Thanks for all your hard work, Dr. Nagra! You're a great advocate. We can take care of our health AND be kind to animals. What could be better than that?! Looking forward to more from you :)
Abstract: We tested whether jumping off a cliff was causaully assosiated with all cause mortality. We followed 34,565 men for 12 years prospectively. Results: Jumping off a cliff was not assosiated with all cause (RR 1.02; 95% CI: 0.98, 1.05), coronary heart disease (RR: 1.03; 95% CI: 0.98, 1.09), or stroke (RR: 0.99; 95% CI: 0.93, 1.05) (P > 0.05 for all). In models in which we estimated the effects of jumping into marshmallow, there was no decreased risk of ACM RR 1.01; 95% CI 0.97-1.03. Conclusions: Current public health guidelines to not jump off a cliff are not supported by scientific evidence, for this reason, reccomendations to not jump off a cliff should be taken with caution.
As much as I love to see anyone promoting an animal based diet get destroyed, I feel bad for Anthony. He is clearly out of his depth in this debate. He is obviously not coming from a science background, and he doesn't seem to fully understand your explanations when it comes to study methodology and physiological mechanisms and why the studies he references are not adequately supporting his position. I appreciate that he is able to question the status quo, think for himself and attempt to delve in to the literature. However, this is a really good example of how a lack of scientific literacy can lead to people thinking their beliefs are confirmed by science when in fact there is little to no evidence to support their views. I'm sure finding someone to debate that holds this position and that is well versed in analysing the scientific literature is not easy to find. Either way, I really enjoyed the debate for the data you presented.
I have offered debates to basically anyone disagrees with me on the science (this is almost a daily occurrence at this point) and only Anthony ever accepted the author (and even then it almost didn’t happen).
@@dr.matthewnagra I think this video demonstrates why nobody else will take you up on the offer! You are so well informed on the topic and can tear down their arguments so easily. I really enjoy the content you've uploaded. Hoping to see more in the future!
Finally had the time to listen to this. Great debate. Basically what Anthony believes is that even though we know jumping out of an airplane at 30k feet with no parachute will kill you, it's possible that if you eat the right diet you could survive such a fall, it just hasn't been studied yet...so it's ok to do so until we know for sure. Amazing mental gymnastics to hold on to a position that all indicators say is wrong, just because it hasn't been fully studied and proven to be wrong in a specific context...
The argument by many ketovores and carnivores that cholesterol is critically important for the body is a moot point. We're talking about excess cholesterol being harmful, not cholesterol in general. Water is also critical for the body but too much will kill you, as with anything else. I'm afraid Anthony is way over his head in this discussion. The kind of people I'd love for you to debate would be someone like Dr. Robert Cywess, Paul Saladino, or Anthony Chaffee. They are huge proponents of a Carnivore diet and I would love to see them soundly trumped.
I’m not vegan and don’t eat fully plant based but I have to say the plant side wins this debate. Great job presenting the evidence it was super informative. Hope to see more content in the future.
Imagine dodging the "causal relationship between jumping off a cliff and dying" question just to remain cosy with your felacious, motivated reasoning. The low carb community are something else
Not trying to bring the low-carb non-plant based dude down, but he has no clue what he’s talking about nor does he know how to debate studies and argue for his points.
Exactly. If this proved anything, it's that you DO need at least some kind of formal education in biostatistics or at least scientific study interpretation of you want to parade around telling people a certain diet, lifestyle, meditation, whatever is superior to another. This was nothing but a perfect example of you can't just "do your own research" and then somehow become an expert
The fact the carnivore had to bite the bullet that "jumping off a cliff isn't proven to be casual to death" or "smoking isn't proven to be casual to lung cancer" to stay logically consistent is pretty telling..
man, despite how frustrating this debate probably was for Nagra and the audience, it is a masterful reply to all of the talking points and studies we see in the wild from the “saturated fat skeptics” side. Nagra takes all of the wind out of every single one of his points and barely asks for a concesión in return.
