The Joe Rogan Experience - #1393 - James Wilks & Chris Kresser - The Game Changers Debate

Episode Date: December 5, 2019

James Wilks is a retired mixed martial artist. He was the winner of Spike TV's The Ultimate Fighter: United States vs. United Kingdom. He is also a producer of the documentary "The Game Changers" on Netflix. Chris Kresser, M.S., L.Ac is a globally recognized leader in the fields of ancestral health, Paleo nutrition, and functional and integrative medicine. Link to notes from this podcast by Chris Kresser: http://kresser.co/gamechangers

All right, here we go. First of all, welcome, James. Good to see you. I really appreciate you having me on. My pleasure. And welcome again, Chris. So this is essentially giving you an opportunity to refute some of the things that Chris has said about your film. We should tell everybody that you're the producer of Game Changers.

Yeah, I'm one of two producers. One of two producers. I know you also, of course from the ultimate fighter yep ufc and chris this is your what fourth appearance here something like that fourth or fifth fourth or fifth um did you get a chance to see what chris had said yeah i've watched it you watched it okay i've made a bunch of notes excellent let's start from the beginning um the beginning of the show the beginning of your film you talked about the gladiators and all that stuff and the the fact that you were shocked to find out that they they had eaten a vegetarian diet yeah i mean you know

that's been misrepresented right so even before the film came out people are like oh there's this vegan film coming out it's vegan propaganda people were judging the film before they'd seen it, right? And the vegan sort of community really pushed it like, hey, look at this documentary. So there's been things saying they claimed that the gladiators were vegan, right? And if we can just prove, I think the whole film is based on this premise. That was just like an inciting incident for me to start digging into it. First of all, Fabian Kant said they were predominantly vegetarian. And I said they ate mostly plants. And that is what I couldn't believe right so they didn't claim that they were vegan didn't even claim that they were vegetarian they were just fueled mostly by plants

you know people say oh you cherry picked one location it was the only known gladiator burial site in the world based on archaeological and anthropological data at the time at the time where you read the study because there have been other studies well there's been there's been some that have been questioned so like there's one in york there was one in york at the time. At the time where you read the study? Because there have been other studies. Well, there's been some that have been questioned. So, like, there's one in York. There was one in York at the time that had a few gladiator skeletons, and it was questioned whether that was the thing. But I'm happy to address every critique.

But if you wouldn't mind, I just want to make sure that Chris, we're on the same page about how evidence is evaluated. Sure. So, Chris, would you consider yourself a nutrition expert? No. is evaluated? Sure. So Chris, would you consider yourself a nutrition expert? No, I would consider myself someone who is adept at reading the literature and learning from experts in nutrition, medicine, anthropology, etc. Although I do have master's level training in nutrition okay so is it fair to say that any one study cannot show what you know the human race should be eating is that fair any one study absolutely so basically anytime you show a study if you say something you have to give a citation

for it right yeah fair to say and then someone can claim that that's cherry-picked because you've got to show a study or some studies and then someone can claim it's cherry-picked right so what we have to do in order to understand nutrition is look at the totality of the evidence and i just want to make sure we're on the same page and then we can address each critique if that's okay sure that is the core of my argument right exactly so you would say is it fair to say like there's three main areas so there'd be like preclinical data which would either be in animals or in test tubes petriri dishes, right? There'd be observational data where you look at people and see how they're doing. And obviously there's the healthy user

bias potential. And there's interventional trials, right? So let's just take trans fats, for example, right? You look in a petri dish at endothelial cells and trans fats, and you can see that it creates vascular inflammation in those cells, right? And then you look at people who eat more trans fats and they have higher levels of inflammation. And then you can see that it creates vascular inflammation in those cells, right? And then you look at people who eat more trans fats and they have higher levels of inflammation. And then you can actually do interventional randomized control trials and you can tell that trans fats cause inflammation. So we basically all agree that trans fats are bad based on all of those data points.

Is that fair? Okay. So therefore, again, if you start any one study, someone can just claim that you're cherry picking, right? You can just say cherry picking. Everyone can say that. I can say that you're cherry picking. You can say that I'm cherry picking.

Not necessarily because there are meta-analyses and reviews that are built for this purpose to look at the totality of evidence. Totally agree. So, if you're in the film, for example, pointing to many meta-analyses that summarize all of the research that's been done on a topic, then I wouldn't have said that that's cherry-picking. Fair enough. I agree with that. Okay, so basically, in philosophy, there's this, it's a logical fallacy called appeal to authority, right? But in the real world, you know, you have to look at experts that are specialists in their field. So if I, you know, I just got shoulder surgery not long ago, right? So I went to a shoulder surgeon.

I didn't go to a dentist. If I want to learn about comedy or, you know, fight announcers, I might come and talk to you, right? If I want to learn about acupuncture or understand Chi more, I might come to Chris because you've got a master's degree in traditional oriental medicine. You're a licensed acupuncturist, right? So if I want to learn about that,

Chris is someone that I might want to go to. So what I'm saying is the world health organization the fao the american heart association the 2015 2020 dietary guidelines are all suggesting to eat predominantly plant-based diets right and they're saying that vegetarian vegan diets are helpful for all life stages including for pregnancy childbirth so through childbirth breast, athletes, and so on. Okay? That's the general consensus. Can I just finish with that?

Okay. And so, and I've got a bunch of slides. If you don't believe anything, I've got a bunch of slides showing the position papers for all of these. It's okay. Go ahead. So, we'll skip through that. So, you'd agree that those…

No, I wouldn't necessarily agree on the recommendations. Okay, so can we go to slide one? Those recommendations change over time. No, they do change over time. I would also say that I'm on a predominantly plant-based diet. Well, exactly. So then what are we arguing about? If you look at two-thirds of my plate is plants.

Well, this was my point before. You're being unfair. That's really really really unfair because last time you pointed out that the totality of coverage of the plate is not reflective of the calories you said that on the on yeah but that has nothing to do with what he's saying he's not talking about calories he's talking about what is predominantly his diet it's mostly plants you gotta base on calories you can't base it on the the why would we need to base it on calories if you're saying that your diet is predominantly plant-based then either one we're on the same page right because that's what i'm talking about we're not

because the the main question here in my mind is whether there is evidence that supports being on a 100 plant-based diet with no animal products versus a diet that includes a lot of plant foods and some animal foods i thought you were critiquing the film which was talking about plant-based diets so plant-based diets means getting the vast majority of your calories from plants and limiting or excluding animal foods but the film essentially was all about only eating plants no okay so there was no recommendation whatsoever about eating animals how animal products will kill you dairy products will kill you all kinds of different animal foods no no that claim was never made see but there was a connection there was not there was an

inferred connection no there was not to what was the connection the connection cigarettes was that the the way the playbook that is being used by the see that's people are conflating like what the hell playbook is the same playbook that they use. The playbook is the same way that they're using athletes and they're using advertising. We never made the claim. Explain that then. Be clear. So the playbook that was used by the smoking industry.

So they pay for studies. Right. Right. And we know even with food, right, this has been done with cigarettes. It's been done with drugs. It's been done with food, right, this has been done with cigarettes, it's been done with drugs, it's been done with food. Research shows that industry funded studies are four to eight times more likely to have a conclusion in their favor for their product. So this is what the smoking industry did. Then they got doctors to say that smoking wasn't bad. And then they got athletes

to show like, hey, smoking is good. That was the parallel that we drew. We never drew the parallel that was drawn in what the hell. So I to make that really clear there was and i've seen this in in articles saying here you know they they connected me we didn't do that like if you watch the film we never said did you why did you have that in there though if you're not saying because they're using the same playbook if you're not saying that meat causes cancer you're saying wait wait they're using the same playbook specific claims that chicken eating chicken and fish causes cancer eating dairy causes cancer there were quotes from doctors vegan doctors no they're not vegan that's the other misrepresentation so can i just go back can we just finish the evaluating evidence and then get to each point because i'm happy to

every critique so basically the consensus and you're saying they're changing over time they are changing because as we get better at science they're becoming more the recommendation is becoming more plant-based despite industry influence from studies and marketing and people being paid off industry influence goes both ways the sugar industry in the 60s i agree expose pointing the finger at fat i don't think that is the culprit so that's a straw man argument no but he's not he's not saying you are saying that no no i'm saying the industry is, yeah, I agree. The sugar industry is terrible, and I would agree. But can we just finish the evaluating evidence?

But the thing about this section of the film was you were making some sort of a correlation between cigarettes and— The way that it was marketed. The way they're marketed, and then the way meat is marketed. Correct. It's the same company's exponent. But why would you do – you would never do that about like carrots or kale or things that are predominantly healthy, right? Because they didn't do it. But if you're saying that you're connecting the two things.

You're connecting something that clearly causes cancer, cigarettes, and these studies that were made to show people that it didn't. They were paid off. These studies were fake. They were essentially cherry-picked fake studies that were financed by the tobacco industry in order to get people to buy more cigarettes. You're making this same sort of claim about meat, which means you think that meat is bad for you.

I do. Okay. But that's where we're... No, we can disagree about that. I'm almost finished with the evaluating evidence. So basically, what we did when we interviewed the experts is we chose leading experts

in their individual fields collectively with thousands of articles in the peer-reviewed literature, right? So, and this is one of the bummers about making a documentary. It's like you put the lower third on, people don't get to read it. So we had the chair of nutrition at Harvard, the president of the American College of Cardiology,

the lead delegate of urology for the American Medical Association, the chair of anthropology at Harvard, the director of energy, environment, and resources at Chatham House, really respected. So talking about vegan doctors, I saw some of them. Some of them were involved in hunting. Some of them were involved in animal testing. I saw one of them eating a chicken sandwich at lunch. So let's not say that this was a vegan bias coming into it,

because that's just not true. We're stretching out here. We were talking just about this one section where you're connecting cigarettes and meat. So you're saying that the same sort of... The same playbook is used. The same playbook. But there's no evidence that meat is bad for you.

But this is something that's actually recently been established by mainstream medicine. You understand that, right? That they've released new studies, releasing these new studies saying that there's no longer this concern that red meat causes cancer. This is also an appeal to an authority. Because I can find many illustrious doctors and experts who are highly qualified that will disagree with your point of view that that a diet must be 100 plant-based in order to be healthy okay okay can i just clarify your position okay i want to know what we're actually debating i do you do and you but you this was the

connection that you made with cigarettes in the film no oh yes no i think i think they're both promoting something bad because there's a profit so you think that meat is bad for you and you think that they're promoting it knowing that it's bad just for profit okay so so all chris has to do to debunk the film right is convince the people watching and listening that he knows more about the consensus and the experts in their field like i would understand this is what you talked about i'm not interested i'm not i'm actually not that interested in consensus of experts i'm looking at that research that is published the peer-reviewed research that is published yeah including meta-analyses and even reviews of meta-analyses that have been done a perfect example is the whole dairy and cancer

section totally that we talked about, where you had argued or Walter Willett argued that dairy products cause cancer. And I pointed to a meta-analysis that looked at over 150 different reviews, and 84% of those found no association. So how is that not part of this discussion where we're talking about hundreds of scientists across different continents different countries they're using peer-reviewed science to show this but in the movie just one expert is pointing to you know one group of studies without mentioning that that seems disingenuous that's a fair point right so right? So this is the 2018 meta-analysis. Have you got a slide for that?

If not, I've got your slide. 107. Slide 107. No, this is a 2019 meta-analysis. We're in 2019. 153 studies, right? Yeah, and we can get a lot further into it because that's not the only one. I'd love to because at 9 o'clock last night, until 9 o'clock last night,

I thought Chris just made a bunch of mistakes interpreting the data. And I'm going to show you how he is misleading people on this study. So if you can bring up slide 107, Jamie. Can we see the slide? Yeah, put it up. Okay. Is this it? Okay.

So you see what he's putting quotes okay 84 percent of meta-analyses on dairy consumption showed either no association or an inverse association between dairy and cancer and then you go on to point out what an inverse means is that people that ate more dairy get lower rates of cancer that's what he's implying when you put something in quotes what does that mean to you it means that's what he said yeah but it's that quotation is quoting the study right fair enough is that what they said in the study no that's not what they said in the study that was my uh summary of the evidence of the study right thank you but when you put something in quote that's misleading but that's his quote okay fine okay let's go with that okay let go with that. But he's not putting things in quotes saying that someone else said it.

Totally. I mean, anything you do in literature, when you put something in quotation marks, you're quoting the study. But let's just bypass that. I'll agree. Okay, so can you bring up slide 109 to see what they actually said? Okay, this is the actual quote okay out of 153 reported medical analyses comparing highest versus lower dairy consumption 109 71 showed no evidence of a statistically significant association between dairy consumption and instance of cancers 20 showed a decreased risk of cancers

with dairy consumption and 24 showed an increased risk of cancers with dairy consumption now this is actually until last night like nine o'clock I realized what he was doing okay if you want to go to I mean just to sum it up if you go to slide 110 wait can we stay on here for a second what's your interpretation what do you agree that that was the quote from the study absolutely okay good but I'm asking you what your interpretation is. Does that, in your mind, show a strong connection between dairy and cancer? Okay, Joe, you're going to really realize here what Chris is doing.

Okay? This is really, and I'm glad that you brought it up. Just please answer what he's saying. Okay. So, can I just say, the reason you brought this up is because Walter Willett said there was a strong connection between prostate cancer and dairy, correct? Yeah. So, you brought up something about all cancers okay yeah so and in this study about half of the study showed a connection between prostate cancer and dairy

and half didn't right that's still not a compelling argument that dairy is associated with cancer okay so can we got you you got a coin flip basically right that's not actually true i'll explain why that's not true answer my question i will i'm trying to tell you i'm trying to tell you here slide 110 well let's let's stay with this explain this first and then we'll move to the next slide next 110 is explaining this okay it's just breaking that down okay so there were statistically significant associations between dairy consumption and insulin cancers 71 showed no evidence 13 showed a decreased risk and and 16% showed an increased risk. So you see what Chris did to represent this. He added 71% and 13% to make 84%, right?

You follow? This is how you got it, right? So you added 71% and 13% to get 84%. So his statement from this study was 84% showed no evidence or a decreased risk. That's what he made you believe. Well, 71% shows no evidence. Yeah.

