Do I Owe Vegans An Apology? New Study Review | Educational Video | Biolayne
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 26 ก.ย. 2024
- Citation:
PMID: 38032644
Get my research review REPS:
biolayne.com/REPS
Get my new nutrition coaching app, Carbon Diet Coach: onelink.to/9h4d62
My research based supplements: www.outworknutr...
Get my books on how to lose fat: www.biolaynesto...
Take my online course "The Science of Nutrition": chfi.click/lay...
Get Custom Workouts by me for $12.99/month:
biolayne.com/w...
/ laynenorton
/ biolayne
/ biolayne
![[🔴LIVE] งานประกาศรางวัล MAYA TV AWARDS 2024 : มายามหาชน](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/nwmWYXXVwBY/mqdefault.jpg)
Who would have thought that it is easier to eat more fruits and vegetables on a vegen diet?
And who would have thought you'd have healthier biomarkers in just eight weeks?
@@Joseph1NJit’s pretty expected at least LDL positive or negative changes can be seen within 3 weeks.
@@The_Legend_Himself yup.
Right. So I can continue with my carnivore diet, so long as I choose high fiber, low saturated fat, high unsaturated fat, meat.
Is this just really good sarcasm?
Lol!
As long as you are not a couch lard behemoth, you're good to go.
Carnivore diet is as stupid as veganism. Look at your damn teeth people, they tell you what you’re made to eat.
Exactly hahaha 😅
This is the official Petition for Brian to include the outtakes from now on.
Yes
Seconded
The guy liked the comment….I can die fulfilled now. 😂 RN & Trainer here. Thank you for what you do. You’ve helped shape the coaching I do. Ya da man!
Read this study last week. This is a very accurate & reasonable take.
Saw this coming. I had a strong feeling that fiber and lack of saturated fat was going to play a major role in this study.
You can have a lack of saturated fat? I don't think you need any. Alpha-linolenic acid and linoleic acid are the only fats/fatty acids that are essential.
WTF are you talking about? Where did I ever say you needed saturated fat? You are using big words but have no reading comprehension skills.
Two options here, you didn't watch the video, so you took my comment out of context, or you clearly don't have the ability to comprehend what you read. smh
@@jakubchrobry3701
@@jakubchrobry3701lack of X can just mean “less of X than is expected/normal”, it doesn’t have to mean “less of X than required/wanted”
@@Al-.-ex Can you provide a source for your definition of "lack." According to Oxford, lack is "the state of being without or not having enough of something." How can you not have enough of a nutrient that's not essential?
@@jakubchrobry3701 different dictionaries disagree on whether the missing thing is required, or just wanted, or even just customary / expected. Some omit even that.
The tragedy of stupid prescriptivists is they have no smart prescriptivists to learn from.
This is definitely the Netflix Docu: You are what you eat.. Exactly my thoughts. Thanks Layne! :D
"Of course, I found in the study that the plant based diet had more fiber and less saturated fat than the meat containing diet."
"Of course, I found in the study that the water drinkers had more hydration and less toxicity than the alcohol drinkers"
Right. Who would have thought?
I think they intentionally did not make the study isocaloric because satiety was part of the objective.
how does it risk safety?
@@devvyas6751 "satiety"
mah bad @@Joseph1NJ
Strange reasoning. You say there is nothing inherent to meat that makes it less healthy, yet meat inherently has saturated fat and no fiber, the very things that seem to make a difference in this study, and others.
Exactly. When you substitute animal protein for plant protein, you naturally eat more fiber and less saturated fat. It's a no-brainer. Trying to dissociate it is delusional.
@@davisantos3431 It gets dissociated since there is no reason someone eating meat can't get enough (or even excessive) fiber unless they are full-on carnivore. Any diet with a sufficient amount of plants will do this, and you don't need to eat nothing but plants to achieve it.
One of the big points in the series is that animal agriculture is bad for the planet. You have not mentioned this at all in your video. If you are going to eat meat and if you care for the future of the planet, then you should know where your meat and fish come from! Factory farming is unsustainable. A person can eat meat but obviously eating less is better for the person and the planet.