More likely to be correct can just be the wrong bet still especially if statins and augar companies are behind ! Forget about the meat industry as sugar and drogs make orders of magnitude more money with orders of magnitude less shame in admitting it 😊 According to evidence it seems someone one wants us to eat plants and be compliant little farmers instead of wild super strong and sharp fully hormonally functional humans free in the wild ... Just eat plants, powders supplements and all other whole foods invented by man and push iron and watch movies and dare not think beyond science...
I would think that people that have lower or higher LDL genetically cannot be compared with the fact that you get lower or higher LDL because of your diet.
Isn't it great, that we take science courses for almost 10 years in grade school, and never learn how to interpret scientific studies‽ Ask a hundred people, "What is science", and you will become depressed quite quickly. Some of you worst offenders of this are the "I trust the science" types.
Great debate! That guy needs to learn how read the methodology and not just read the conclusion haha Smoking doesn't cause lung cancer haha your joking right?
@@liutasx I don't believe that statement is true. If you find a high of enough percentage of cases (80-90% lung cancer cases linked to smoking) I believe you can come to a conclusion that smoking causes lung cancer. www.cdc.gov/cancer/lung/basic_info/risk_factors.htm#:~:text=Smoking,the%20risk%20for%20lung%20cancer.
I think your timestamp is off, but I did say "no difference in IHD" right at the end, if you're talking about the MR for linoleic acid. If you're talking about a different point, can you please provide the correct timestamp?
@@ucchi9829 right. Sorry, I misinterpreted your comment. You’re right that they aren’t sold on it. Due to the small reduction in LDL and the trend in sensitivity analysis (along with data from other research), I personally do think there may be a mild effect.
Abraham Lincoln - Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak and to remove all doubt. Matthew are you sure you're vegan, as there was a whole lot of animal suffering going on. 🙂
Nice, going to watch the debate latter. Is it worth watching? Is there anything new or:RR too low tho, epidemiology tho, mechanisms tho, association never implies causation tho, old people have low cholesterol and high rates of CVD tho, dietary guidelines tho, omega-6 tho.....?
Eran Goldberg it’s specifically focus on LDL and SFA as they pertain to CVD. Low cholesterol and high rates of CVD is definitely prevalent, and “not studied in meat-only diets” is in there too. If you get bored part way through, skip to 2:14:45 for the reductios. That’s my fav part.
Dr. Matthew Nagra, ND, I know what the debate is about, I was asking if there is anything new from the carnivore side to support their claim. Or is it all the usual arguments I have listed in my comment.
12:14 no summary for CAD? 13:45 I don't recall if they reported TC or if they provided specific lipids. That is important because a -13.8% reduction could be meaningful or it might not be at all! What was the follow-up and median age ? 13:58 inherently less meaningful? oh boy.. 14:09 "inherently" unreliable? oh boy..... 27:44 He's setting a new goal post.... lol 34:36 it's no longer considered a hypothesis per consensus.
You did a fantastic job at breaking down the science. You basically debunked everything he said and believed- it was a clash of being highly educated in this field compared to someone listening to and believing carnivore influencers. Did this guy change his mind down the track with the weight of evidence you provided?
Yeah the truth is amazing isn't it? In case you are trying to discredit someone talking about science in a respectable, appropriate and responsible manner, then you are just wrong
@@jeCktHeRealwhat is "truth" in this context? You've gotta be more specific here. It's also not responsible of someone to have a poor epistemic framework for evaluating evidence from which to base positions off of, especially if they are trying to spread a message or specific view point. Doing so leads to more misinformation.
@@Parker_Miller_M.S. The truth is that human beings are not to be experimented with, which means there is no study out there that can inform on a food or substance to be causing anything, which means also there is no informing on risk. Nagra is one of these arrogant charlatans who will go and make cause and effect claims regarding human nutrition, pointing to his utter lack of understanding of human nutrition.
@@jeCktHeReal you're incredibly misinformed. The simple fact you stated a study cannot inform risk, something rather simple to calculate, is down right delusional and tells me there's no point in discussing further with you.