13% shows decreased risk. Right. So if you add the two of them together, it's 84% shows no evidence or a decreased risk. Agreed. Exactly. But what he could have said

is 71% plus 16%, that's 87%. He could have said 87% show no evidence or an increased risk it's 84 71 plus 16 so I could make the claim

no evidence or a decreased risk we're getting really into semantics here the burden of proof you were claiming in the film was claiming dairy causes cancer My claim was The bulk of the evidence suggests There is no association

Or inverse association That's true I agree 13% shows decreased risk But hold on a second The decreased risk and the increased risk Are almost the same Which is higher 3% shows increased risk are almost the same. Which is higher.

3% shows increased risk on this one study. The point of this study is that this is his study that he brought up showing this is very strong evidence. His statement was very misleading. He added up those two and then he finished it up by saying, so basically there's an inverse correlation. But he did not show show he could have said 87 showed no risk or an increased risk instead he chose to summarize it saying 84 but there's no risk there is increased risk it's a very different thing joe because you're talking about something causing cancer no i agree exactly and so he couldn't there wasn't strong enough

things to find that total cancer was increased right but we just we know that as research shows this included did it not industry funded research um two-thirds of research is industry right and we know that yeah and research shows that are you are you proposing that we throw out every study because the one of the main studies in your film was sponsored by the haas avocado board the one that claims that animal products contribute to inflammation i'm not i'm not sure i'm not throwing them out i'm saying that industry funded studies and by the way industry funded studies they typically only put them out when it shows in their favor there's no obligation for industry when they do a study to release it yeah i'm familiar with that okay i've written a lot about that myself. So, Joe, do you think that the industry and the meat and dairy industry has far more money than the plant-based industry, right?

You'd agree with that? Actually, we can look at some statistics on that. But, Joe, would you disagree that industry-funded research has a four to eight times increased risk compared to non-industry funded research in finding conclusions in their favor i think and i think industry research is definitely a problem but i see it as a problem across the board and i have some statistics and so do you not do you not admit that you here led the audience to believe that there was a potentially decreased risk overall you made it sound very high because you didn't split between the no difference that was not my intention it was just it was a to summarize the data because not to spend 10 minutes as we're doing now talking about one study when

there's a huge because you made a very misleading claim well no it's not at all misleading if you said it the other way completely accurate if you said showed no evidence or showed an increased risk 84 percent that 87 that seems like it's misleading. I don't think that would be misleading also. I'm just saying he could have said that. But we're talking about something causing cancer, James. Exactly, so he shouldn't be making that claim. But increased risk is what we're looking for.

What we're looking for is evidence of it causing cancer. 71%, the bulk of the evidence, shows no evidence. That's exactly my point. If you're claiming that something increases, then I'm saying here's all this research that doesn't show that. You honestly don't think that that statement, instead of just putting that 71% showed no evidence, 13% showed, that would be the fairest, most honest summary of that statement.

I would say that if you wanted to say it the most accurately yes that's the best way to say it 71 showed no evidence 13 showed decreased risk but i don't have a problem with saying 84 showed no evidence or a decreased risk true because we're talking about something causing cancer that's the relevant point that's the relevant point the relevant point is does the study show that dairy causes cancer? The primary evidence, most of the evidence says it shows no evidence or it shows a decreased risk. That's the bulk of it. That's 84%.

Versus 87%. It doesn't. No, no, no. 87% shows increased risk is only 16%. You're adding no evidence to increased risk to get 87%. That's illogical. Okay, then let's throw out the no evidence. Let's throw that out. Let's throw out no evidence to increased risk to get 87%. That's illogical. Okay, then let's throw out the no evidence. Let's throw that out.

Let's throw out no evidence. Why would we throw that out? The burden of proof is to show evidence that indicates that dairy causes cancer. If you do a study and it shows that it doesn't, then that's not in support of the claim that dairy causes cancer. I'm agreeing that the meta-analysis could not find an association. But I'm also pointing out that industry-funded studies were included in it, and they are more likely to find no connection. Okay, so there's 153 studies.

You're claiming that all of them are industry-funded and we should throw out this huge review of 153 meta-analyses because of industry funding? What is the basis for that claim? No, I'm not. I'm saying that it sways the results. Can you, you can't see that? I don't, I don't, I don't accept that I have 153 studies that were in this meta-analysis

that they're going to sway the results to the point where these findings aren't valid. And we could do the same thing with all of the studies that you have linked to in the film. And we can also look at other studies on dairy and cardiometabolic outcomes that we have. I've got lots of large reviews

that we can look at. And again, anyone can bring up... This is a pointless discussion to have if you're just going to sit there and say industry funding that's not my only point i think you're saying it makes them suspect correct yes and it could have swayed in the other direction it has in the past but wait how many i do agree with you about the cigarette thing how many of the 153 study meta-analyses which each also had individual studies in them, are so biased by industry funding that we can't count on the findings. Well, I would hope that you would know more than I.

I mean, basically, you've got sitting here… Why would, you know, this is a… We can't get very far in this discussion if you're going to claim that we can't even talk about studies in the peer-reviewed literature because industry funding completely biases the findings. No, I'm not saying that's the case. I'm saying just because they couldn't, even though there were more showing an increased risk than showed a decreased risk, right? I am saying that it's possible that the industry funding…

That's a misleading statement. More showed increase than decrease. That's correct. No, but there's 71% showed no change at all. I agree. decrease that's correct no but there's 71 showed no no i agree with that at all i agree i agree so that's a wash but so no it's not a wash it's not even close to a wash no it's not a wash if you have a hypothesis this thing causes cancer and then you do a ton of studies and there's no association that's a that hypothesis is no longer correct it's not a wash that's actually that's actually

not true based on epidemiology if you have 10 studies that show no association and 10 that show an association then you don't have that you don't have that at all here i'm not again i'm not what he said you have 84 percent that show nothing or a decrease which is the opposite you could say 84 showed no evidence and then forget about decreased risk could say 84 showed no evidence and then and forget about decreased risk just say 84 showed no evidence forget about decreased risk right you still have only 16 showed an increased risk right when you do an epidemiology study you have to take into account all the other factors in this person's lives totally you have to take into account whether they whether they drink whether they smoke totally whether they exercise totally

you know sedentary lifestyle there's a lot of factors so that would if you had something that was causing cancer you would expect the results to be flipped you would expect the results to be 16 showed no so showed no evidence 71 or 84 showed an increase that would be something you'd say hey this is causing cancer this is more likely that's not how epidemiology works though if you if you had well epidemiology is slippery anyway i agree wait how is that not how epidemiology works if you've got if you have even if you had 10 studies showing no evidence just because you don't find something doesn't mean that it exists okay the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence okay well let's say let's say this if you

if you had 100 studies and 70 of those studies showed an increased risk of cancer wouldn't you say that thing causes cancer most likely most well if it was all epidemiology then it's okay so now let's do 100 studies and 70 now show no evidence yeah when you say it's most likely that there's no evidence no that's not how it works oh oh how does it how does it work so if you've got 70 studies that couldn't couldn't show a correlation and 30 that did that is still in favor of showing that there is a correlation well no no no show we're not now we're doing 70 studies if 70 percent look 70 of the people in these studies if you have all these studies you have 100 studies and 70 of the people in all these studies are showing an increased risk of cancer. We would agree. Well, you can't prove causation based on observational, but sure.

But you would agree there's most likely a connection, right? Now, if it's reversed, now if 70% of these studies show there's no increased risk of cancer. Or 84%. Or 84%, which is because you add in the decreased risk. We're not even adding the decreased risk, which shows that you're less likely to get cancer, which is almost the same as an increased risk of cancer, which in my eyes is a wash. You would assume that we're talking about something

that doesn't give you cancer. Well, I agree that this study found that they couldn't prove a causation, right? They couldn't prove a link between cancer and... But you made it out like he was being deceptive. He is being deceptive. I don't agree with that. I don't agree with that. I don't agree with that because you're trying to show that these studies are proving,

or at least making this correlation between consumption of dairy products and cancer. But the evidence doesn't show that. If you want to look at it in its entirety, the evidence shows that most of the 71 showed no evidence of it causing cancer 13 showed it's actually better for you you have less risk of cancer than not eating dairy 13 and then 16 showed more showed increased risk of cancer and again when you're talking about epidemiology studies when you're talking about you know 16 out of 100 you you have to throw in all the other factors i agree that's why they didn't find it but can i just the reason you point this up is prostate cancer right and and so if you

look at slide uh 113 prostate cancer was that's disturbing so it's 50 50 with dairy consumption versus uh wait that's not one sorry 113 but a lot of people get prostate cancer too. Isn't that also an issue? That's a high risk. That is 113? Isn't that a high risk for males, prostate cancer? It's a high one. Sorry, 112. Whether they consume milk or not.

So just so, in this metronome that you point to, the highest connection that they could find between dairy and any type of cancer was prostate cancer. So if you look at the black line, that shows no association. the highest connection that they could find between dairy and any type of cancer was prostate cancer. So if you look at the black line, that shows no association. If you look at the green line, that's decreased association. And the red line was increased association. That was the meta-analysis that you provided. Yeah.

So you brought this study up because Dr. Walter Willett, who is the chair of nutrition at Harvard, he's one of the most published nutrition scientists of all time if not the most published no disagreement there right and so he is coming to the determination that prostate cancer is linked and it's likely that it's causal and this very study well back up half and half that's not that's no evidence of a causal relationship james there's no evidence no causal relationship okay dr walter willett is in just any type of study rather than appeal to authority you just said yourself that's a rhetorical fallacy no it's it's a it's a fallacy unless it's the appeal to valid authority because literally if i want to know about are you saying like so if i want let's say we look at mixed martial arts and chris goes well i've never done mixed martial arts, but I think I know more about anthropology, nutrition.

Like I know more about boxing, kickboxing, jujitsu and wrestling. So we're talking about the consensus. We're talking about leading experts in their field with thousands of peer reviewed. Well, there is no consensus. There are experts who are very illustrious who would disagree and would look at this study and reach the same exact conclusion that I did. Same with flat earthers. No. There's no reliable proven connection between dairy and prostate.

You have half studies showing an association, half studies showing no association, not to mention the fact that that's, as you just just said that even if there was a strong correlation that doesn't prove causation well this was a matter you said you like this because it included also randomized controlled trials yeah and i'm saying should we should we trust walter willett who at the time was the chair of nutrition let's trust the studies no no but we're way off here the question was still you know the there are a lot of inferences made in the film whether they were intentional or not on your part that you know dairy people are hearing oh dairy is going to cause prostate cancer they're going to extend that to cancer there are other claims in the film made about

dairy and metabolic issues and saturated fat and metabolic issues. So the operative question that I'm trying to answer is, do the data support that? Not does Walter Willett think that or any other expert in the film. Do the data support that conclusion? Right. I agree. Even in that study, the data don't strongly support that. If you have half studies saying yes half

studies saying no that's not a clear signal and it's definitely not evidence of a causal relationship so so having walter willett or anyone say there's a strong relationship and we know the mechanism and there's you know it's causal that can i pause here by Can I pause here? That is disproven by the study. Can I pause here? Didn't you tell me that two-thirds of people have an intolerance towards milk and towards dairy? And I have a study here. Is that what the number is? It's two out of three people in the world. Okay. So can I just –

Hold on. Because this is actually to your point. Sure. So two out of three people have an intolerance towards dairy in the world. So two out of three people have an intolerance towards dairy in the world. And if you're talking about a study that shows 50% of the people in these studies that are consuming dairy, there's a correlation between prostate cancer and dairy. Wouldn't you assume that maybe the same thing that we're talking about,

where two-thirds of people are intolerant to something, they consume this thing that's intolerant it causes inflammation in the body and that inflammation the body could possibly be leading to cancer correct no no not correct dairy dairy is inversely associated with inflammation so we can pull up okay inversely associated with inflammation but if people are irritated by dairy if they have an intolerance to dairy and you said two-thirds of people here's here's what i would suspect there that if you we segmented those people out and said let's do a study find out who's intolerant of dairy and find out who isn't you would see even better results for dairy because despite the fact that some people are lactose intolerant we're still seeing in that meta-analysis that

there's no association in most cases and an inverse association in other cases. But this prostate cancer thing is not most. This is 50-50, right? I know. 50-50 is disturbing. So imagine what you're saying. You're saying, okay, well, if dairy gives half people cancer and doesn't give the other half cancer, then I can just dink dairy. Second of all, do you see what Chris just did? That's not what that said. These are epidemiology, James.

It's not dairy gives anyone cancer. It's association. No, that's not. Your meta-analysis included randomized control trials. This is actually to you. Can I stop this, though? If someone's intolerant of something that means your body is irritated by it means it causes some sort of disturbance right whether it's inflammation

or gastrointestinal disorder you start farting and that's what happens when people are lactose intolerant right that irritates the body wouldn't there be wouldn't you assume that something your body is intolerant to would possibly be the cause of disruption or disease? Certainly could be. Right. But if you're looking at two-thirds of the population are intolerant to dairy. But why would that cause prostate cancer and no other cancers? I don't know.

That doesn't make sense. That's why when you see that kind of thing in the data, it's a red flag because there's no logical explanation for why it would cause prostate cancer but no other cancers. Can I just point one out there? Why is there more of an association there with that? Jamie, pull up, just Google dairy products and inflammation review of the clinical evidence. This is a systematic review of 52 clinical trials, and they found that dairy products were inversely associated with inflammatory markers, which means that people who consume dairy actually had lower levels of inflammatory markers. So the hypothesis that dairy is inflammatory and that's why it's causing cancer

doesn't seem to hold up in the literature. So can I just say, so first of all, there might be studies he can bring up. I'm not even a nutrition scientist. I'm like a combatives trainer, right? And so you also said that you're not an expert in nutrition. And so what we have to believe today is that Chris really is, it is about the meta-analyses, but it's about meta-analyses. It's about the totality of taking into account all the evidence, not just one meta-analysis or a meta-analysis of a meta-analysis, but all of the data. And so what you're asking people to believe is that you are better at interpreting the data than people that are experts in their field. No, there are many experts who would agree with me. You just didn't

choose to interview them in the film. No, actually, we did interview some that I can tell you about in a second on the other side, and I'll tell you why we didn't include them but you are asking people i would understand it if suddenly chris has figured out this nutrivor diet that he figures out something about nutrition that he's better than the consent he knows more about the consensus and more about the majority of leading experts but to believe that chris knows more about anthropology urology heart disease new uh. Why include anthropology? Because that's what you tried to do with anthropology in the film. And successfully, because the majority of anthropologists agree with what I said.