Eat leaner meats and more plants. Not hard to figure that out.
Not so strenge. Norton has financiël links to the meat and eg industrie, dude is a clown.
I don't think it's a mystery at this point. The healthiest diet reduces or eliminates trans fats and refined carbohydrates, limits saturated fats, salt, and calories, and emphasizes fiber, unsaturated fats, and proteins.
And it's just easier to do on a whole foods plant based diet than any other
You claimed in another post that Fish and dairy are healthy, they may be healthier than other animal products, but they are not the optimal foods compared to plant foods.
@@avinashtyagi2 plant based lacks proteins.
@@tatywork9126Lol, no it does not. Plenty of protein in plants.
@@tatywork9126 One Block of Super firm Tofu has 70 Grams of Protein
So, a WFPB diet isn’t a silver bullet, it’s just that it has fewer calories, less saturated fat, and more fiber. Pretty much why folks go WFPB. I’m not sure how you don’t see that you’re making their point for them… 🤷♂️😂
Right? Diabetes, obesity, heart disease. Some of the leading causes of death and wfpb is better at preventing all of those, but people will still refuse to admit that it's better.
ANY diet has fewer calories if someone wants it to. Even a diet of Icecream and donuts could have less calories. The participants chose to eat less calories, probably through satiation but any restrictive diet provides more satiation. Not to mention this is was a gardener study (beyond meat funds them).
On a side note I really hate the term "WFPB" since it often piggybacks veganism with omnivore success. Mediterranean, vegetarian, pescatarian, some Japanese diets and even up to 20% animal diets (so my damn diet) all fall under the "WFPB" umbrella. So yeah it is a silver bullet when it is so vague it literally means any diet with a decent amount of plants.
So basically eat your fiber, eat less saturated fats and don't have too many calories. Shocker
Discovering fire
As someone that’s been plant based for over a decade, I really appreciate you keeping the evangelicals in line with these reviews. I just know I’m going to see some dogmatic vegans touting this study as the ultimate proof that there’s only one optimal diet.
Whole foods plant based is superior, I'm losing a ton of weight without ever counting a single calorie, and I never feel like I'm starving, it's like having cheat codes.
Why do you think a diet being optimal is more important than being ethical?
If eating humans was the most optimal diet, would you adopt it?
@@Nanashi-sz6wc
Optional and optimal doesn’t mean the same thing
Also eating cows or chickens doesn’t equate to eating humans
@@C0d0ps That was a typo, I meant to say optimal in both instances.
I never said they were the same thing, or equated them.
Could you answer the question?
@@Nanashi-sz6wc
Animals eat animals...
When a lion kills a wildebeest it's far often more slowly and horrific then when a butcher kills an animal.
Have you ever seen a polar bear slaughter a seal?
Some animals are cannibalistic...
A praying mantis eats her partner after mating...
Some animals even seem to enjoy maiming other animals
Ever seen a chimpanzee ripping a monkey to pieces?
Some animals eat their own newborn babies...
Hamsters do this...
So what/who's ethics?
Definitely not nature's...
Plants and trees provide us with oxygen.... So, it seems a bit silly to eat those, right?
Or use wood as a building resource.
Also, maybe plants have feelings too... :P
Again, what/who's ethics?
Definitely not nature's...
It's fine that people decide for themselves to make a certain choice. Just don't push that personal view onto others and/or shame/blame them for choosing differently.
*That* is quite unethical.
Why primal diet promoters don't say that hunter guatharer tribes like hadza eat 100g to 150g of fibre per day and much less saturated fat and dietary fat and sodium than average modern diet
Because they're meatheads?
Cause meat is manly. Hunting is manly. They have the image of a big muscular primitive man single handedly taking down mammoths with primitive tech, so they look up to it. It's an image of strength and manliness which hampers their ability to consider contrary information.
Excellent point. I heard about this study and was hoping Layne would explain it. Thanks so much
I don't understand your conclusion. The point is that a whole-food plant-based diet is naturally high in fiber and low in saturated fat. So, it *is* superior to an omnivorous diet in this regard.