The only justification & basis for knowledge and for informing judgement and action is the best evidence available. Everything else is unjustified. The carnivore is out to lunch thinking that all the best evidence we have should be totally discounted because... in a million years we, somehow inexplicably, might find out we're completely fooling ourselves lol. And maybe it's tortoises all the way down lol.
it is a biological fact humans need meat. you are inky fooling yourself in the lame vegan Hindu religion. you can eat all the supplements and fortified food you want, you wint force me at all. i will never trust anything they call food made in a lab.
Thanks for all your hard work, Dr. Nagra! You're a great advocate. We can take care of our health AND be kind to animals. What could be better than that?! Looking forward to more from you :)
Abstract:
We tested whether jumping off a cliff was causaully assosiated with all cause mortality. We followed 34,565 men for 12 years prospectively.
Results:
Jumping off a cliff was not assosiated with all cause (RR 1.02; 95% CI: 0.98, 1.05), coronary heart disease (RR: 1.03; 95% CI: 0.98, 1.09), or stroke (RR: 0.99; 95% CI: 0.93, 1.05) (P > 0.05 for all). In models in which we estimated the effects of jumping into marshmallow, there was no decreased risk of ACM RR 1.01; 95% CI 0.97-1.03.
Conclusions:
Current public health guidelines to not jump off a cliff are not supported by scientific evidence, for this reason, reccomendations to not jump off a cliff should be taken with caution.
Amazing.
Correlation don't imply causation, relative risk is also don't imply causation.
As much as I love to see anyone promoting an animal based diet get destroyed, I feel bad for Anthony. He is clearly out of his depth in this debate. He is obviously not coming from a science background, and he doesn't seem to fully understand your explanations when it comes to study methodology and physiological mechanisms and why the studies he references are not adequately supporting his position. I appreciate that he is able to question the status quo, think for himself and attempt to delve in to the literature. However, this is a really good example of how a lack of scientific literacy can lead to people thinking their beliefs are confirmed by science when in fact there is little to no evidence to support their views. I'm sure finding someone to debate that holds this position and that is well versed in analysing the scientific literature is not easy to find. Either way, I really enjoyed the debate for the data you presented.
I have offered debates to basically anyone disagrees with me on the science (this is almost a daily occurrence at this point) and only Anthony ever accepted the author (and even then it almost didn’t happen).
@@dr.matthewnagra I think this video demonstrates why nobody else will take you up on the offer! You are so well informed on the topic and can tear down their arguments so easily. I really enjoy the content you've uploaded. Hoping to see more in the future!
Debate Bart Kay....he needs to be humbled.
Now that would be a great one. You are right. He is very smug.
Bart kay would dismantle this fool
Finally had the time to listen to this. Great debate. Basically what Anthony believes is that even though we know jumping out of an airplane at 30k feet with no parachute will kill you, it's possible that if you eat the right diet you could survive such a fall, it just hasn't been studied yet...so it's ok to do so until we know for sure. Amazing mental gymnastics to hold on to a position that all indicators say is wrong, just because it hasn't been fully studied and proven to be wrong in a specific context...
The argument by many ketovores and carnivores that cholesterol is critically important for the body is a moot point. We're talking about excess cholesterol being harmful, not cholesterol in general. Water is also critical for the body but too much will kill you, as with anything else. I'm afraid Anthony is way over his head in this discussion. The kind of people I'd love for you to debate would be someone like Dr. Robert Cywess, Paul Saladino, or Anthony Chaffee. They are huge proponents of a Carnivore diet and I would love to see them soundly trumped.
One down! 🎯
Paul Saladino is an influencer not a scientist. ofcourse he wouldnt debate...
I’m not vegan and don’t eat fully plant based but I have to say the plant side wins this debate. Great job presenting the evidence it was super informative. Hope to see more content in the future.
you are vegan bro. stop lying
Imagine dodging the "causal relationship between jumping off a cliff and dying" question just to remain cosy with your felacious, motivated reasoning. The low carb community are something else
What a great start for videos. I hope to see this channel grow.
Not trying to bring the low-carb non-plant based dude down, but he has no clue what he’s talking about nor does he know how to debate studies and argue for his points.