You chose probably one of the few that would agree with the idea that humans primarily ate a plant, you know, exclusively plant-based diet for most of human evolution. We can go into that again i'm actually representing the consensus viewpoint in anthropology james it'd be hard pressed to find a consensus group of experts that agree with that idea so you're saying that the chat you're saying that richard rang in the chair of anthropology that we interviewed does not represent the scientific consensus of anthropology if you're arguing that he uh is is saying that Richard Rang in the chair of anthropology that we interviewed does not represent the scientific consensus of anthropology. If you're arguing that he is saying that humans primarily ate plant-based diet and animal products were not a significant part of our diet through evolution, then yes, that's what I'm saying. It depends. So we came from the equator, right?

I want to go back a second. You don't want me to answer your question are you arguing that there's a dominant consensus among nutrition experts in the u.s that everyone should be on a vegan diet no so what's the what's the argument here that we should people should eat plants and my argument is yes they should and and animal products can also be part of that nutrivore healthy omnivorous diet and i think you would find a dominant consensus of nutrition experts that agree with that so it should be but that's not the way this film is being interpreted because there was a bias going into it so for example when you go to the u.s military right the game changers is the first documentary that has ever been accredited by the Because there was a bias going into it. So, for example, when you go to the U.S. military, right,

the Game Changers is the first documentary that has ever been accredited by the Defense Health Agency for the Department of Defense. It's the first documentary that has ever been supported by the Special Operations Medical Association. They didn't come into it looking at the science. This has been evaluated by hundreds of Ph.D. researchers to come to that conclusion. Wait a minute. How so?

They've been evaluated. How so? You can't get an accreditation. Your film is being evaluated by. The Defense Health Agency of the Department of Defense, which decides what the military is eating. They don't give a crap about, oh, let's base our diets on evolution. They care on what is the science. And the Game Changers is the first documentary

that's ever been accredited by the Defense Health Agency. They didn't look at this and go, okay, this is a vegan propaganda film. Why are you saying that hundreds of PhDs have reviewed this and reviewed all the data in it to come to this conclusion?

And is this proven? Is this printed? Is this some published paper where it shows that hundreds of people have reviewed this film and found all the claims to be credible and that all the debunkings of it are not? The Defense Health Agency has reviewed this film in detail, digging into each of the studies. Right, but you're saying, again, call to authority. You're saying hundreds of PhDs have studied this. Who are these people? have studied this who are these people well there's there's a lot from the defense health agency there's a lot of people that are special operators in medicalization that came to the decision and these are master's degrees in nutrition phds in nutrition to get that accreditation

that just hasn't happened before because they didn't come into it thinking this is a vegan propaganda film that was the bias going into it we're again talking a lot about experts and and their opinions right experts and their opinions and not chris kresser in his opinion it's not that that's a representation james no this is not about my opinion and i we can fill the room with experts who agree with me you had an expert a debate with a doctor in the UK on a TV show who disagreed with you. We can always find people who agree and disagree with all kinds of different credentials. It's disingenuous to claim, like I said, that I am not here to argue that plants are unhealthy and that we shouldn't be eating a lot of plants. This is the fallacy that gets created

with these kinds of films it's not a choice between a standard american diet crappy processed food diet that contains meat or a vegan diet right it's there is a possibility of a plant-based diet a diet that has a lot of plants that also contains animal products and that compares comparing that with a hundred percent plant-based diet that is the operative question the film the film is i believe that meat and dairy are bad for you the film talked about why do you believe that i think there's sufficient evidence let's talk about that because if you look at our website and telling you know people want to know the resources on what to eat, we say it's all or something.

It doesn't have to be all or nothing. So we were talking about… Okay, but that's nice. But what you just said, you think that meat is bad for you. Yeah. Meat and dairy and, you know… Well, I can see the argument if we're talking about two-thirds of people being lactose intolerant. I would see the argument that for two-thirds of people dairy is probably not good for you

doesn't support that but i mean we're saying i can what is lactose intolerant if you're intolerant of something that means your body's not enjoying it and that's not the only issue by the way that's not the only issue with milk let's just concentrate on that because that's a giant number two-thirds of people are lactose intolerant if you would if your body's intolerant of something but you keep consuming that thing that your body's intolerant of i would naturally assume as a absolute admitted non-expert that that's not good so two things here number one i've always for years have written that dairy is very individual and depends on your tolerance number two there are a lot of dairy products with virtually no lactose in them. So cheese, for example, hard cheeses, no lactose, you know, cream, no lactose, very little lactose, butter, very no lactose, ghee, no lactose, yogurt,

fermented dairy products like kefir, no lactose. So while I agree with what you're saying, if someone is lactose intolerant, they should avoid dairy products that contain lactose. When you look at the studies on dairy and connections with conditions like cancer, inflammation, which I just pointed out with this study, and you look at cardiometabolic outcomes, which I'd like to cover because that includes heart disease and diabetes and overweight, obesity, etc., there is not any strong evidence that dairy contributes to those conditions. So let's look at those actual studies. Chris, you talk really badly against epidemiology saying it can't prove causation, and then when you like it, you cite it. So you'll give epidemiological evidence. It's the same way with you, James.

I mean, you can't have it both ways. Exactly, you can't have it both ways that's right oh so you can if the burden of proof if you're claiming that something is bad for you yeah the burden of proof is on you sure meaning so you can't say it's bad for you and then i show epidemiological studies and rcts by the way that were included in that meta-analyses that don't support that and then you say oh we can't trust the research no i'm saying your hypocrisy is saying that you say that you said the epidemiology that's observational studies just looking at people you have said that we can't rely on those and then you then cite them yourself i didn't say we can't rely on epidemiology i say you have to consider the caveats it with epidemiology but again the

burden of proof if you're claiming that a food is bad for you the burden of proof is on you to show research that it is for example i'll give you a couple of reasons about me please so for example first of all there's an inflammatory mediators for example like heme iron second of all we look at population data and we show uh increased causes of morbidity and mortality for people that eat less meat or that eat no meat so there's there's increased causes of morbidity you just said it the wrong way yeah so it decreases decreased risk of more uh morbidity and mortality let's just be real clear on that because you said it wrong and then so that everybody for example let's look at two randomized controlled trials see these are not observational

studies um the the first found that increasing red meat consumption by replacing carbohydrates in the diet of individuals without anemia actually reduced markers of inflammation sorry reducing replacing what sorry carbohydrates yeah that's what you said sorry so jamie if you want to pull this i mean these are all on the website cressor.co slash game changers but that's that study is called increased lean red meat intake does not elevate markers of oxidative stress and inflammation in humans i I believe the study exists. I mean, that doesn't... So these are RCTs, randomized. So they're actually controlling it. Instead of just looking at observational data, which is subject to healthy user bias, these are two RCTs. So

that's one study. And then there's another one, another RCT in women with anemia inflammation markers on a diet high in red meat were anemia, inflammation markers on a diet high in red meat were not significantly different from those on a diet high in oily fish. And then there are also numerous studies of paleo diets, which contain meat and other types of animal protein and show that they decrease markers of inflammation, including CRP. There's randomized controlled trials showing reductions in interleukin-6 and also in tumor necrosis factor alpha in these diets. So, all of this suggests it's not the meat, it's what you eat with the meat that makes the difference. We have studies

of eating chlorophyll-rich green vegetables decreases the formation of nitroso compounds with meat we have lots of studies showing that when you eat plants along with the meat then you don't see the effects that you might see if you're just eating right crap standard american diet i agree so it offsets like some uh so if an animal foods creates oxidative stress you have it with the plant foods and that would have the antioxidants, and that would offset it. Is that basically? It's a little more complicated than that. Yeah, I think it is more complicated than that.

But that's one mechanism. As I said last time, and as I've always argued, I'm not a proponent of the carnivore diet. I'm not a low-carb guy. I'm not a keto guy. diet. I'm not a low-carb guy. I'm not a keto guy. My fundamental argument is just that the optimal human diet contains both plant and animal foods. And this focus on individual food components or macronutrients like protein or fat or carbohydrate, we've gotten too much. It's called nutritionism. It's just focusing on these individual elements and ignoring the overall pattern of diet quality, which is the most important thing. And that's

what a lot of the more recent studies are showing. When you look at the diet pattern and diet quality on its, you know, overall, that's what actually makes a difference in terms of health and lifespan, not how much of this fat, how much of that fat, whether there's red meat or white meat or fish or whatever. It's the pattern. Let me pause here because this is one of the primary misconceptions that people have about consuming meat. When they hear studies that say that meat is associated with mortality

or high cholesterol or heart disease or all these different factors, we are talking about these kinds of studies where people fill out a form, tell us what you eat. How many days a week do you eat meat? How many days a week do you eat this? What they don't take into account is whether or not these people are going to Wendy's and whether or not they're eating a grass-fed steak and broccoli, something healthy. There's a giant difference between those two things,

but they're lumped in together because this is meat consumption. Yeah, the studies aren't perfect for sure. But you were saying that basically you're saying we should look at outcomes and not just look at individual markers, right? Is that basically? No, I'm saying we should look at the diet quality, the overall diet pattern. So, for example, Christopher Gardner did a study at Stanford a couple years ago, and he took two, instead of saying, you know, low fat, low carb,

he took two groups and he advised them all to basically eat a healthy diet. And then one group ate a low fat healthy diet, and the other group ate a low carb healthy diet. They all lost weight. But there wasn't that big of a difference between the two i agree i agree so first of all in terms of health i would be pretty my opinion would be i'm pretty much um macronutrient agnostic so i wouldn't like i'm not advocating high carb or low carb i think that people can do healthy and well i think for athletes they need a lot more carbs which of course getting those from plants i think there's certain athletes that can uh if it's slow and steady state where you're getting more fat oxidation,

I think that slow and steady state athletes can do. But like an MMA fighter, a soccer player, a basketball player. We all agree on that. But you just said that you were not low carb, right? You said you're not low carb. I'm not. I'm not a low carb advocate. I've written articles

called seven things seven reasons you should be cautious i'm not saying i'm not low a low carb advocate i don't believe everyone should be on a low carb diet right never but the thing is chris has his own he doesn't have the consensus um definitions of carbohydrate levels you've made up your own definitions right when? When did I make up my own definitions? Slide 80. Jamie, if you could do that, please. I should just point out that Zach Bitter, the man who I had on the podcast yesterday,

who holds the world record in running 100 miles in 11 hours and I think it's 18 minutes, he's on a low-carbohydrate diet. Yeah, and again, those slow and steady state, you can certainly do well. So Chris, your recommendation, your definition of low carb is 10 to 15%. If you can go to the next slide, Jamie, 81. So if you look at the peer reviewed

literature, it's either less than 30% or the next slide, Jamie, less than 40%. Like if you look across all the literatures, less than 30 or 40. Moderate carb, according to Chris, next slide jamie less than 40 percent like if you look across all the literatures less than 30 or 40 moderate carb according to chris uh next slide jamie would be 15 to 30 uh peer-reviewed literature next car next slide 40 to 65 and then high carb chris calls more than 30 percent and the peer-reviewed literature high carb more than 65 uh and the next slide more than 70 depending on the peer reviewed literature. So you've come up with your own definitions of what is low, moderate and high carb. Yeah, just for the purpose of my work with people that that's not really I wasn't trying to represent research there. That's just Joe, that's what I consider to be low carb,

moderate carb and high carb in my work with patients and my recommendation did you not just hear him say he did i mean that is what you said i mean you when you wrote this out you did have a different definition than the peer-reviewed literature you do by his definition have your own idea and he said no you heard him say that you heard him say no yes yeah and so slide uh slide 88 please jim so i just want to sum this up um but what's the point here because the point is the point i never said that everyone should be on a low carb diet no i agree and i i've always argued that it depends on everything from your genes to your exercise pattern where are you getting your numbers from like when you write low carb,

moderate carb and high carb? He made them up. This is just a rec. This is a clinical recommendation from my experience working with patients. I'm not representing the scientific literature here. I'm not trying to make arguments about

what's safe or not safe. That's madness. That's absolute madness to come up with your own definitions. And this is why I feel that Chris does. And when you have people like Chris on multiple times, it throws people's perception off as what is a healthy diet. Because Chris misrepresents the data. He comes up with his own definitions of things. He misrepresents things that we said in the film.

What did I misrepresent in the film? Hold on. We're going to get into the woods here. Let's just talk about this real quick. the film but hold on we're gonna get into the woods we're gonna get into the woods here let's just talk about this real quick so when we're talking about low carb moderate carb or high carb when you're recommending to your patients low carb moderate carb or high carb these definitions how are you coming to these conclusions just made them up no based on so there are a lot of people james that disagree with the ranges. The scientific consensus. Yeah, there are.

But when you say scientific consensus, how many different scientists were polled on this? How many different studies were shown? I don't know. Just consider. But hold on a second. Is this something that you just found that disputes his position? Or is this like a large group of people? Okay, so slide 89.

Well, consider Virta Health, who uses, you know, the folks at Virta, who are all scientists, MDs. They use a ketogenic, very low-carb diet to address diabetes. No, they actually don't. You will not be in ketosis at 30% Carbohydrate or 25% Or 20% Or even 15% For ketosis you need low carbs Probably less than 10%

I agree And then 40-65% You're not even in the ballpark. So if you're thinking about using low-carbohydrate diets, for example, for weight loss or for diabetes or metabolic issues like Virta Health is doing, then low-carb is not going to be 30% to 40%. That's not going to work.

So that's where my recommendations are that's where my recommendation is based on ketosis based on no based on the optimal range if you have if you look at the rest of the article it's going to be like if you've got diabetes you've got you're overweight you're obese you're trying to lose weight this is the range that i've found and other experts like the people at verta health have found will be most effective. And these are the ranges. There's no representation that this is the range that is defined as low-carb in the scientific literature. So you're calling it low-carb because if someone's on a ketogenic low-carb diet,

in order to get into ketosis, you have to have a low number of carbohydrates. It's actually probably even below 10%. And not even just to be in ketosis like just to get the the maximal weight loss you know someone could be at 15 and still get great weight loss without being in ketosis i've got to interrupt because just like in the last five minutes you showed a study from trying to prove your own point that low carb and low fat people had had equivalent fat loss. You just said that.

So why are you now all of a sudden advocating only low-carb diets for losing body fat? I'm not advocating only low-carb diets. I said that they can both work for different people in different situations. But James, you're misrepresenting what he was saying. What he was saying is getting people to go on a healthy diet versus the standard American diet. So he's not just talking about low carb versus high carb what he's talking about is getting off bullshit like processed foods and sugar and eating i totally agree with that and when you do that people no matter what low carb or high carb lose weight but i think you will agree as well as almost anybody would that getting getting on a low-carbohydrate diet and forcing your body into ketosis makes your body burn fat.