In practice, not in theory.
He can't say that because he would lose subscribers. He won't even say to stay away from beef.
If you ignore protein and muscle synthesis. Yes.
@@russell3038 Why would you ignore protein and muscle synthesis? I'm not sure what that has to do with eating plants.
@@jakubchrobry3701 harder to get enough protein (not impossible!) and also animal protein has a more effective amino acid stack)
excellent information. love the format and data
Great analysis... Appreciate your platform
Wow, what a revelation, plant based diet was higher in fiber and lower in saturated fat... That's kind of the point though, isn't it? If you're eating a lot of meat, it is harder to keep your saturated fat lower and your fiber higher than an equal or nearly equal (calorie) plant based diet.
But behind it all, fiber = bad for humans, saturated fat = good for humans. And higher cholesterol is not associated with heart disease in non-biased studies.
Read the comments in the carnivore videos to see many thousands of people who have a lived experience. Including many ex-vegans.
literally, this guy is a clown
@@stevem8318ah yes... anecdotes..the best form of evidence
The problem is if you eat a really large amount of meat, you will consume a lot of saturated fat and it could be exceedinly difficult to offset it by enough plant food with fiber. I tried and it didn't work for me. Had to almost completely eliminate meat to keep my LDL in check
I think it shows that for people who dont pay attention to what they eat, any effort to eat less processed food, more fibre etc is good for you. Veganism is a popular way to do that is no doubt better then the standard american diet. But so are many other diets.
So much nuance between health plant pure and healthy plant predominant (omnivore). But without even needing to read the study, the bottom line is that if one goes from what was presumably the average CRRAHP-SAD (CRRAHP=calorie rich, refined and highly processed) diet to a study diet and had no changes in biomarkers, the MEANINGFUL differences (saturated fat, fiber, PUFAs, calories and yes, wait for it, dietary cholesterol-let alone important micronutrients like sodium, potassium, magnesium and calcium) between pre-study diets of the omnivore group and what they ate during the study comes into serious question.
Great video, as usual 👍🏽
Well saturated fat is a component of meat. You can of course keep it low(er) by your choice of meat.
8:08: meat has large amounts of saturated fat and is devoid of fiber.
Get leaner meat and eat more fiber, genius. Fish is mostly unsaturated fat as well.
For the algorithm
FOR THE ALGORITHM
I am all 4 it.
Algorithm!
So plants are healthier and meat is ok as long as you consume enough plants.
I would also point out that comparing identical twins in a parallel study is not as reliable as comparing the same person in crossover as epigenetic marks will differ between twins. That being said, a crossover design doesn’t work to measure weight loss.
More great info from Layne! Let's get that fiber!!!
who is fiber
Great content and explanation as always. It's great that you're a Ph.D. and bring it to us in normal words - and aren't stuffy, but dynamic!
Interesting that LDL is still a "problem thing" thought we were over it.
We don't have a giant appendix to ferment all that fiber like herbivores. We absolutely should limit fiber intake because it adds bulk to stool and damage our digestive system.
There are numerous nutrients that affect health - not just saturated fat and fiber.
But even if one were to grant that these two nutrients were the major factors, allow me to point out that if you eat meat, with every calorie from meat you are paying an opportunity cost. If you were to substitute every meat calorie with a calorie from whole plants, you’d be getting less saturated fat and you’d be getting fiber. You’d also be getting vitamin C, resistant starch, and hundreds of protective, health- and longevity-promoting phytonutrients, which are entirely absent from meat.
Furthermore, consider the latest results from the NHANES study, according to which plant protein is much more health- and longevity-promoting than dairy and animal protein.
The reasons to eat meat are fewer and fewer. The reasons to minimize or eliminate meat from one’s diet continue to amass in number.
🌱
Oh, so when you eat fiber (plants) and replace saturated with unsaturated fat (plants) then things get better. Bro? What are you even trying to prove lol
I LOVE this analysis! Looking for nuance in the data. Love! It!
FINALLY LAYNE IS COMING BACK... Good to see u back.