Exactly. If this proved anything, it's that you DO need at least some kind of formal education in biostatistics or at least scientific study interpretation of you want to parade around telling people a certain diet, lifestyle, meditation, whatever is superior to another. This was nothing but a perfect example of you can't just "do your own research" and then somehow become an expert
The fact the carnivore had to bite the bullet that "jumping off a cliff isn't proven to be casual to death" or "smoking isn't proven to be casual to lung cancer" to stay logically consistent is pretty telling..
man, despite how frustrating this debate probably was for Nagra and the audience, it is a masterful reply to all of the talking points and studies we see in the wild from the “saturated fat skeptics” side. Nagra takes all of the wind out of every single one of his points and barely asks for a concesión in return.
God Matthew, this was brutal. You should put 21+ mark on this video.
Great debate! Very direct, concise and well explained. Great work
It's Jordan Innit Thank you!
Statins actually do something "good" 😊 For crap diets maybe but who promotes that ?! Statins boys wanted sick people to "save" Shockers 😅😂
More likely to be correct can just be the wrong bet still especially if statins and augar companies are behind ! Forget about the meat industry as sugar and drogs make orders of magnitude more money with orders of magnitude less shame in admitting it 😊 According to evidence it seems someone one wants us to eat plants and be compliant little farmers instead of wild super strong and sharp fully hormonally functional humans free in the wild ... Just eat plants, powders supplements and all other whole foods invented by man and push iron and watch movies and dare not think beyond science...
Plot twist: this is just a virtual telehealth consultation with Dr. Nagra
😂😂😂😂😂 yes
Thank you for this great debate, I learned a lot.
This was a brilliant response to the keto/carnivore misinformation.
I would think that people that have lower or higher LDL genetically cannot be compared with the fact that you get lower or higher LDL because of your diet.
His low carb guest should have thanked Dr Nagra for the free lesson in nutritional literacy!
Isn't it great, that we take science courses for almost 10 years in grade school, and never learn how to interpret scientific studies‽ Ask a hundred people, "What is science", and you will become depressed quite quickly. Some of you worst offenders of this are the "I trust the science" types.
I appreciate you being skeptical, keep talking about things you don’t know about.
Olympic level mental gymnastics... Incredible dismount... gold medal 🥇
Great debate! That guy needs to learn how read the methodology and not just read the conclusion haha Smoking doesn't cause lung cancer haha your joking right?
Think Plant-Based! Thanks! Yea, I knew he’d either bite the bullet on that or admit he was wrong... he chose the former
@@dr.matthewnagra Ya no doubt. His logic wasn't really consistent 🤯
Smoking doesn't cause lung cancer, if smoking was causal it would cause every smoker to get lung cancer.
@@liutasx I don't believe that statement is true. If you find a high of enough percentage of cases (80-90% lung cancer cases linked to smoking) I believe you can come to a conclusion that smoking causes lung cancer.
www.cdc.gov/cancer/lung/basic_info/risk_factors.htm#:~:text=Smoking,the%20risk%20for%20lung%20cancer.
@@thinkplant-based Why all smokers don't develop lung cancer? If smoking causes cancer all smokers should develop lung cancer?
8:46 * should note, the authors weren't convinced by what they found for IHD.
I think your timestamp is off, but I did say "no difference in IHD" right at the end, if you're talking about the MR for linoleic acid. If you're talking about a different point, can you please provide the correct timestamp?
@@dr.matthewnagra I know you said no difference. IIRC, Zhao et al 2019 they weren't convinced that there really is no difference.
@@ucchi9829 right. Sorry, I misinterpreted your comment. You’re right that they aren’t sold on it. Due to the small reduction in LDL and the trend in sensitivity analysis (along with data from other research), I personally do think there may be a mild effect.
Abraham Lincoln - Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak and to remove all doubt.
Matthew are you sure you're vegan, as there was a whole lot of animal suffering going on. 🙂
Nice video.
So why do you think ldl is not causal based on the evidence I just presented?
um,um,um
What was the follow-up on this? Did Anthony end up changing his view?