It's one way, yeah, sure. But it's proven, right? The other piece of this is most of the studies aren't comparing a healthy omnivorous diet with a plant-based vegan diet. They're comparing a vegan diet with a standard American diet that contains animal products. What we're talking about is not a fair comparison. Same with the paleo diet,

so is the nutrivor diet. Yes. Which, by the way, has any of your work or your ideas been published in the scientific literature? No, I've never claimed that it has. I just wondered. You didn't wonder.

No, I did wonder. I couldn't find anything. But that's not why you were saying that. You were saying that to try to make it seem that he's less of an expert. Well, he is. I'm not an expert either. So what's the point? Why are you here?

Why am I here? Well, actually, I did ask if I could bring my chief science advisor who has a double master's degree in exercise physiology and nutrition. He's a registered dietitian. He built one of his papers and we can talk about him. Yeah, totally. But I think we should. So first of all we just it's we still haven't come to this understanding of why you think meat is bad for you you were basing it well okay so there's the individual components like heme iron for example all right we talked about that last time the heme iron is only associated with poor outcomes in the u.s it's not that's

actually not true it's not it's not true in in other countries it's not true when you let them and then we can that's not true you can refute it do you know in the fang meta-analysis which looks at most of the studies that have been done on that and then if you also consider that when you add green vegetables and other plant foods, spices, and all of that, it reduces the oxidative capacity of heme iron and reduces the absorption of heme iron. And, you know, again, we're talking about diet pattern, not just are you eating red meat, you know, in McDonald's and fast food restaurants, but are you eating it in the context of an overall healthyald's and fast food restaurants but if are you eating it in the context of an overall healthy diet and does that have the same effect right do you know how do

you read a forest plot yes or no i don't what does that mean that's basically looking at the statistic the competent intervals what's it called the forest forest plot plot okay yeah because it kind of looks like a bunch of trees right okay so you don't know how to read a forest plot so have you actually looked at the study i have looked at the study okay so i just you don't know how to read it so it's kind of so get a microphone on you james just pull that sucker over so you see the um first of all he said that what he put up on the screen i don't know if you still got the slide but you said that um the heme iron association was only in americans right but the conclusion of that study said that heme iron was associated with um cardiovascular disease that was the

conclusion of study which he didn't put up on the screen okay and then the quote i put up was with respect to heme iron intake we found a significant association only in the studies that were based on american cohorts right so there's two things about that was from the study okay first thing i i can't link to my slide i don't know where it is um but basically uh can you just read the conclusion of that study because i uh i i can't find my slide. The conclusion is down here. Higher dietary intake of heme iron is associated with an increased risk of cardiovascular disease,

whereas no association was found between cardiovascular disease and non-heme iron intake or total iron intake. Okay. And then also… And then I just the the quote just now that which was incorrect by the way the authors made a mistake so how did they make a mistake um so if you look at this forest plot for example this uh kipstein grow bush and you can go and look at the i've looked at the individual studies that they were referencing in the meta-analysis, as has my scientific team. So basically you see this. This is a 1.86 with the confidence interval being 1.14 to 3.09. That is statistically significant connection between heme iron.

And you can look at the conclusions in three of the studies. You're saying that what he said about eating it with green leafy vegetables reduces the oxidative effects. No, no, no. But we have to point out that i don't think this one i don't think that's true no first of all unlike the dairy one where i think that he was being a bit misleading in this case i don't think he was being misleading i think you i think that you read there was no misleading it was summarizing we already went over this yeah i don't think you would like to create that impression, but there was no misleading. That's just my opinion.

I think you were being a bit misleading. In this case, I do not think he was being misleading at all. It did say what you said in the study, even though you didn't point out the conclusion. You left out the conclusion of the study. But what wasn't your fault is I think you read the study, but you admitted that you don't know how to read forest plots. I think you read the study, but you admitted that you don't know how to read forest plots. And the forest plots, if you did look at them and you knew how to read them, you'd show that there were three in the Netherlands and in Sweden that did show a significant correlation. Because what you were trying to make out with this point, which I understand when you're trying to,

when you have a point of view and you're trying to work it backwards, what you end up doing is you try and find studies that suit your position and so you went and found the study and you found a quote even though you didn't like to put the conclusion of the study no i did say that there were but hold on i did acknowledge that there was an association but it was based on american cohorts yeah but it's not in there but it's not it's not your fault because the people in whoever wrote the the write-up for the study made a mistake they were statistically significant because 1.14 to 3 means that there was like a 14 percent to 300 percent increase in that one study of uh from the netherlands the kirsten klipsten grobush and for people watching they can go and look at the study look at the conclusions yeah there were three because his point was

what you tried to infer from that was that the american diet that includes a bunch of junk food is different than the the ones in sweden and Sweden and Netherlands where they aren't eating so much junk food. But that actually was incorrect. So heme iron has been associated and is recognized. Yes, it has been associated. And we still have the studies that eating fruits and vegetables attenuate the oxidative capacity from heme iron, reduce absorption of iron in the gut. And now we're focusing on a single mechanism rather than looking at the outcomes right which i again i'm happy to

look at the outcomes do you agree with what he just said i do that heme iron i think that plant foods offset the oxidation offset in some in some regard the oxidation that you get from animal foods however if you work out you have oxidative stress okay so if you um want to have a meal do you want the plant foods in the meal to be dealing with the oxidative stress from the animal foods or do you want the plants to deal with the oxidative stress allow you to recover faster and your next workout will be better i don't think we know that's true no we do know that we don't know that that's how do we's not very specific no no this is again this is this is nutritionism because we're not focusing on the nutrients in red meat and the things that

and the highly bioavailable protein it's not like red meat is only there to cause is causing oxidative stress i agree it's not the only thing there are some nutrients in me so again the question is is there a place for animal foods in a diet that is healthy overall not not whether you know you should eat plant foods right we both agree that you should probably eat a lot of plant foods right which is my position i think it would be difficult for me to argue a hundred percent plants versus 50 plants i don't think it's argued to add like argue like 90 95 plants versus i think the argument would take hours and hours and hours to convince you why i think 100 plants is i think

there's definitely bio variability and i think different people have different requirements back a second i want to make sure i understood what you just can you can you repeat that so my position is that the literature um i think it's an easier argument because we're talking about plant-based diets. And plant-based diets would be either limiting or eliminating animal products, right? So for plant-based diets in general, right? So vegan, maybe some vegetarian. Like if you eat turkey on Thanksgiving and then you eat fish once a month, I would say that's a plant-based diet. You're getting the vast majority of your calories from plants, right?

And I think there's a lot. I think most people, even if you're eating pasta, you're getting the vast majority of your calories from plants. Well, yeah, but if we're talking about what's the healthiest diet. But that's the problem, right? I think whole plant foods, right? A lot of shitty American diet is plant-based. You're talking about buns and bread and all the bullshit

and peanut butter and jelly sandwiches. That's all plant-based. And a lot of vegans and vegetarians, just because you're vegan or vegetarian doesn't mean you're talking about buns and bread and yeah all the bullshit and peanut butter and jelly sandwiches that's all plant-based a lot of vegans and vegetarians just because you're vegan vegetarian doesn't mean you're healthy exactly right it's like the my argument would be you should get in the vast majority of your calories from whole plant foods right okay agreed okay you agree well i don't think the vast majority is my position but i think that's his position. I agree with what he's saying. I think that, look, I eat animal products. I have for a long time, and I eat a lot of vegetables as well. I think that an omnivorous

diet is the key to health. That's what I believe. I believe that meat helps you recover faster. I think it's more nutrient-rich. I think there's things in meat that it's very difficult to get in plants. And I think the quality of the amino acids and the quality of the protein content in meat is superior to that in plants. I definitely should get into the protein.

Let's talk about that because that's one of the things you brought up. Can I just say that I agree with the type of meat that you eat? We know that there's not studies done on the inflammation in elk, but there is studies on inflammation in kangaroos, for example, in Australia. So totally wild caught. So that's like their equivalent of elk, right? And there is about half the inflammation coming from that as there is from beef. Well, I would imagine. I mean, you're talking about a much healthier, much higher protein.

The difference between the protein content in elk per ounce versus the protein content in beef is almost double. It's a giant difference. And we just had randomized controlled trials that showed less inflammation with eating red meat. Yeah, but the thing is, it's tricky. Because when it's something healthy or something inflammatory, it's always compared to what? So in some of these studies, what the industry does is they'll compare red meat to bacon. Or they'll switch it up. It's's always two watts it works the other way around

they compare a plant-based diet with a standard crop western diet no i agree that's that's not a comparison i still don't see why you're saying meat is bad for you well so he i mean we just showed with the heme iron but the heme iron in conjunction with plant-based foods right he's showing and he said it's because of the is that one of the primary reasons is because of oxidation antioxidants deal with oxidation you get oxidant you get pro-oxidation from animal foods right you also get pro-oxidation from exercise now we're talking about mechanism you know isolated mechanisms but chris you talk about mechanisms when you want to and you talk about pre-clinical data when you want to but you know i was talking about them in response to the claims made in the film because

mechanisms were mentioned new 5gc tmao heme iron and so i brought those up in you know to respond to them no but that's not when you use them. Because if you go on your website, I'm not saying we shouldn't ever talk about mechanisms, James, I'm saying if you're talking about mechanisms, but the outcomes don't support the mechanism, then what's the point? Well, I think we can get into epidemiology and look at that. But I think we should definitely hit protein, because I think of everyone watching, like, that's the biggest myth. And it's the biggest sort of gripe. And then I think we should definitely hit protein because i think of everyone watching like that's the biggest myth and it's the biggest sort of gripe and then i think we should definitely hit b12 so i want to make sure let's go with b12 because one of the things that you said that he disputed was did bring up that b12 quote that you said was complete horseshit

i can read it out if you want go ahead please uh b12 is this and if you disagree with what you were critiquing b12 isn't made I'll read the whole thing and then. So B12 isn't made by animals, it's made by bacteria that these animals consume in the soil and water. Just like with protein, animals are only the middlemen. Before industrial farming, farm animals and humans could get B12 by eating traces of dirt on plant foods or by drinking water from rivers or streams. But now, because pesticides, antibiotics, and chlorine kill the bacteria that produce this vitamin, even far animals have to be given B12 supplements.

And you said, that's just all false. That's all just factually wrong. So first of all, B12 is made by bacteria, but animals don't get it from consuming soil and water. First of all, you misrepresented what I said. So I said said it's made by bacteria that these animals consume you went on to say that animals didn't get bacteria from the soil that's not what i said i said they get it from the bacteria that they got from the soil

so you misrepresented what i said you you made out the key claims you made james is that as pot it was pot used to be possible to get b12 by eating dirt or on plant foods or from drinking water from rivers or streams i've still have not seen convincing evidence that okay that is true slide 48 and jack norris a vegan dietician has admitted as much in his article and then even more relevant than all of that is looking at b12 deficiency rates between vegans vegetarians and omnivores uh in the clinical literature like the the other stuff is not really relevant until you get to the clinical can we address each of your critiques then is that okay yeah um so first of all um you said there's zero evidence that b12 is fed to cattle right you said that and so can i just first you represent because i said

even farm animals can you put slide uh 44 please jamie i said even farm animals have to be given b12 supplements okay that's what i said okay um so did you mean all farm animals okay so so do you see that that is a screen cap from the film that's a chicken and down at the bottom there's the quote for the poultry right so would you disagree that like pigs and chickens and no i don't disagree that they sometimes get b12 but do do what about what about shellfish? Shellfish are extremely high in B12. They're the highest, even higher than... That's a total non-sequitur and it's a strong argument. It's not actually because the implication in the film was

the only reason you get B12 from eating animal products is because they're given B12 supplements. So you're really suggesting that the like the population gets most of its b12 from shellfish no okay i'm saying that the claim that animals need to take b12 supplements in order to have b12 in their flesh so you're not where do you think chickens get it from james where do you think chickens get that point about the shellfish was, I never claimed chicken was a great source of B12. I said in the film, even farm animals have to be given B12. You said that it was absolutely false.

Everything that I said about B12, you said was absolutely false. Those are your words. Well, this is also you talking about that people used to be able to get it from consuming vegetables without bacteria and dirt on it, and that the water is now, because of pesticides and chlorine, the water no longer has B12 in it. The same percentage of... You picked one study that showed equal rates of deficiency

and ignored the huge amount of literature that shows big differences between vegans, vegetarians, and omnivores in terms of efficiency i know all of your critiques because i've noted them and i've got a point for each one so can i just go and then you can if you disagree you can so um could you just uh jamie could you slide 45 and i and i and rather than throwing off track going to about humans we'll get to that in a second but that that i mean b12 is just commonly fed to chickens and you would agree with that right yeah and and pigs and lambs that feel that can't ruminate like ruminants can create b12 in their gut from the bacteria that they yeah okay yeah

so but you brought up cattle bivalves and other yeah no certainly there's some yeah but that's not yeah totally okay so um but since you brought cattle, you said that cattle, there's no evidence of cattle being fed B12. So if you bring up flight 46. Vitamin B12 for sheep and cattle, that's what it says. You said there's no evidence. So you said there's no evidence. So on the left, just so, because people might not be able to read the small print. Well, listen, there's people just listening as well.

Okay, sorry, for people just listening. There's a B12 injection for sheep and cattle. There's three different products. There's something that's added to feed on the left. So it says a liquid complementary feeding stuff containing the essential trace elements, cobalt, selenium, and B12. It's for the treatment of B12 deficiencies.

Correct. That's due to some soils being low low in cobalt which is a lot of okay so now if you just go to um slide 47 please jamie next slide okay this is the largest supplier of animal uh feed or supplements in the world okay on their website young ruminants require supplemental vitamin b12 prior to full development they also say vitamin tree was sometimes administered parentarily to incoming feedlot cattle and also b12 by the way has been shown to increase milk production you said there was no evidence that cattle are given b12 And you said that all my statements were absolutely false. Do you at least admit that you were wrong there?

If I said that I've got your cattle, specifically that one portion of the statement, that there's no evidence that cattle ever get B12 supplements, then I was wrong about that. Read what he says. Okay. First of all, when I made the full statement, this is what you first said. That's just all false.

That's all just factually wrong. And then later on you said, there's also zero evidence that B12 is fed to cattle. That is flat out wrong. And I have just shown that. Is that fair? I was wrong about that. Okay. So we'll get to another point because you were wrong about many other things as well.