Layne, I don't know if you will see this but I have been watching your videos for years and I am genuinely curious, I have genetic high cholesterol and I think I am hitting all the keys you mentioned to keep cholesterol low... but my question is I am having a hard time finding consistent information with some of the qualifiers, for example what qualifies and enough fiber, how much saturated fat is considered low, how much polyunsaturated fats and fiber would be considered high enough to offset harmful effects. Thanks
There really isn't a number that would allow for you to have an inextricable understanding of how much is too much and how little is too little. There's a lot of variances that goes into stuff like this. I would start with a number and go from there. Keep in contact with your doctor and make sure they're on the same page with your experimentations as well.
The American Heart Association recommends less than 10% of one's calories from saturated fat. So if you eat 2000 cal, the upper limit would be 20 gram per day. Recommendations for fiber is: at least 25 grams. In general more fiber is usually better (as long as you don't have gut problems). Also if you are used to very low fiber, build up slowly, so that you give your micobiota time to develop.
I feel like I have heard layne say that fiber should be 15grams per 1000 calories so 30 grams for a 2000 calorie day. I don't know about cholesterol.
What you are describing is familial hypercholesterolemia. There really isn't a dietary answer for that, unfortunately. Your body produces extra cholesterol. All you can really do is watch for signs of CVD. Optimize your diet, sure, but you will never really be able to get your cholesterol to "healthy" levels, as described in lipid panel data.
@@BaresarkSlayneThat sounds a bit depressing. Are you sure that a light statin, or other Lp(a)- and apoB-lowering drugs, would not help?
I'm not sold that the outcome was based on higher fiber and lower saturated fat. I've been on healthy keto for over a year with my husband eating meat (including lots of red meat and chicken skin) and fish twice daily along with a ton of veggies. I also consume other saturated fats from coconut on a regular basis. Our markers including LDL have lowered tremendously.
What we are not eating is eggs or dairy.
So in my opinion it is not the meat but maybe the dairy and or eggs that raise LDL and as long as you are metabolically healthy and other markers such as ApoB are good, higher LDL is not a prediction of heart disease. As always they left out other important factors and only focused on a narrow minded marker.
He said there was nothing inherently wrong with meat but then says saturated fat is bad. I’m confused
Who eats this much saturated fat?!?! 23% of calories? Wtf? I never exceed 10% unless I’m eating pizza or something.
This is a misunderstanding. The 20% is from the fats profile as in 20% saturated fats, 35% polyunsaturated fats and 45% monounsaturated fats.
Vegans consumed 36% of calories from fats and omnivores 39% of calories from fats overall.
This would put for omnivores something like 31% of 39% of calories which is around 12% of calories from saturated fats, while vegans consumed 23% of 36% of calories, that is around 9% of calories from saturated fats.
I do. Actually a lot more than that. Still ripped af.
But Layne,
every time you allocate calories for meat, cheese or eggs, you eat calories and use stomach place that you could allocate to low calorie food, rich in fiber, and low in saturated fat.
I don't know why you keep denying that. I love your content, but I really fee likel it is the weak link in your reasoning.
Would love to have an answer from you about this :)
Love from Germany
Eat lettuce and carrots all day. See how long you live. I will eat cheese and steak for every meal. I will live longer and be stronger
Oh but he doesn't deny it, he says that eating more of that its better. That's why he says if you are choosing to go for "meat, cheese or eggs" you have to be dilligent and concious about your other food.
The key part is explaining the information so as the viewer knows how to make their decisions. If i eat low calorie food rich in fiber, low in saturated fats and mostly plant based foods (which i do) im full with a little amount of calories which means i still have plenty of room to include others food that i could enjoy independent of their macros/micros and it won't have an impact on my health.
He never denied that. Just admit vegetarianism or veganism is your new religion. In fact, that some practical advice he has given in the past for people trying to lose weight. Eat more starches, eat more vegetables, eat more high fiber food as it's more satiating.
@Eustres but then, why not ditch the meat, cheese and eggs if they provide no benefit?
