red meat in those studies.
@@egg399. What on earth are you talking about? You said that “the nurses study is recall.” It’s done via food frequency questionnaires. Those are filled out daily, and don’t rely on recall. That was the point I was addressing. What you said was nothing to do with meat.
Now onto your wild pivot about meat - that’s completely false. When they look at studies on meat, all processed meat is investigated into a completely separate category. When they look at red meat, it’s looking at unprocessed red meat. Any meat that is processed, is all looked at under the same category.
@@kal.el123 Why are all the food guidelines wrong then if the studies are being done? People are not getting health eating the SAD or following the food pyramid.
Is it the harvard study that you are referring to?
@@egg399. The irony is, studies show that about 85-90% of people aren’t even following the recommended food guidelines.
That being said, you addressed nothing I said on my prior comment. Stop being totally disingenuous and directly address the content of that comment.
defintely more conviced by the vegan
One thing to take away from this video. Just because someone says "it's a fact" does not mean it's a fact 😂😂
vegan gains looks way less fragile in the two photos of them could probably break that carnivore guys bones easily lol
I'm about 5% bodyfat right now as I'm a competitive bodybuilder. If anyone sat on me I would break.
You are comparing a mixed diet with a plant only based diet. There is no meat only diet vs plant based diet. No nutritional studies can show causation. None. Inferring causation is not proving causation definitively.
He already addressed this moron. Cohort studies infer causality. And RCTs & Mendelian randomisation studies are controlled human studies to address causality. Actually learn some science prior to brainlessly parroting what charlatans online say.
I commented the most charitable and tame idea on a random community post that made a dumb "har har animals taste good" joke that people should at least own the fact eating animals is immoral instead of pretending its perfectly moral and man. People literally frothed at the mouth to prove my point. The cognitive dissonance is unsettling and depressing.
This has nothing to do with nutrition, but what do you think about the new breathing exercise craze that have started in the last years, for example that Dr.Joe dispenza or Wim hoff practices. Is there alot of data in these subjects or is it more likely to just be a placebo?
Keep up the good content!
All I want to know is why are all my friends who are going carnivore turning gay?
Carnivores response to the CAC score reminded me of that scene in mean girls where she describes how kalteen bars work 😂
Bro’s been complaining about his brain being ‘fried’ and contents that he doesn’t need as mich vitamin C.
I live with a severe spine disease and Autism which requires me to be heavily medicated to sit for prolonged periods. That isn't an excuse, but rather to say... look what I've achieved in spite of my severe pain.
@carnivore-muscle Hope you’re aware and know that this isn’t a dig at your accomplishments or your health situation, but your unwillingness to change your views/actions when presented with the facts.
CarnivoreMuscle is overall a much better built. He has the better arguments.
With the footnote being: on PEDs
pathetic how you fail to point out which arguments he made were "better".
All of his arguments got totally debunked here. Did you watch this with a blindfold on and earplugs in?
The Adventist 2 study is out and vegans don't do much better than meat eaters. The best diet that seemed to outperform all others seems to be be pescetarian diet. Fish always seemed to be a very good for the heart but new evidence shows that it seems really to contribute to longevity.
As long as you eat fish low in the food chain that grows quickly and doesn't live near the ocean floor. Herring for instance. Sardines are high in cadnium and mercury and both salmon and tuna have high levels of bioaccumulated mercury.
@@classicallpvault8251 Sure but that is more a problem of the pollution not with the fish itself. Fish oils have really good benefits for the cardiovascular system it seems.
Also there is a difference between non-organic and organic mercury. The latter as far as I remember is less poisonous so concentrations can be higher before you see any detrimental effects. That's a thing few people know.
Theme fish eaters still had more cancer risk than vegans. Clealry show red meat eaters faired the worst.
Misleading in a way since i don't think It's possible to eat fish that IS not Full of Mercury where i live. Even sardines are Full of Mercury here
@@marketlider2811 Well it doesn't make any difference in life expectancy it seems. Also organic mercury is way less poisonous than anorganic one.
Man this guy is getting wrecked one argument after another.
When did humans ever have to get cronometer app to work out what they have eaten is optimal?
Only now, seeing as people thing only plants are what they should eat? Humans etc have been eating fatty meat and fish for 3 million years.
Pulls up one study on carnivore, but the 10's of thousands of people on social media with testimonies that had all their numbers improve we are just gonna look past those people 😂
Of course you need to look past anecdotal evidence. Also switching to a carnivore diet will show improvement over short term, especially if your diet was sh*t prior to going carnivore.