Okay. So let's see. So you agree that it is fed to cattle. So you want to look at humans. I'm just trying to see if there's any other points that you brought up. They've been giving minerals and feet and different things to cattle forever. Right, that's the thing. Particularly because of the grain diets. The point, if cattle are deficient because they're in a feedlot where they're not eating grass.

It's not only that. And that's the primary reason. It isn't only that? Or because soils have become depleted. So young cows. Right, but these are young cows that are most likely being in a feedlot. And people have been getting meat, B12, from animals do you just do you dispute that the primary source of b12 for human beings has been eating animals and also fish and shellfish in history and from rivers and streams and dirt

where is the evidence that that that rivers and streams and dirt has been a primary source i'm obviously going to give it to you. You think I came here today, you think I made claims in the film that I couldn't back up? Perhaps. Because there are actually quite a few claims. We went over those in the last show. Yeah, so can we stick with the B12?

Sure. Okay. So can we just go to slide 48? Hold on a second, please. B12 concentration fluctuated between 100 and 2,000. So this is in levels of water in the English Lake District. If you want to go to slide 49. The vegetables were eaten without being carefully washed.

Thus, strict vegetarians who do not practice hand washing or vegetable cleaning may be untroubled by vitamin B12 deficiency. And by the way, the retained vitamin D12 in the soil was adequate to prevent B12 deficiency. So what you're essentially saying is that we're dealing with B12 that was in soil and then in water and that by the chlorination and filtration systems that we use today that's what's ruining the water and the water does not have we sanitize water now which is a good thing yes but that also takes out the b12 sure so that makes your statement correct so so he was wrong again that's not the consensus view that you can get enough b12 from eating unwashed vegetables but that's not what he didn't necessarily say that was the consensus view that you can get enough B12 from eating unwashed vegetables. No, no, I'm not saying. He didn't necessarily say that was the consensus view.

What he said in the statement was that the reason why we no longer have B12 in the water and in the soil is because of the fact that they add chlorines and pesticides, and it seems like there's evidence to back that up. So, again, people have questioned, did I spend 1,000 hours? Now that I'm giving you the facts do you question that i spent a thousand hours i've spent sent another two thousand hours looking at peer-reviewed research since then if you say you have i don't have no reason to disbelieve it's a lot of time it's a lot of thousand hours is a lot of time like what was it lane uh lane

norton said that you should probably have gotten a phd i think well i don't think that's the case i think there's people a lot smarter than me that are making these scientific tests. But I mean, that amount of hours of research, you literally I've estimated that I've done, conservative estimate I've done since then about 3,000 hours, because once I started making the film and doing that, then I didn't. Anyway. I believe you.

There are also B12 analogs in the soil that aren't absorbed and utilized like true B12. But again, you don't but can we admit the two things the two things that we've you touched on so far you you got wrong absolutely that it's proven that cattle do receive b12 under whatever circumstances i don't know whether it's because they're grass-fed or grain-fed i'm assuming they're feedlot animals that don't get proper nutrients from soil right don't get proper news i mean if you're getting these grain felled fed soybean fed cattle

and they're just pouring this dried out shit into a bucket these animals are not grazing and they're likely deficient in a lot of different things totally and that's why there's also they've always been supplementing their diet with minerals supplementing their diet with vitamins that's the funny thing people like oh well um let's just take the extreme end of a plant-based diet vegans right so people say oh well vegans have to take a supplement well guess what you're supplementing anyway you're just doing it indirectly you are eating that kind of 99 of the yes somewhere around there 97 to 99 yeah whatever so so the vast majority so where you know people are getting it you're supplementing you're not just supplementing by b12 you're supplementing d

in the omnivorous you're getting it from someone who supplements it in the feed of the animal and then you get it that way exactly generally not if you're eating grass-fed beef not if you're eating shellfish but that's only fish but let's not you love grass-fed beef again but let's just admit that you made a mistake can you just admit that you made a mistake about both of those things b12 in cattle and and then you have a third point so we had the b12 in cattle you had that there was no effort you said there was zero evidence about that you said there was no evidence about being able to get it from water and uh from dirt which again i proved to be you to be wrong and and the third thing that you said there was no evidence about being able to get it from water and and uh from dirt which again i proved to be you to be wrong and and the third thing that you said

i said that there's no evidence that humans primarily got their b12 from eating from soil and water which is what you said in the quote no i didn't you're misrep again he's misrepresenting and he's wrong joe you've got to admit that in this case well he's clearly wrong about b12 being given to cattle i mean we showed three different supplements this is the main issue it says before industrial farming farm animals and humans could get b12 by eating traces of dirt on plant foods or by drinking water from rivers or streams so you don't think that people will get the idea from hearing that that we never needed to consume animal products to get B12 and we only could get plenty from eating soil? So where is the evidence for that other than the one study that you showed there? That's because most evidence of vegans, even vegans who are supplementing.

These are modern vegans, right? He's talking about something pretty different. But you see what? He's going off on a track here because he's got two things wrong. I agree with you on this because his statement is essentially saying that the reason why we don't get it today is because of chlorination of water. Pesticides. So your third point, I said this, you took issue with my claim.

And up to 39% of people tested, including meat eaters, are low in B12. As a result, the best way for humans to get enough B12, whether they eat animal foods or not, is simply take a supplement. Then you said he didn't provide a reference for that, so it's hard to check. But again, it contradicts mounds of evidence on B12 efficiency. So can you bring up slide 50, please, Jamie? You said that I didn't provide a reference okay but in the bottom left where we put all of the references whenever i made a claim about the scientific research oh well it's covered by the yeah it'll go away in a second okay okay allegedly there you go so first of all there's the reference you claim we didn't have a reference would you admit that you were wrong? I missed that. Okay. Three times wrong

about B12. Okay. So can we just go into your study? Sorry, your ebook on B12. You basically said, I don't know where you got that study from. Your B12 ebook opens with the exact same study. So can you put up slide 51, please, Jamie?ie okay is that your ebook on the left yes okay you rounded up to 40 but i kept it at 39 okay uh because i was being specific b12 deficiency is far more common than most health care practitioners and the general public realize data from the tufts university framingham offspring study suggests that 40% of people between the ages of 26 and 83 have plasma B12 levels in the low normal range, a range at which many experience neurological symptoms. That was the opening statement of your B12 e-book. And you claimed that you couldn't find the evidence of that study.

No disagreement that B12 deficiency is an issue. I've talked about that on my website. That's not what you said on the last time you were on Joe's podcast. You said, I don't know, he didn't provide a reference for that, so it's hard to object, but it contradicts the evidence. If that's not reflective of the preponderance of evidence, why did you open your e-book with it? It's not, okay, so there's two different issues here

one is do omnivores get b12 deficiency yes they do okay and 40 people tested in this study which is the one that you reference that's right and there are many i'm not saying the study is bad but you said let's look at all of you said that i didn't provide a reference but did you do you write your own ebooks by the way i do and you don't remember that study no i write a lot okay james do you know how do you have any idea how many articles i've written over the years do you remember every study from every article i don't know if you're right so i don't remember the trainer and that's the thing do you not feel like i'm a combatives trainer you yourself recognize that you're not a nutrition expert right you said that at the beginning. Do you not feel like I'm a combatives trainer? You yourself recognize that you're not a nutrition expert, right?

You said that at the beginning. I'm not a nutritionist. I have master's level training in nutrition. So you've got a number of things wrong about B12. There's two issues here. What does that specifically mean, like master's level training in nutrition? Right. Thank you, Joe.

Well, in California, acupuncturists have a four-year master's program, which includes a lot of medical sciences and nutrition, research methodology, etc., because we're considered primary care providers in the state of California. So the training is a lot different than it is in other places. So there's the question of can omnivores develop b12 deficiency yes they can if you go and look at the rest of the ebook it's because of things like sebo and you'll actually accept higher ranges you'll actually accept higher ranges of what would be considered potentially deficient right yeah you'll say like three four hundred might be deficient so that would mean

that even more people were deficient right now i'm not arguing that three four hundred might be deficient so that would mean that even more people were deficient right now i'm not arguing that vegans can be uh more deficient than omnivores um but can i just go to slide 52 can i go to slide 52 so what is that what is the question here if you're not arguing that b12 deficiency can be more is more common and vegetarians i'm pointing outarians. Because that is what clinically makes the difference. If someone is B12 deficient, then they develop... You think I'm not prepared to get to that? I will get to that. You said that like the four or five claims that I made about B12 were patently false. I've already pointed out three of the things

that you got wrong out of the five and you are the one that like is recommending telling people what to eat i am a combatives trainer and my facts in this case are the this doesn't change anything about the facts i'm recommending no it does because it's really dangerous is still that people get enough b12 and that they are less likely to do that on a vegetarian and vegan diet. And there's lots of studies showing that. Can an omnivore develop B12 deficiency? Absolutely. I see it in my practice.

And nearly all of the people that were… Not the vast majority. No, no, no, no. I didn't say that. The vast majority of that 40% were meat eaters. You referenced… You didn't reference the study, by the way. That's only because there are more meat eaters in the general population.

No, I agree. I agree. That has nothing to do with the fact that meat eaters are getting more B12 deficient. I'm not arguing. We've got all of these studies about homocysteine, 9 out of 10 reviews that have shown higher homocysteine levels in vegans and vegetarians. Can we stick to the point that he made last time, as I'll never get to it. Okay. So, when you referenced the Framingham study, you didn't link to the study.

You linked to an article from the USDA about the study. And that study said, oddly, the researchers found no... Again, this is the opening statement of your e-book references this study. But you didn't mention this part. Oddly oddly the researchers found no association between plasma b12 levels and meat poultry and fish intake even though those foods supply the bulk of b12 in the diet it's not because people aren't eating enough meat to get the b12 tucker said it's the vitamin isn't getting absorbed so is that so this backs up my claim that

the safest way to get b12 is to take a supplement now chris will just say for 60 can i just finish on this point and then you can rebut as much as you want so your claim was well people can just go and get um so you agree that so um no i would say that vegans that don't supplement and omnivores there's a lot more deficiency in vegans right like it's a it's a nutrient of concern that vegans should be cautious of i agree with that that's pretty much universally accepted right yes so but that you even if you don't accept the 40% number even though that you said that i didn't say i didn't accept that okay but it doesn't it doesn't matter whether you accept it or not it like you've even said that like we should consider higher levels b12 division so it would make even more but it doesn't that doesn't really matter

the point is that you are saying that um where was i going with this hang on they're saying the vitamin is not getting absorbed and that b12 oh so my point my point was it's safer to just take a b12 supplement and for the general population in the world that is the best recommendation you'll say you can go to your doctors and get a 60 blood test and test for b12 and then you can decide whether you need a supplement or not. May I stop you guys both here? Why isn't it getting absorbed? If there is a higher level of vitamin B12 in fish and...

There's other factors that inhibit the absorption. So what are those factors? Yeah, people's conditions but also in the food itself. Bacterial overgrowth in the small intestine. So Joe, so basically... But we still have the data here. Can I just go back to the argument about, because I said the safest way for everyone to get B12 is to take a supplement, right?

You say, well, you can just spend $60 and get a blood test. But you've got to recognize that in the world, not everybody can afford $60. Okay, so the safest way to get B12, whether you eat meat or not, is to take a B12 supplement. Well, it's the surest way. Let's just b12 supplement we know it's the surest way let's just all agree on that it's the surest way it's the surest way for sure but then when you've got studies that show you know 11 of omnivores have b12 depletion versus 77 of vegetarians and 92 of vegans you know that's with using holotranscobalamin which is a much more sensitive marker b12 deficiency than serum B12, which is really problematic. And then you have 9 out of 10 comparisons of homocysteine that found higher levels of homocysteine in vegetarians and omnivores and higher levels in vegans compared to vegetarians.

And homocysteine is also a more sensitive marker than serum B12. So there's four stages of B12 deficiency. And serum B12 will only go down out of range in the fourth and final stage of B12 deficiency. So these other studies that I shared on the last show are looking at holotranscobalamin, which was the most sensitive marker of B12 depletion. It's not technically deficiency at that point. And then you have homocysteine and methylmalonic acid that are less sensitive than holotransglobalamin, but more sensitive than serum B12.

Okay. Okay, can you bring up slide 54, please? Okay, and I need to show you. So not only have you got all the facts wrong so far about b12 of my claims you said that they were all false and they weren't false right every claim that i made so far was backed up by science and you have admitted that you made mistakes okay so this is your slide this is your slide right this is because this is how i can show that he's handpicking these studies to make his claim you said that 90 of vegans were deficient let's read what it says

is b12 depletion among uh omnivores vegetarians and vegans uh vegans now we got to remember that most people are probably listening versus watching oh sorry yeah okay so vegans 92 it says 77 vegetarians 77 and omnivores% for B12 depletion. But that study showed it was more like 40% of depletion. That was across the board. I'm not trying to compare the two. I'm just trying to say your case by using this study is that 92% of vegans are deficient in B12 and omnivores are not. Deficient.

Depleted. Depleted. Whatever. I'm not trying to pick apart this study. I agree with the study. Okay. Okay. Can you just go to the next slide, please, Chris? I think it's slide 55. Okay. This is from the study. Okay. This is from 16 years ago, by the way, and a very small study from 16 years ago. And this is why I show you that he's handpicking

the data that he uses. And this is where I go back to the fact that it's about the interpretation of the totality of evidence and you can't really rely on someone that's not a nutrition expert handpicking studies to suit their bias so in some this is what it said in subjects who did not consume vitamins the levels were what chris said right 11 in omnivore 70 and so i would agree like if you couldn't get b12 anywhere you should incorporate some animal foods into your diet fair okay but let's look at some other studies so slide 56 and again i'm only choosing a few i'm sure you know certainly they're in my favor and i'm not saying that vegans don't have lower b12 levels because some people don't supplement right

but so you i'm showing you handpicked a study from 16 years ago slide 56 from uh and this is for a newer study from 2018 with twice the sample size uh of the ones and you know people now know you should take a b12 supplement the studied markers indicate a generally sufficient cabalamin status independently of the diet preferences lacto- over-vegetarian, or vegan. Slide 57. Now, this is a study that looked at runners in May of 2019, really current. And it feels like you might not have the most current data because you said to me in your email that nutrition is only one part of what you do and you have lots of other things that you're doing, right? So, slide 57. This is comparing vegans,ans vegetarians and omnivores

and these are runners yeah and recreational runners recreational runners yeah all three groups showed an adequate biomarker status of b12 related parameters and then slide 58 it would be and this one not only backs up my point about vegans but also uh and plant-based eaters but also um that supplement users are better so the vitamin b12 status of supplement point about vegans and plant-based eaters, but also that supplement users are better. So the vitamin B12 status of supplement users of vegans and omnivores was higher compared to the non-supplement users. And a higher proportion of non-supplement users had B12 parameters outside the reference range. They were low. So again, that's more evidence that it's a good idea to supplement in general because you just have higher levels.