Yes it makes sense, thanks for the answer. But as we know there is a dose response between fiber intake and decrease mortality (As Layne also said in other videos) it would just make more sense to avoid foods groups that are high calories and don't contain any fiber. But I think the reason why Layne don't do that way in hie reasoning even if he doesn't outline it clearly, is that as he is an high level athlete, it is for him more convinient to keep on having animal products to get high amouts of easy available protein. But this reasoning doesn't applies well for the the overwhelming majority of the population I think :) @@PaulC-xv4zr
Healthier biomarkers in just eight weeks.
Dr Layne, fiber intake is a negative correlated indicator for LDL. Eat more fiber less LDL to a certain level. I wonder if fiber supplements would have as much benefit or is fiber intake correlated with vegetables and fruit intake and that's the real deal.
I believe there are studies looking at psyllium husk fibre supplementation showing LDL decrease. But a supplement is a supplement stick to whole foods as a primary source and a supplement as extra insurance.
Great video, and no one should expect an apology. Just the facts. Plant based carbon diet crew💚💚💚💚
Doesn’t meat increase LDL? So it does have inherent risks versus protein from plants.
It does. The presenter was just coping since he really likes his meat. Thus why he tries to re-interpret everything to fit his bias.
Saturated fat does. You can get leaner pieces of meat. Everyone seems to pretend all meat is the same when it's not. Get turkey breast if fat worries you.
@@VegetaPrinceOfSaiyans even lean increases ldl
@@jaymills1720 Cite that because that's essentially implying protein increases LDL, which makes zero sense.
Check PMID: 15927927
Been waiting for this video! Yay!
I'm proud to say that despite the headline, I knew a fiber plug was coming and I'm here for it. Shoutout to 35g of fiber a day and being regular AF. #LogGang
I’m jealous.
#ibsgang
I eat 90 grams of fiber a day@@throbbinwoodofcoxley6830
Vegans, like myself, should not use health-based arguments for their ethical position. Trying to go into empirics or even anecdotal evidence is often a slow process approach. Most people don't have the time, motivation or skill to read studies.
Even if omnivorous diets are healthier and more flexible, the ethical position of veganism stands. You run in contradiction, absurdity and logical fallacies if you say otherwise. At least I haven't head a compelling ethical argument against it
Yes
As Omar Isuf (used to) say: "Eat your vegetables, eat your vegetables, eat your f**king vegetables!"
A great informative video, thanks for that❤❤❤
Of course the vegans ate less. People will eat less of food that doesn’t taste good.
If anything, this study debunks the carnivore diet and supports that a plant based diet is optimal for most humans. Plant based meaning, mostly plants, not zero animal product.
I love when people use the word "debunks". It totally doesn't.
Unfortunately the fact the calories weren't equivalent ruins any meaningful interpretation. You can't simply say plant based diet is optimal when the improvement in blood markers could simply be due to the calorie deficit. I say that because the guy who recently ate only Macdonald's for a month but halved the portions ended up with improved blood markers. The reduction in calories improves things even when it's fast food. I'm really disappointed they didn't cover that after taking the time to.find twins for the study.
@@noggintubethe deficit was miniscule.
As long as you are not a couch lard behemoth, you're good to go.
@@BaresarkSlayne yes it does. Along with many, many other studies.
Non-GMO / Organic Veggies & Fruits, Grains, Beans, Roots.
You're never going to be able to match the fiber and types of fats as with the whole food plant based diet. I'll say that as I'm about to eat some tuna and cheese with some veggies. I'll eat omnivorous while it's convenient for me, but I'm not under the illusion it's healthier than a whole food plant based diet. It's okay to admit you're not eating the best diet, but you're happy with that. If you won't adhere to a WFPB diet because you can't then it won't be best for you, and you have to pick certain foods to make sure you get all the nutrients you need. It's not a diet for people who don't enjoy research, unless someone tells you exactly what to eat.
Layne I love your content but for the love of God, fix the sound!
Love the outtakes! For the ALGORITHM!