@@BirdyVlad there are tens and thousands of people who are suffering from diseases on carnivore,so what your point then??
@@kalyandasari1779 Really? Where show me lol
it is so not a good look to make a point like that and with that emote its hard to feel sorry for you
@@TraXXXtar cool, idc
I subscribe and like just so I can unsubscribe and dislike!
People who succeed at veganism are people who aren’t picky eaters. It’s that simple.
That's not always true. I know a picky eater who's vegan. Also I hated veggies when I first went vegan.
@@GODZILLARULES123my sister is a picky eater, it drives me crazy, always wasting food cos it doesn't suit her. She's been vegan over 2 years
This is something someone who has never lived as a vegan would say, but in reality our taste buds have been conditioned through culture & tradition. Our Taste buds will change after a few months plant-based and you will not feel the need to eat animals sources.
Veganism is an anti-slavery mindset, not a diet. Vegans are morality advocates, not food advocates. Would you say that someone who avoids human meat or dog meat is a picky eater? No, you just understand that eating them is wrong. It's the same repulsion for vegans.
@@sensationbillionyoure talking about people who purposely would eat processed sugar honey over the actual item from bees
Sucks he got away with that crop death arguments at the end
Funny how VG says vitamin C causes neurological issues and the carnivore kept losing his train of thought 🤣🤣🤣
Under 5% bodyfat, on medication for severe disabling pain. Show some respect, you ungrateful prat.
Debate AGAINST MASTER T PLEASE
Brain dead because of lack of glucose much?
I stopped watching for a decade, this dork still dating Harry Potter?
completely irrelevant and no one cares if you watch this or not
@@GurneroMaelstrom no one cares that you fanboy a psychotic inkwell
@@GurneroMaelstromI care very much.
Please show me one person on this planet that is 500lbs and isn't diabetic? 😂
Shout out to vegan guy for just spitting opinions the entire pod 😂
The internet is free
@@DomainAspect sure is buddy, I'm still looking
@@BirdyVlad carnivores are 100% opinion-based, as there are no studies to support their delusional beliefs
Didn't you just say a moment ago you wanted to use a bunch of unverifiable anecdotes as evidence?
@@kal.el123 but why are you ghey?
Why are people debating information that is already well known and understood in the field of medicine? A good balance between the two is healthy. Carnivore diet is one extreme and veganism is another extreme
It’s not well known. That’s why we are debating. We are not sure of anything in science
How is vegan extreme sorry? It has the best health outcomes in the clinical literature. It's far healthier than an omnivorous diet.
@@kal.el123 no its not. Its lacks essential nutrients needed for muscle growth, or anybody interested in fitness
@@Jeremy-wp4yh ok so firstly, as mentioned vegan diets have the best health outcomes in the clinical literate. Just saying “no” isn’t an argument.
What essential nutrients for muscle growth can you not get on a vegan diet?
Lastly, please explain why there are so many vegan athletes and bodybuilders if this is the case also?
@@kal.el123 Im not going to live on medication just to be healthy when I can get all that from meat
this guy is just parroting bart kay
Because the arguments remain the same, clever clogs.
And Bart is just parroting someone else. What's your point? Do you know what a fractal is? That's how information is spread.
@@carnivore-muscle You didn't have any arguments mate
@@kal.el123 🤯
Vegan gains basically saying if Jonathan carries on eating a carnivore diet he won't be around much longer. Looking a Jonathan's cheek jowls I would say he's taking steroids which would explain his difficulty in understanding simple facts
@@jonascooper759 no, I'm very near contest shape. The same morons saying this would call me fat 3 weeks ago. Check back at my content and you can see for yourself 💪🏼
To be fair,
1- Jonathan said he's around 5% body fat for an upcoming bodybuilding show.
2- you honestly think vegan gains is not on peds also? 🤣
@@change_your_destiny420 I don’t know if VG is on peds but if Jonathan is 5% body fat I would think it’s very unlikely that he’s not peds. I don’t care if either of them want to lower their mortality or suffer irreversible health issues.
Vitamin C needed when eating carbohydrates.
Glutathione is antioxidant available in meat and is very protective.
Please show me one person on this planet that is 500lbs and isn't diabetic? 😂
Shout out to vegan guy for just spitting opinions the entire pod 😂
Did you even listen? You sound impulsive
@@Academic_G yes
talk to any gp, they see them all the time. Rates of obestiy are far higher than rates of diabetes.
@@VeganGains ic, debate professor bart kay next
@@BirdyVlad lol bart kay is just angry and bitter, disgusting human being