And consensus recommendations, after you get over 50, you have lower intrinsic. It's a water-soluble vitamin anyway, right? Yeah, but after 50, you lose intrinsic factors, so you can't absorb as much. Right, but it's not dangerous to have higher levels. No, no, no. It's a good thing to supplement, period. Right. And the blanket recommendation.

So you could, yeah, exactly. It's a good thing to supplement, period. Right. And the blanket recommendation. So every single thing that I said in the B12 statement is true and backed up by, so. Jamie, bring up slide 59 for me. If we're looking at totality of evidence, let's look at more evidence. Totally. But again, I'm not pointing those three studies out to say there's not more.

I'm saying that you handpicked a study where vegans were not… No, I didn't handpick a study, James. There's many studies here. No, you picked one where they were not taking vitamins. And I agree. So we agree that people on plant-based diets… Should take vitamin. Should take vitamin B12.

I see what you're saying. And we agree that most people are getting their B12 supplement in any way just indirectly through animals. Fair enough? most people are getting their b12 supplement in any way just indirectly through animals fair enough fair enough if you follow the diet that these animals were on where they're which is the most majority of people and again i would say like look if you want to eat 95 plants and you're gonna know how common it is for them to supplement animal diet with b12 is it a rare thing no no so with cattle with cattle it's lower because there's a lot of a lot but much it's not that rare well it's lower but it's not super rare because a lot of soil is deficient in cobalt and cows need to consume the cobalt to manufacture the b12 in their in their rumen so it's more of a side effect of uh mineral and nutrient deficient for cows but not for pigs

and chickens and that sort of stuff. Vegans have higher homocysteine levels than omnivores. 9 out of 10 comparisons found higher homocysteine levels in vegetarians than omnivores and higher levels in vegans than vegetarians. The prevalence of hyperhomocystinemia among vegetarians may actually be higher than that among non-vegetarians already diagnosed with heart disease so that's nine of ten comparisons that's not hand-picking one study that's nine out of ten comparisons that have been done on this topic right and the out like you said before we shouldn't just look at the markers we should look at the outcomes right and the outcomes is that vegans and vegetarians with higher homocysteine levels do not have increased risk of cardiovascular disease or diabetes or death from those or from cancer i didn't make the claim that they do from that study i'm making we're talking about b12 and

homocysteine being a marker of right and i am and chris i am showing that you picked a study from 2016 which have a very small sample size. That was nine out of 10 comparisons right there. That was not the only study that I showed. I am saying that when you came to B12, all of the statements that I made in the film were true. And you said that they were patently false and you were wrong. I didn't. Joe, come on.

Listen, I've come in here... I've said it already. Yeah. No, I've said it. I just want to make sure... You're correct. Right. Because I've come in here and people are saying,

oh, what are you going to say to that debunk? Chris did not debunk the film. He made misrepresentations of our claims and he got things factually wrong. Well, he certainly seems to have gotten it factually wrong that animals, particularly cows, are not given B12 supplements. He certainly seems to have gotten it factually wrong that animals particularly cows are not given b12 supplements he certainly seems to have gotten it factually wrong that at least some of the b12 that people would be able to get in the past they got from water and soil and that 40 percent of people are

uh division of the valve and that the best way to get b12 is the supplement so he got everything so can i just finish can i just finish yes Yes. I know, but you're wrong. So the thing is, I have proven that he got three or four things factually wrong. About B12. Right. And I am a combatives instructor. I've heard that.

Right. But I'm just saying, I'm putting myself down. I understand. I'm not like a super intelligent guy. Well, you are. You are very intelligent. I've said that before. And what you did is you did research on these very important

subjects and you acquired a lot of data. This is what people do when they go to school. I mean, it's like the difference between someone who's educated and not educated is not whether or not they go to a specific place. It's whether or not they absorb the information and when they study. If you said you studied a thousand hours before the film

and three thousand since, then you're obviously educated. You understand what you're talking about. So anyway, you got things factually wrong about B12. So to the people listening or watching, do you really want to put the interpretation of the data in the hands of someone that just got so many things wrong about B12? Well, he got things wrong about your assertions about B12. Yeah, I made four or five claims. The claims still stand that vegetarians and vegans have much higher rates of B12 depletion or deficiency than omnivores. The bulk of the studies show— If they're supplementing, they do not.

Well, of course not. If they're supplementing, they don't. Of course not. But if they don't supplement, they do. But everyone agrees. But, like, there's no disagreement. Vegans and vegetarians and anyone over 50 and, like, the safest way— and you're now disputing the safest way to get B12 is to take a supplement. It's the best way to get B12.

It's the surest way to get B12, but it's not necessary for many people. Right, for people that can afford to get blood tests, which is not most of the world. We're sitting in America in a nice air-conditioned room, and we've got cars, and we drove here, and we can afford to go to the doctor. The best way to get B12 is to take a supplement period and you're wrong if you think otherwise if you can afford it sure if you can afford blood tests every six months if you but we're gonna get 12 supplements to everybody around the world but hold on that's expensive right here's the thing if you have a diet that gives you the ample amount of b12 then

you don't need a supplement then you don't need a supplement sure you're saying is that blood tests are expensive so you should take an expensive supplement no they're not expensive b12 no it's like if you buy it in bulk it's like two dollars a year but no i'm not saying that yeah yeah if you buy two dollars a year if you buy in bulk you buy your vitamins if you if you if you buy you probably want to really If you buy some bulk, you probably want to... Really? Yeah, you've got to...

But the trick is you've got to like... You'd have to split it with a bunch of people because it's like a year's worth of supply. But anyway... Jesus Christ. So, no, the argument is that... I feel like I should just donate to the world. If it's only two bucks a year,

I feel like I could hook a lot of people up. I've also shown that in the study that you presented in your e-book, stated that they weren't absorbing it as well from animal products. I'm not saying there's not B12 in animal products. And also, we have to remember one last thing, that the B12 that people are getting in animal products, it was supplemented in the first place.

In some cases. In the vast majority of... Not in wild-caught fish, not in grass-fed, not in shellfish. Not as much in ruminants. In the vast majority of animal products that people are eating b12 is supplemented and so i'm just saying the safest way to get b12 is take a supplement in the vast majority is that true yeah you think the vast majority of people are eating uh wild caught fish and i don't know how many animals are actually getting those

supplements all of the chickens all of the chickens all of the chickens all of the chickens but that's chickens chickens are omnivores. They're not fed omnivorous diets for the most part unless they're free-range chickens. Have you ever seen a chicken fuck up a mouse? It's pretty stunning. Yeah. Yeah, they're carnivorous little monsters. Then chickens, and when you get them and you get those eggs, and the eggs are like a really dull yellow those are animals that are eating grain

only those are vegetarian chickens that's not what they want to eat what they want to eat is worms yeah they're not living in their natural state right in their natural state they probably don't need to have supplementation this is sort of an argument against vegetarian diets for chickens really because chickens aren't really supposed to eat that way yeah and feedlot for beef for feedlot for beef exactly they're not supposed to eat that way. And feedlot for beef. Feedlot for beef, exactly. They're not supposed to eat grain either. Can we get to protein? Because I think if we miss protein, then we've done a lot of disservice.

No, we're not going to miss it. We have plenty of time. Cool. I'll keep going all day. So the B12, you made some excellent points. And you definitely cleared up what was misrepresented in what you said. And it's really why I really appreciate you having me on. Because you guys did

like a three hour debunk, right? And there was just a lot of things that were factually wrong and there's more that I can point out that were factually wrong.

Okay, let's get into the protein. I really appreciate you having me on because you gave me the opportunity. I appreciate you being here. And I really appreciate Chris as much as we disagree,

I really appreciate you coming on and giving me the opportunity and you being here. Let's talk about protein. I know I'm getting like emotional in some of these but I'm'm annoyed like people i'm trying to spend seven years you know yeah i get it cool so uh you want to talk about protein and yes what the

issues are there's still so also just the red meat and dairy thing outstanding too oh whether or not red meat's bad for you yeah we never really cleared that up well why do you think that red meat is bad for you we can go with protein but let's let's finish that okay because we really should finish that we can always yeah sure protein because i'm sure protein is going to be a long discussion well i know i think it's going to happen here so we can talk about red meat i've shown that like some of the individual things like heme iron for example are shown to be uh pro-inflammatory and by the way just to back you up um let me see where the slide is pro-inflammatory necessarily correlated with poor health because

sometimes things uh that provide uh inflammation yeah yeah your body has a a positive reaction yeah it's a hormetic hormetic stressor yeah so the things like exercise you exercise you create yeah yeah hormesis right right sure sauna yeah and it's the sameetic stressor. So there are things like exercise. You exercise, you create hormesis, right? Right, sure. Sauna. Yeah. And it's the same thing where he'll sort of try and show that fish, you know, the TMAO, for example, you'll say, well, how can TMAO be bad? We'll get to that.

We'll get to that. But let's stick with red meat. Why do you think red meat's bad for you? Well, TMAO is one of the things in red meat, just like heme iron that I just showed is inflammatory. Heme iron is associated with cardiovascular risks and and heme iron is found in meat. And eating plants in a healthy diet pattern. It offsets it. Absolutely, yeah.

Is there evidence that eating meat by itself is associated with cardiovascular disease? Nobody ever has eaten meat by itself. What about these carnivore diet people? Well, there's no research on the carn's no research those guys are the canaries in the coal mine aren't they there's no research on that so that's one that's one of my people just eating all meat diet yeah there's not yeah i mean i mean we both agree like let's just create a false dichotomy chris if you if there was a cut like all animal products diet not just carnivore but eggs and all this stuff and then there was a fully plant-based diet supplement would be 12 which one would you advocate if false dichotomy uh i'd probably pick the plant diet probably

although i would be concerned about nutrient deficiencies yeah i i've never advocated for a carnivore diet i said as much okay last show but that says something about plants right plants are awesome right so we agree on that yeah he's never had anything wrong what all he's ever said was that eliminating all animal products from your diet is probably not healthy unless you follow a very strict routine where you make sure that you have all your bases covered nutritionally that's what chris has said from the jump yeah i know i would i would extend that and just say that i don't think there's strong evidence suggesting that including some animal products in your whole foods plant-based diet is harmful and can i can i

just where that's where we seem to have and tremendously could be five percent for some someone who's just eating uh mostly plant-based diet and they're eating some shellfish and organ meats for the nutrient density or you could have someone who eats more animal products and depends on the person and what their needs are i go with that first half and the second half but just to back up uh what joe does um slide 62 because i mentioned this earlier but we didn't put a slide on but i think the graphic again i know most people are listening so if maybe joe you could uh describe it to people differences in post-prandial inflammatory responses to a modern versus traditional meat meal so this is basically this is the kangaroo. This is kangaroo meat versus beef. Wagyu beef, is that how you pronounce it? I think so.

Okay, so you'd recognize that marks in CRP, TNF alpha and IL-6 are inflammatory markers. Yeah. Okay, good. So I just want to point out that, yeah, if you're going to eat 90% plants and you're going to eat the rest of it from animal products, I think that wild caught elk

and um kangaroo meat stuff like that would be the way to go by far well it just makes sense just to show you like there's look at the the there's about half the inflammation roughly coming from uh the wild caught well that makes sense because most of the time we're dealing with when you're dealing with when you're dealing with beef you're dealing with this grain fed unhealthy animal when you're talking about wagyu beef that is that's a dying animal i mean if you saw a person whose muscle tissue looked like a wagyu steak you'd be like bro you got to get on a fucking diet you know i mean really but if you saw like you know an athlete if you looked at

an athlete's muscle tissue would look like a piece of elk most likely it would look very lean and healthy right and dense so anyway i just want to point out that one that shows a couple of things that shows that meat does create inflammation i would like to see this on grass-fed meat yeah as opposed to this feedlot no but even if it matched the uh you know the the kangaroo meat we're still seeing inflammation there and yeah and certainly like he said i agree if you're going to eat animal foods i think it's wise timing wise to eat a lot of plant foods with that those animal foods right well i definitely think if you're going to eat animal foods you should eat a lot of plants there's also a lot of benefits to it in terms of fiber, in terms of the bio—

Microbiota. Yeah. There's a lot of benefits to having these fermented vegetables as well. Things like kimchi and having things that provide you with good probiotics. All these things, there's great benefit to a lot of plant foods yeah and people on plant-based diets uh just end up getting naturally getting more fiber for most people are deficient in fiber right and if you look at like the paleolithic period you'd be looking at like maybe 100 grams of fiber i agree and very high fiber intake and

and plant people on plant-based diets get more fiber than people in on other diets as long as you're eating healthy as we we both agree oh yeah pasta and pizza but just to be fair though even in vegans and vegetarians in all of the studies they're still getting more fiber despite the fact that i you and i would agree they're not eating the healthiest diet overall overall vegan uh overall completely plant-based people are the only people that fall within the recommended BMI range. The people who get the most fiber. BMI range, body mass index? Is that what you're talking about?

Yeah. Yeah, but body mass. It's not a great measure. That's a shitty one, right? That makes me obese. Right. Yeah? There's a lot of nonsense i agree generally that if if you look at people who are on a vegetarian or

vegan diet compared with people on the standard american diet then they're gonna have right and people healthier right but that's also the standard american diet if you take someone who's eating healthy plates of of broccoli and kale and also has a piece of grass-fed meat that's what i want to talk about i want to talk about people that people following a conscious diet no i totally agree i of course you're going to see markers like for example the longest study on a paleo diet right they had a two-year follow-up and they had improved they'd lost body fat they had improved uh blood markers what was really interesting is okay they were told to eliminate dairy right so you cut out dairy They were told to reduce their amount of or cut out completely processed plant foods like white flour and sugar and all this type of stuff. They were

told to increase their fruits and vegetables. And they were told to increase their meat consumption. And they got, you know, improved health markers all across the board. Now, what was interesting is at the end of the two years, what they found was that people had not stuck with the meat recommendations. So they with the meat recommendations. So they kept their meat recommendations the same. They got out processed junk food, right, the trans fats and stuff that you'd all agree we should get out of our diet, right? They took out milk out of their diet, and they increased the amount of plant foods. So it's very clear that the benefit did not come from increasing meat consumption.