Funny how loss of bodyweight/bodyfat is argued to be a confounder which invalidates the result of this study, but in keto resistance training studies its not considered a confounder and the sub par hypertrophy is instead explained by the magical properties of keto.
Keto is snake oil. This study is invalid for a plethora of reasons.
Something tells me you don’t understand as much as you think you do.
Plants have more fiber, duh!
High key fire video, interesting study
So if you are an omnivore you should probably keep it to less than 5% of calories. How many omnivores do that?
Ways to lower cholesterol: 1. exercise 2. fiber 3. omega-3 FA 4. niacin 5. resveratrol
Resveratrol is completely useless. Absolutely no study has indicated resveratrol does anything at all and there have been a LOT of studies.
Resveratrol is bad for you, it was scammed for money by Dr Sinclair. Avoid taking resveratrol.
Lane is a fool. Dancing around the topic because he knows. Trying to say meat doesn't have inherently increase risk factors and plants dont inherently lower risk factors. Except saturated fat IS inherit in meat, and fiber IS inherit in plants. The less meat and more plants = Better outcomes.
Great video! Thank you
FORRR THE ALGORITHM 💪🏿
great explanation
So the calorie deficit was the first bias that a quality study would have accounted for. Second you did mention anything in the study about overall lifestyles. Was one twin a drinker, a smoker an exerciser etc. Thirdly you did not mention who funded this study. Conformation bias, pulication bias, funding bias etc can make a study say whatever you want and this can all be determined before the study even starts.
I dont understand why they went the extra mile to get twins for the study, but didnt control for fiber and calories. It seems like such a large miss in the design.
Like, if the purpose was just to see what the results would be of naturally following each diet, then why get twins? I dont get it.
Because it's a diet study, not isolated ingredients study. It would be like isolating saturated fat for animal products. No, it's part of the thing, and you eat it in a normal diet. You don't exclude it in your results. Just like fiber is an inseparable part of plant foods. The study tests real life actual ways people will eat, and that's what affects their health in practice.
Same for the calories. Plant foods in general naturally control your calorie intake and it's harder to overeat , and that's how most people eat. They don't track anything, they go by taste and hunger. And whole foods plant based diets can automatically keep you at healthier weight on average. While others, not so much.
@mitkoogrozev I think you're missing my point. Im not saying to exclude anything. Im saying they should have controlled for fiber, macros, and calories in both groups as best as possible.
If diet is what they wanted to test for, then why go through the trouble of getting twins? The point of getting twins is to take the variable of genetics out, or rather, match/control the genetics. Since they went as far to control for genetics, they clearly wanted to see the health results strictly from the diet. So why not control the dietary variables as well?
If they only cared about how things would turn out naturally, for a person who isn't tracking, then they could have just used any person.
@Atypical_Chad how exactly do you control fiber intake in a plant based diet if most plant foods are high in fiber? Only refined carbs and fats don't have fiber. If you were to equate the intake of every nutrient this study would make absolutely no sense. YOU are the one missing the point, because the study was meant to evaluate the outcomes of the healthiest possible versions of a plant based and omnivorous diets. The whole point is that the nutrients will be different.
@davisantos3431 You add more low calorie, fiber dense foods to the omnivorous diet, as the healthiest version should be high in fiber regardless.
Again, the question is, why match genetics then? Did we need twins to tell us what the differences in nutrients would be? No. So I doubt that wad the primary focus.
The only thing I can think of is that they didn't want to do a crossover trial, but I would imagine the results would be very similar.
The study designer knew about the fiber and saturated fat as evidenced by the meal prep design.
If they were going to study change in fiber and saturated fat, why didn’t they randomize the omnivore group toward meat low in saturated fat? Maybe even sashimi, alcohol, dark chocolate?
I didn't know alcohol and dark chocolate were meats...
The study designer also knew for actual scientific evidence, you’d have to feed both groups either “clean diet” or “dirty diet, instead of feeding the group you want to show as more healthy a clean diet and the group you want to show as less healthy a dirty diet. The difference in diet cleanliness is likely the difference in the findings. It’s absolutely disgusting that none of the content creators seem to want to mention this point, being that it basically invalidates the entire study.