Wow I always wondered how saturated fat raised LDL levels 😂😂😂😂. I was so baffled by this and bomb he answers it in this video ...ugh. Thanks!
Nice, going to watch the debate latter. Is it worth watching? Is there anything new or:RR too low tho, epidemiology tho, mechanisms tho, association never implies causation tho, old people have low cholesterol and high rates of CVD tho, dietary guidelines tho, omega-6 tho.....?
Eran Goldberg it’s specifically focus on LDL and SFA as they pertain to CVD. Low cholesterol and high rates of CVD is definitely prevalent, and “not studied in meat-only diets” is in there too. If you get bored part way through, skip to 2:14:45 for the reductios. That’s my fav part.
Dr. Matthew Nagra, ND, I know what the debate is about, I was asking if there is anything new from the carnivore side to support their claim. Or is it all the usual arguments I have listed in my comment.
Eran Goldberg not really. However, I don’t think heard the acceptance of some of these reductios before. That was a first for me.
Dr. Matthew Nagra, ND, ok 👍.
Frank and Bart often use these argument... as do many other carnivores.
12:14 no summary for CAD?
13:45 I don't recall if they reported TC or if they provided specific lipids. That is important because a -13.8% reduction could be meaningful or it might not be at all! What was the follow-up and median age ?
13:58 inherently less meaningful? oh boy..
14:09 "inherently" unreliable? oh boy.....
27:44 He's setting a new goal post.... lol
34:36 it's no longer considered a hypothesis per consensus.
Don't worry, I went through all of those studies afterwards. I actually forgot to go through MCE right away, but came back to it later on.
Also, for the TC point, it was just TC and not any other lipids if I recall correctly.
Anthony Grsé needs another 2 more years to reread, re-research and study o ver and over again. Because he still doesn't know what he is talking about.
You did a fantastic job at breaking down the science. You basically debunked everything he said and believed- it was a clash of being highly educated in this field compared to someone listening to and believing carnivore influencers. Did this guy change his mind down the track with the weight of evidence you provided?
Lmao Anthony saying smoking doesnt cause lung cancer because we dont have RCTs "proving" causality was just amazing
Yeah the truth is amazing isn't it? In case you are trying to discredit someone talking about science in a respectable, appropriate and responsible manner, then you are just wrong
@@jeCktHeRealwhat is "truth" in this context? You've gotta be more specific here. It's also not responsible of someone to have a poor epistemic framework for evaluating evidence from which to base positions off of, especially if they are trying to spread a message or specific view point. Doing so leads to more misinformation.
@@Parker_Miller_M.S. The truth is that human beings are not to be experimented with, which means there is no study out there that can inform on a food or substance to be causing anything, which means also there is no informing on risk. Nagra is one of these arrogant charlatans who will go and make cause and effect claims regarding human nutrition, pointing to his utter lack of understanding of human nutrition.
@@jeCktHeReal you're incredibly misinformed. The simple fact you stated a study cannot inform risk, something rather simple to calculate, is down right delusional and tells me there's no point in discussing further with you.
🤣 no one needs a professional acreditación to confirm bias
The only justification & basis for knowledge and for informing judgement and action is the best evidence available. Everything else is unjustified. The carnivore is out to lunch thinking that all the best evidence we have should be totally discounted because... in a million years we, somehow inexplicably, might find out we're completely fooling ourselves lol. And maybe it's tortoises all the way down lol.
it is a biological fact humans need meat. you are inky fooling yourself in the lame vegan Hindu religion. you can eat all the supplements and fortified food you want, you wint force me at all. i will never trust anything they call food made in a lab.
Not "risk" Matthew Nagra. No. Wrong. Use the word "incidence"
So can your body live with out meat ?
Absolutely!
Your body will thrive on a healthy, whole food plant based diet!
no. you would need supplements and fortified foods
@@GarudaLegends Drinking the milk that's appropriate for a calf is more natural than eating a supplement, right?
@@GarudaLegends So.. yes?
Just look at their necks. The vegan shows signs of sarcopenia.