It came from increased plant food consumption. Or decreasing bullshit. I think the benefit is decreasing bullshit. Right. It's a twofold thing, right? You cut out things that are inflammatory and you put in things that are anti-inflammatory. You cut out things that are low in antioxidants. You incorporate things that are high in antioxidants.

So that was the major benefit. It wasn't from increased meat consumption who's saying it is from increased meat consumption not me no i'm just saying that was the benefit of a paleo diet is going in a more whole food plant but i think that's what everyone says the idea is that you eliminate processed foods you eliminate sugar you eliminate these things that are just filled but we know that it's not just it's a twofold difference when you incorporate whole plant foods there's the opportunity cost so you're replacing you're you're getting rid of crab and in my personal opinion and based on the consensus you're replacing both highly processed foods and animal foods and

you're incorporating more whole plant foods and that is the scientific consensus is to eat a predominantly plant-based diet. You could say the same thing about the benefits you see with vegetarian and vegan studies comparing with standard American diet. I agree. You're removing a lot of the crap. I agree. But what studies have you got comparing a Nutri-Vore diet to a whole food plant-based diet?

We don't have them. So we have to infer. And when we infer, we have to rely on experts that are experts in their field right we don't we don't turn to to chris and go okay can you tell us more about nutrition anthropology and urology than all of these experts i think that's i agree you shouldn't just listen to me but i don't think it's genuine just to suggest that there's a consensus that a whole food plant-based diet is a better choice than a plant-based diet that also contains some animal products. I agree with you that we have no studies on that, and we probably won't, unfortunately, in the near future because those are difficult to find. Right, especially for long-term outcomes, right, because you can't put people on for 40 years yeah they're not gonna so we i agree that it's hard

like again i've said before that we should be getting the vast majority of our calories from whole plant foods i think there's enough in the literature to show and and the academy of nutrition and dietetics recognizes that completely vegan diets are helpful for all life stages including for athletes um i think that there's sufficient evidence to go 100 but i'm not telling people that they should be doing that i'm saying people can eat whatever they want but i think we both agree that people should be getting out junk food right soda and trans fats oh by the way on trans fats um so that's i mean that's why i asked you in the beginning of the show what what your position was because that's the fundamental question for me is that is this question that we're talking about right now right which is is there sufficient

evidence to to suggest that you know everybody most people whatever you want to say should be on 100 or even 95 plant-based diet versus a plant-based diet that contains some animal products and my argument all along has been no there's not sufficient evidence right but you also think that you also think that a completely plant-based diet is likely to be nutrient deficient and all these other things do you know do you know his history do you know yeah i know and i think that's what vegan yeah yeah and that's why i think that there's emotional ties. My history is not relevant. That's an N equals one.

But you presented it yourself. You said that I had a worse mood. Yeah, but I've also said that people acknowledge that there are many successful vegans and vegan athletes. You've invoked the N of one. And also you didn't follow the scientific consensus about plant-based diets when you did it so you chose a macrobiotic diet and you chose a raw vegan diet just those were just two iterations right but why did you choose those when they weren't based on scientific consensus because i wasn't this was 20 years ago and i wasn't paying attention to to it and you traveled around the world and you got sick and you attributed it to the diet

which may or may not have been i didn't attribute it to the diet. I don't even know why we're talking. My experience is… Because it's relevant because it shows that, like, I don't know why you were vegan or vegetarian. Maybe it was for, like, animal rights reasons. Maybe you felt bad for going back to eating meat, so now you need to feel the privilege. The reason that you need to try to debunk the film is because you've got a massive business selling supplements and protein powders and giving diet advice. So our film doesn't make you.

I make very, very little money selling supplements, James. It's not a massive business. It's basically a convenience for my patients. I'm just saying overall. My business is basically training people. Right. And being a clinician. There's no, I don't profit from, you know, selling like animal products.

You do indirectly because you advise this diet. So the film was very bad for you personally. Because if people believed the film, which, you know, like the Defense Health health agency they review the film they don't care about like this myth that we should eat in exactly the same way as our ancestors not that we even really ate that way but they don't care about that myth they care that what is going to be better for warfighter effectiveness and to cut the health care costs of our military so they looked at the science independently you think they're like the defense health agency is full of vegans i mean so you have the film has is neither here nor there for me but that's what we're here for that's what you were trying to you said that the film reason

that i'm here is because and the reason that i came when joe invited me and he can probably tell you that i it took a few invitations to get me here it is just to provide the other side of the the view here it's not because it materially affects me in any way believe me i've got lots of other things as i told you in the email so you do lots of other things not on nutrition so even like my nutrition team they spend full time either consulting elite athletes or military personnel or they're digging into the research like our chief science advisor eight hours a day all or they're digging into the research like our chief science advisor eight hours a day all he does is dig into the latest research and so what you come you come on to joe's podcast and you're supposed to like people are supposed to believe

that you are the best person to because you say it's about the metronomy season you say it's about the totality of evidence we agree but you're suggesting is that people should listen to your interpretation of the evidence when you get things factually wrong people should make up their own minds you don't even need that you don't even know how to read the evidence that we that we have have provided and you don't even know how to read a basic forest plot and that is my point because you're not certified and you're not i i okay i'm again i'm not a specialist in nutrition like i would have liked to have bring my uh liked to have brought David, our chief science advisor, who knows a hundred times more about nutrition than I do. And you're coming on here telling people what to eat.

You said yourself you're not an expert in nutrition, and you don't know how to read the nutritional data. Let's talk about some of the claims. Okay, let's talk about protein. No, we're talking about the film. Let's talk about the protein. So is that fair, Joe? We should get to okay so can I just just so I understand your position and I'm sorry for getting worked up like that I feel like I'm like an attorney trying to

interrogate you but I feel like I spent a lot of time digging into research I had the research checked and checked and checked again I had the research checked to make sure that it was not cherry picking that it was reflective of the preponderance of evidence but who was checking it were they people who were not advocates of a whole food plant-based diet exclusively or were they people like because all of the experts in the film are people who are clearly aligned with this that perspective i interview them because they're aligned with the consensus and no and i and over half of the people in the film. I thought you just agreed that there is not a consensus that 100% plant-based diet is better than a diet that includes a lot of plants and some animal products. Yeah, correct.

So where were the experts that would represent that point of view? That it doesn't have to be 100% plant-based diet. I agree. It doesn't have to be 100 plant-based diet i agree it doesn't have to be 100 the film said plant-based diets we now i'll tell you why we only interviewed vegans for the athletes right the ones that actually spoke on on screen and arnold is not vegan he doesn't drink dairy he thinks it's for babies and he's cut down meat by 80 but all the people i mean you know uh nate is not 100 vegan he's on a largely plant-based diet eats a bit of uh seafood and a bit of stuff like that but all the people interviews yeah eggs as well so all the reason that we only put and by the way we did interview lauren cordain and rob wolf

and i can get to that as well if you want because the anthropologists laughed in their faces those are not the claims that they made you know we're i'm talking about scientists who published some of these the you know who are on the teams and publish the papers that i've shared yeah like like nutra rex who are funded by the industry and we can get no not new true that's disingenuous to claim that all of the research that that i've shared here is fun is industry okay but you want to we can't acknowledge your claim that like the recent study that just came out and we're getting off track but the recent study that just came out that said that red meat and processed meat is totally fine right like you really want to go with that like to me it feels like you don't have your finger on the pulse honestly i'm not trying to be rude i think you probably know a lot about your

field about that study well the neutral reg study the study that said that red meat... Yeah, it's a Nutri-Rex study. Okay. So in the Annals of Internal Medicine, the day before the film came out, six studies exonerating red meat and processed meat, all from the same company that are apparently giving recommendations. Well, guess what? Exponent and Nutri-Rex and companies like that are not the ones that give public recommendations

on what people should be eating, number one. Okay? And we talked about this in the film with Exponent. Nutri-Rex is like another Exponent. So if you look at their recommendations, first of all, Frank Hu, who is now the chair of Nutrition at Harvard, he took Walt Willett's place, said the panel's blanket recommendations that adults should continue their red meat consumption habits is highly irresponsible. Walter Willett said it's the most egregious abuse of data he's ever seen. And if you want to follow their recommendations, if you could put up slide 92. So they did the same thing in 2017 for the sugar industry. So there was a meta-analysis in the Annals of Internal...

When you say they, you mean the exact same company, Nutri-Rex? So Bradley Johnston is the director and co-founder of Nutri-Rex in the uh annals when you say they you mean the exact same so that well so it was so so bradley johnston is the director and co-founder of nutarex and the first author of the paper that we're talking about for red meat okay that just exonerated red meat apparently and processed meat so this is the same company says at the at present there seems to be no reliable evidence indicating that any of the recommended daily caloric thresholds for sugar intake are strongly associated with negative health effects so they did a meta-analysis saying that don't worry about your intake of sugar at all that was what their meta-analysis conclusion it came to and then two years later the day before the film came out and do you really think that's a coincidence

do you think that the so let me tell you something okay the of our email subscribers do you know the email address of the person that opens and views our emails the most it's from the beef checkoff program and they've been doing that since we started so they sign up for our mailing list they look at when the film is coming out and you don't you think it's a coincidence that the day before us the film comes out they release a paper exonerating red meat and cancer. And to the same study. So if you're going to buy into the Nutri-Rec study about red meat and cancer, then to be fair, you've also got to buy into their conclusions about sugar. Because they were paid.

I'll tell you who they were paid by. Okay. So financial support for that paper was funded by the technical it's now listen to this sounds great the technical committee on dietary carbohydrates of ilsi north america and isi is the international life sciences institute sounds pretty legit right so its members include coca cola hershey company pepsi company and red bull and a bunch of others folks looking out for your best interests there you go okay so it would be a problem if that was the only so do you know you just think you just you claimed all this recent study and i honestly again no disrespect you're busy with lots of

other things you run a successful business consulting people selling stuff i get you don't have the time you you weren't able to read a basic forest plot to look at statistical significance and confidence intervals okay i just don't think that you're the one to interpret the data. So the reason you don't have the... You haven't seen the hundreds of really respected scientists that have come out saying that this Nutri-Rex study... And by the way, there's an investigation into the annals of internal medicine because of this, for accepting this stuff from Nutri-Rex. But if you're going to accept the meta-analysis on red meat and on processed meat for cancer,

then you've also got to accept the 2017 study meta-analysis. If you accept the source. If you accept the source. They're both the same. It's the same Nutri-X. If the only meta-analysis that showed no association between red meat and heart disease or cancer, that would be highly problematic.

First, I'm talking about the one that you cited. You made out that this is like, okay. Second of all, I pointed out that industry-funded research is four to eight times more likely, right? Yeah, I agree. And going back to that dairy one, by the way, do you know that when they did their meta-analysis, they doubled and tripled and quadrupled up because when they looked when the the meta-analysis that analyzed the meta-analyses the multiple analysis included um the studies multiple times

you see what i'm saying yeah because they took it into account each time and so when the industry floods the scientific research with their funded studies, again, if they fund a study, it doesn't turn out. They're studying other studies and coming to the same conclusion and adding those on as if it's an additional study. Is that what you're saying? No. So, look, if the industry funds studies and it only decides – if you're in a beef industry or a dairy industry, are you going to put out studies that aren't in your favor? No. Right?

And you also – And they don't have to. You spin it. Are you going to put out studies that aren't in your favor? No, right? And you also... And they don't have to. You spin it. And so what you do is if you want to make saturated fat look okay,

or if you want to make cholesterol okay, you can switch things around the study to make it look good. If you want to look at eggs, for example, and I don't want to get... It could turn into a three-hour debate about cholesterol and saturated fat. But if you go from 10 eggs a week to 12 eggs a week, it doesn't raise your serum cholesterol. So that's how they did the study. But if you go from no eggs a week to 12 eggs a week, it doesn't raise your serum cholesterol. So that's how they did the study.

But if you go from no eggs a week to one egg a week, it does increase your – because there's something called the cholesterol plateau. So what the industry does is it tricks you. It does – But then when you look at eggs and outcomes like cardiovascular disease, you don't see – Well, you do. But we're getting off track. I was just making a point that industry-funded studies sway the results of the meta-analysis right and i think that's i think that's fair and it's done with the sugar industry and it's done with it was done with tobacco and

again i'm not comparing the the amount of increased risk of cancer from tobacco that was never a claim that was made it was the playbook that is used by the drug industry by the meat industry by the sugar you know by the sugar industry by the dairy industry, by the sugar, you know, by the sugar industry, by the dairy industry. So even though your film came out and these studies came out right before your film, it's kind of proving your point that this same company that tried to exonerate the sugar industry is also... Yeah, if you're going to accept that, if you're going to cite that as evidence... If you're going to cite that company...

Yeah, the fact, the reason I think, because like you said, you're so busy on many other things, is I just don't think that your fingers on the pulse. That was not the only study. I know it's not. I know it's not. There's many other meta-analyses, 2010, 15. We can look at them. Well, let's do that.

Okay. But can I just point out the one. Let's look at those studies. No, sure. But again, they're funded. They're including studies that are funded by industry. And so unless you can pass those out and say, is that really... So you're saying we can't rely on any study...