@@throbbinwoodofcoxley6830 I believe the study also had scientists funded by beyond meat, which gives some incentive as to why they biased it against the omnivore group. Also the fruit and vegetable recommendations for the omnivore group was ridiculously low, like half the servings usually recommended.
At least they disclosed that one of the lead authors has received money from fake meat. I know it's more expensive, but given that we know LDL-C is a poor marker, why can't they measure LDL-P and ApoB?
That was an amazing study. Man being a proponent of vegetarian i would love to use this study to show people that vegetarian is better BUT being abit more science-based, the truth is eating more fiber, and reducing saturated fats, more fruit and vegetables vary protein sources, have adequate activity and your health will be great!
Happy omnivore including fibre, polyunsaturated, lean protein.
Damn you, confounding variables!
It would have also been good to see if there were other nutrients that the vegans were missing.
What makes you think they were missing any? I'm WFPB. I use the chronometer app once a quarter to make sure everything is in order and nothing missing. Blood tests have never been better. Omega 3 levels are perfect. ALL diets need to be well rounded, INCLUDING an omnivore diet.
Is it coincidence that the ad leading to this video was for a "stud finder?" I don't think so 🤣🤣
8:26: if your omnivorous diet is practically the same as a plant-based diet it can be healthy!
Yes, but you have to stretch the definition of "omnivorous" to it's limits . The diet is almost plant based at this point. At 95% whole food plant based , if the other 5% is meat or veggies, then it's hard to say which one is better. And since there's massive environmental and ethical problems associated with meat consumption, just make that last 5% to be made out of plants as well.
@@mitkoogrozev I agree. I was making fun of what he was saying. I'm 100% plant-based.
What about Persistent Organic Pollutants from animal fat tissues
What a waste of a trial :( i would only have cared about the result if they were calorie, macronutrient & fiber matched. It only proved that differences in those cause measurable improved biomarkers, nothing to do with animal sources.
That’s not even scratching the flawed surface of this fake study. They knew the answers they’d get before they conducted the theatre.
Thank you
Hi algorithm
If you dont control for calories who cares
Those take aways are great perimeters for me. Heart disease runs in my family. I track my eating. What do you recommend for Pattern B LDL?
Can the drop in body weight have been from muscle loss ?
Quality info.
Layne, This shirt doesn't work.
What?
Layne, the shirt works. Looks fire bro.
It covers his body so I think it works like a shirt should.
Let him explore lol
@@tygehuey8209 Looks fantastic on him indeed
Also question, wouldn't being a calorie deficit means your body "empties" so there's just less overall to raise cholesterol? As in if they were eating same diet but low cal, would it still affect cholesterol?
That's a intuition, but really not.
Yeah, I think they intentionally did not the study isocaloric because satiety was part of the objective.
Nice one as always! FTA!
turns out eating fruits and vegetables................................. good? huh.
Who would have though :D? Also since food is a zero sum game and you can't eat infinite amount of food per meal , or per day, or lifetime, it doesn't mean eat more fruit and veg on top of what you already eat, but it means when you eat more fruit and veg , that diminishes something else that you eat. So there's a double fold effect. Not only the fruit and veg have ingredients that are positive to health by themselves (like their anti-oxidants and fiber) , but by increasing their intake, you might replace something in your diet that had negative health effects.
@@mitkoogrozev And that's part of what the study set out to observe, satiety. That's why the study was not isocaloric.
@@mitkoogrozev this is such a good breakdown of the science! When we focus on nutritional addition, what needs to be eliminated naturally subtracts itself.
Good analysis
Algorithm boost!
Great study! What would be the best palatable fiber sources with low sugar? Thanks!
Whole grains and legumes
Literally all plants that people typically eat. Only ultra processed foods have no fiber and high sugar, and only animal products have no fiber. So in short : eat mostly whole foods plant based, avoid the junk food and animal products, don't be overweight and you'll be great.
@@mitkoogrozev Avoiding animal products has nothing to do with a high fiber diet, and not all plants people eat contain fiber. There is no reason an omnivore cannot have high fiber either.
To @nunoneiva555, the easiest way is a fiber supplement, but you really should be eating a lot of fibrous pants as part of a healthy balanced diet. Fortified foods can help also.
@@Teo_live It has everything to do with it, because eating is a zero sum game. You cannot eat a lot of plants and a lot of animal products at the same time. Then the word "a lot" doesn't make any sense.
If you need 2K calories per day, if you eat a lot of animal products (like lets say over 60-80% of your calories) then NECESSARILY you eat LESS of something else (plants in our comparison) . When you increase the plant intake, that necessarily means you REDUCE something else you've been eating.
Also what the fuck are you on about? All plants have fiber, that's literally a defining feature.
@@mitkoogrozev Your first paragraph is false. Even eating 1-2lbs meat/day (so a "lot") that is like only 80% dedicated to plants will give me an absurdly high amount of plants and I could easily double or even triple the recommended intake.
Also some blue-zone diets eat a lot of animal products and easily maintain high plants. So no matter how you spin your argument it doesn't work. Yes some meat means less plants, but you can still eat a metric crapton of plaints even with just a mere 2k caloric window.
Finally calm down zealot, yes all plants have fiber but some have negligible amounts. Not that it matters to this topic since any omnivore diet can easily have plenty of plant foods and fiber.
So no real reason to eat meat, plus it's super bad for the environment. Yet you chose not to mention that factor.
Excellent Evaluation . Thank you sir you got me to subscribe. #eatlessforearth
Does it matter what type of fibre is consumed - soluble or insoluble that improves health markers?
Don't overthink it, you can't select those, so just think of it on the level of foods. It's just about : eating more plants (whole foods, minimally or not processed) = better, eating less = worse.
@trifecta where you at?
why, why, WHY didn’t they equate the goddamn calories??
Because they came up with results before designing a fake study to get said results. Why the cal deficit for their preferred group, why did they feed their preferred group a clean no junk food diet and the other group ran a surplus and was fed a dirty diet. It’s all bullshit, my sister.
@@throbbinwoodofcoxley6830 🤡
So the subjects could eat to satiety and then stop. If you're going for equal calories, you'd be choosing between asking the vegans to deliberately overeat, or the omnivores to deliberately undereat. At that point, you're no longer comparing two realistic approaches to diet.
just goes to show that more PUFA and fiber displacing SFA is beneficial regardless of your dietary regimen.
I'm all about algorithms 😎
Is there a study looking at effect of saturated fat with high fiber diet?
Commenting for the algorithm.
Do we actually need fibre tho? Carnivore works best for me
Its essential for gut microbiome health , and by extension your immune system/overall health , since 80-90% of the genes that regulate the immune system are not our own genes, but the genes of the gut bacteria. There's other nutrients that are also important present in plants, but not present or deficient in meat. Like lets say folate. If you eat only carnivore while pregnant for example, your baby might be born with neural tube defects, so your baby might get born with missing brain parts, or it's spinal cord can stick out of the bones.
In general carnivore only works in the short term due to removing junk from diet, but not that the diet itself is any good. You'll be best off eating eat least 95% whole food plant based. All the longest living and healthiest populations on Earth , who were found by examining all people on the planet, eat or have eaten like that (some of those populations now have almost disappeared due to the spreading of meat and western diets, so they are losing their status as the healthiest people) .
@@mitkoogrozev 😂😂😂 what d fk is this nonsense
@@VIRTUSK can you be more specific? Which part is confusing?
This guy just said he is carnivore so use 1st grade reading level @@mitkoogrozev
@@mitkoogrozev The _"at least 95% plant"_ part was nonsense. The evidence that "plant-based" populations (blue-zone) ate such a high level is near zero unless you cherrypick times of war (like the 2% okinawa lie). They ate a a considerable amount of seafoods, paltry, and depending on area either dairy and/or red meat to a lesser extent. Vegans try spin this as being westerners influencing them to eat more animal nowadays, but it simply is denial that they have always eaten a decent amount of animal foods.