No, I didn't say that. That's the straw man. I said that you would really need to look at the way in which a study is designed to see if it was viable. And you also have to replicate the studies. You know, like studies have to be replicated. And so what I'm saying is, can I just finish the last point and then I'll let you show as many studies as you want? Because again, you can show as many studies as you want. You can't prove that you're not handpicking them to suit your bias. You are the one that quoted this study. It shows that your finger's not on the pulse because hundreds of like top scientists

have written letters or joined in the same letter to the annals of internal medicine asking for those studies to be retracted and there's now an investigation into the annals of internal medicine yet you are citing an investigation it doesn't prove nothing has been it doesn't prove anything but it shows i am i was aware of that controversy and and you can't but you can't even read forest plots it's not telling people what to eat the controversy is not surprising if red meat has been demonized for as long as it has been and then a study comes out which exonerates it it would be entirely expected that there would be controversy so and do you know who the that study was funded by um but can you

just pick up slide 93? Just to show that... Anyway, it's not just me saying this. I mean, the scientists who discredited the meat guidelines didn't report past food industry ties. Because remember, most people are listening. Scientists who discredited meat guidelines didn't report past food industry ties. The lead researcher, Bradley Cley c johnston said he was

not required to report his past relationship with a powerful industry trade group i don't know what that trade group is but if you scroll down well you can't say it was oh it's a slide i can tell you in the first one the sugar one it was that pepsi and all this stuff although they make a they make a non-profit with a fancy soundingsounding name, and then they back it all with industry funding. Same with the Meek study. That's why I don't understand why he'd use it. If you were being objective, you're saying, oh, there's other studies,

but why name this one as though it's got validity? So you feel like they concocted this study and released it right before your film, specifically to try to take some of the windows out? I think it's likely that it was tied into the film, but it doesn't matter whether it is. I'm showing that to

present that study as evidence when the consensus of the scientific researchers is against that study, that it's calling for an investigation, that has asked for it to be retracted. The co-author of the paper who's part of the paper um who's part of the leadership team at nutri-rex he's the advanced chancellor of dean and agriculture

and life sciences at texas a&m right texas a&m is partnered with the beef checkoff program right and as part of neighbors uh and this is also discussed in the new york times slide 94 and there's actually it goes a lot deeper than that. It actually goes back to Brazilian government. Let's see slide 94. Slide 94 is just talking about research group that discounted

risks of red meat has ties to program partly backed by beef industry. So anyway, so this doesn't necessarily mean what they're saying is incorrect. And this is where it gets slippery, right? Because if they found things that happen to be correct

and they release it, but they release it from a shitty company that has said things in the past. It's a shitty company that chose, and it handpicked which studies are included in the meta-analysis. Because you've had plenty of time to explain this. Yeah. To get to your point, Chris,

you agree with the conclusion of that study, and you think that the evidence points that there's many studies that point to the idea that red meat is not, in fact, the culprit. And the culprit is when you're looking at these epidemiology studies, that you're looking at the overall diet of these people and asking them, do they eat meat? You're not asking them what is the quality of the food they eat. Yeah, so I agree that conflicts of interest are a problem and i um and you know the the editorial that was published in annals alongside of this study said um this is sure to be controversial but it's based on the most comprehensive review of the evidence to date because that review is

inclusive those who seek to dispute it will be hard-pressed to find appropriate evidence. And who wrote that? The meta-analyses had studies covering millions of participants over 34 years. There are several other meta-analyses that have been done over the past few years. So I don't know the best way to show these

because I've got them in a Google Doc. So 2017, let's see if I can give you the title, Jamie, maybe you can Google it or something. Contemporary Review of the relationship between red meat consumption and cardiovascular risk. Quote from that study, the review concluded, quote, recent findings demonstrated that despite the presence of heme iron and carnitine, red meat does not significantly increase cardiovascular risk when it is assumed in recommended doses. You have 2014 meta-analysis of 13 studies. There it is. Again, this one, Jamie, is called Association Between Total Processed Red and White Mead association between total processed red and white meat consumption, all-cause cardiovascular

disease, heart disease, mortality. And this is a good example of what you were just saying, Joe. There was a slight increased association between red meat consumption and cardiovascular mortality. And then at the end, no significant associations observed between any type of meat and heart disease mortality. Results of the present meta-analysis indicate that processed meat consumption could increase mortality. These results should be interpreted with caution due

to the high heterogeneity observed in most of the analyses, as well as the possibility of residual confounding, meaning healthy user bias. Lippy, in a meta-analysis of 11 studies of red meat consumption and heart disease, concluded that, quote, the current literature data does not support the existence of a clear relationship between a large intake of red meat and increased risk of myocardial ischemia. And then this is one of the largest that was done. Let me give you the title of this, Jamie. Red and processed meat consumption and risk of incident coronary heart disease. That should bring it up. That's by Misha et al.

Conclusion, consumption of processed meat but not red meat is associated with higher incidence of heart disease and diabetes. So there's a bunch of meta-analyses that have been done over the years that reach the same conclusion. And we could, you know, look at the same, this is for heart disease, but there are also some for cancer. So it's not just that study. There are many others as well. There are many others.

And meta-analyses. And there are meta-analyses on the other side. So you can present studies here so that people listening. That's true. There are meta-analyses on the other side. So you can present studies here so that the people listening— That's true. There are meta-analyses on the other side. Right. And you can present the data for the people listening, and it appears like the preponderance evidence is that. But your guidelines for diet, they're not in alignment for saturated fat.

They're not in diet for cholesterol. They're not in diet for the amount of carbohydrates for normal people. They're not in line with the consensus for carbohydrates for athletes. I've said a range of carbohydrates could be appropriate for people. They're not in line with the consensus for carbohydrates for athletes. I've said a range of carbohydrates could be appropriate for people. What I'm saying is you are not in alignment with the scientific consensus.

And you claim that we cherry picked in the film, right? But you handpick studies to back up your bias. Not to mention that we've pointed out that the studies in those meta-analyses,

some of them are heavily funded by industry, not saying that you should throw all those out, but you don't have the wherewithal to assess the studies in the meta-analyses some of them are heavily funded by industry not saying that you should throw all those out but you don't have the wherewithal to assess the studies in the meta-analysis because you point out yourself you can't even read a forest plot so he reads conclusions right he reads conclusions in writing but has not looked at the actual data so you haven't been able to establish when i was like spent the first thousand hours

i would look at the whole paper and then i would look at each author and i would dig into each So you haven't been able to establish. When I spent the first thousand hours, I would look at the whole paper, and then I would look at each author, and I would dig into each author to see where their funding was from. And I'm telling you that the industry is funding studies to sway things in their favor. And you point, it shows that you don't have your finger on the pulse. There's no doubt about that.

Why didn't you point to those last time? Why did you point to an industry-funded study? I have pointed to those before. But in the last one, why point out in the Nutri-Rec study, you know, when it was clearly invalid, the scientists... Wait, wait, wait. Not clearly invalid. It wasn't representative of the scientific evidence.

They handpicked the studies that were including. They used a poor, they used a grade methodology. Do you know what the grade methodology is? I do. Okay. And it was, and do you think that's appropriate for assessing food rather than

pharmaceuticals? According to some nutrition organizations, it is. Including, well, very few. It's not a scientific consensus. So,

what is the National Academy of, let's see here. It just, basically they use the methodology that wasn't appropriate for looking at what they were looking at. It's just the same with the Siri Torino and the Chowdhury studies. What they were looking for could never have been found, the association between saturated fat and cholesterol levels.

It could never have been found based on the methodology that they used. But again, we still haven't got to protein and i you know we'll get to that let's let's go but wait a minute let's so so the it's absolutely true i've never claimed that there aren't studies correlating red meat with right so you show the ones that you're i never have claimed that and i've said those those studies are highly problematic for all of the reasons that we i've talked about on the last show and on previous shows healthy user bias problems with data collection food frequency questionnaires relative versus absolute risk confounding like uh you know not looking at physical activity and the biggest confounder of all, not looking at diet quality. So even though there are-

I'd love to go to diet quality because I know you like to use Matt Lalonde's work, which has never been published, which obviously was built in- What? I have not used Matt Lalonde's work in connection with diet quality. I'm talking about food patterns,

like healthy food pattern, eating healthy- In terms of nutrient density, which is a part of diet quality, you have referred to Matt Lalonde's work. I'm happy to talk about that. I'm still talking about the research on red meat being problematic because it doesn't consider the overall diet pattern right but again your views first of all you don't have the wherewithal to interpret the scientific evidence which is very clear that you don't understand forest plots there how can you be we you recognize that you have to look at the totality of evidence and you have to be able to dig in and look at where the things are pointing you yourself said i am not an expert in nutrition and you said and

again i'm not either and which i don't even know why we're sitting here having this discussion honestly like we should get some real experts in we could do that too and i can you know we can you can you can point on your side who you think the experts are and i'll point on our side who we think the experts are i mean i don't even like to say size really because to me it's not really my position like i think your position is a lot better than the standard american diet the opposition is really like the carnivores right well your position yeah that's the opposite your position though is in defense of your film yeah i'm defending the film and in response to his critique and how do you think i'm doing so far well with b12 it was a home run for sure

well i think there's lots of other other things but well the thing about we still haven't really shown whether or not there's evidence that see that's the problem with all this stuff when you're dealing with these epidemiology studies you it's it's so hard to figure out what's what i agree what what what are these people eating who are these people are they drinking are they doing drugs like what what what is the overall health quality based on i agree and that's why we look at how much of it is based on their diet so that's why we look at scientific... How much of it is based on their diet. And that's why we look at scientific consensus.

Could you just bring up slide one? Do you agree with him or you dispute what he's saying about scientific consensus? Would you agree that you're not in line with the scientific consensus? My general dietary recommendations? Yeah. Probably. Some aspects of it, but not all aspects. But generally, I i mean come on

i don't think that's what do you think the scientific consensus chris what do you think the scientific consensus is when it comes to dietary recommendations uh well it's changed a little bit in the past few years definitely was low fat although that is changing a little bit i agree some recognition of different fats, different, you know, may have different effects, et cetera. Right. But let him, and I'm sure. Would be limiting red meat, would be limiting saturated fat, limiting cholesterol, eating

a lot of plants and whole foods, limiting, you limiting sugar and refined science this is a scientific incentive but hold on please what is that based on what do you think that's based on that's based on you know mostly observational research and then some mechanistic studies and some rcts but even rcts if you comparing, again, like some of the studies that are cited, for example, in David Goldman's papers, they're comparing a standard American diet with a plant-based diet. So in a crossover trial, randomized trial, that's not comparing apples to apples. But anyways, to get back to your question, I would say about half of what I recommend is consistent. If we use the factors that I just said, eating whole foods and not eating processed and refined foods, limiting sugar, all of that, the areas where I differ are red meat, saturated but not always i think they're that's individual and depends on how people actually respond to saturated fats yeah um and eggs and uh

total fat content depending on legumes and grains i think they're they can be part of a healthy diet if they're well tolerated. And you do think that the research has shown a whole food plant-based diet versus standard American diet, people are getting improvements on that? Yeah. I think everybody assumes standard American diet. Some people I've found don't do well with grains and legumes, especially people with digestive issues. So for them them maybe not but i don't i've never argued well that uh grains and legumes are you know like i'm not a paleo strict paleo kind of advocate and you pointed out last time um i think it was ronda patrick that talked about it too obviously i watch your

podcast and um you know you pointed out about these hormetic stressors that we talked about earlier and so you know there's people that are talking about anti-nutrients in food they really don't know what they're talking about right because they don't know what they're talking about and yeah it's it's a really common thing and they're basically look the landscape of food is enormous the landscape of dietary requirements and of of health it's enormous and you know just you talking about spending thousands and thousands of hours combing over this research can attest to that yeah and chris i think you can as well i mean we're this is a very complicated issue and there's a certain amount of bio of bio variability different

people have different physical requirements different nutritional requirements but i think we're trying to zoom in on what is actually bad for you and what is actually good for you. I think we agree on. I think we all agree. Everyone here agrees that you basically need a certain amount of vegetables in your diet. You need vitamins, whether you can get those vitamins from supplements like B12 supplements or whether you can get it from the actual food that you eat. There's certain dietary requirements that I think we're all in agreement on. I think where we disagree on is whether or not red meat is bad for you and what kind of red meat we're talking about and why you know why is it bad and what what is it bad when it sits

alone or is it bad when you're eating it with vegetables which is what we're recommending in the first place so if we're recommending that you eat it with vegetables and these vegetables do have the sort of balancing effect of the negative aspects or the perceived negative aspects even though there's no evidence that those negative aspects when eaten by itself because we don't really have long-term studies on carnivore diet people so we i think mostly we're in agreement here you're you're defending your film well rightly so i mean i think there's a bunch of claims that were untrue well clearly you've proven with the b12 issue that he said some things that made you look like you were saying things that were inaccurate and uninformed and he's done that with a bunch of other things

too though okay and so he did it with protein let's go to protein before we get to that can i just show what the consensus actually is on on diet yes okay so can you just bring up slide one and i mentioned this earlier but i didn't show it um so so the world health organization recommends that people eat a nutritious diet based on a variety of foods originating mainly from plants rather than animals which you said you could agree with, right? Because it's like not vegan necessarily, like mainly from plants. Yeah, I mean the proportions are a question mark there depending on – And then the – actually slide three would be the FAO, the Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations.

Appropriately Planned Vegetarian Including Vegan – This is is fine this is academy of nutrition dietetics okay appropriately appropriately planned vegetarian including vegan diets are healthful nutritionally adequate and may provide health benefits for the prevention and treatment of certain diseases that's a weird the appropriately planned is a weird way of phrasing what it is and it's also a little bit unfair because it's sort of it's sort of um it sort of says, like, if you eat an omnivorous diet, it doesn't need to be appropriately planned. Eat whatever the hell you want. Yeah, that's a good point. These diets are appropriate

for all stages of the life cycle, including pregnancy, lactation, infancy, childhood, adolescence, older adulthood, and for athletes. So these women that you hear that are getting arrested because their babies are malnourished because they're following a vegan diet appropriately planned is the key

phrase. I said that at the beginning of the show. I acknowledge that there are very healthy high performing vegans people on plant based diets if they do it right. And if someone were to take your advice

would they have to do that right and plan that or would it just be like i think everybody agrees that you have to plan out your diet if you want to exercise properly you gotta have a plan you gotta if you want to eat properly you gotta have a plan right you gotta plan to go to the grocery store you gotta plan to get the right food there are some nutrients that are of you know potentially bigger concern i think on vegan vegetarian happy to get into that can we just show two more slides on the performance of evidence so uh slide three completely agree with appropriately planned okay good so we recognize that if you as long as you plan it well you have b12 you get a wide variety of foods okay uh this is the same one no no the slide after

that i meant for omnivores too like here we go we want people to be thinking about what they're eating totally and we agree that most people are eating a bunch of crap so here we go the academy of nutrition and dietetics the american heart association and the 2015 and 2020 dietary guidelines for americans recommend appropriately planned vegetarian diets for improved health that that's a statement by frank who is the current chair of nutrition at Harvard looking at plant-based diets and cardiovascular health. And then slide two is the FAO. Sorry, I got the slides in the wrong order. It's the FAO. I don't know what messed up with the... It doesn't look like that on my page. Anyway, households should select predominantly plant-based

diets rich in a variety of vegetables and fruits, pulses and legumes, which again, a lot of people on the paleo diet would say is useless, and minimally processed starchy staple foods, the evidence that such diets will prevent or delay a significant proportion of non-communicable chronic diseases is consistent. So all I'm pointing out here is that you're not in line with the consensus of science and that you don't have the ability to read the papers that's all i'm pointing out i'm in line with pretty much everything that has been shown just just then the there's only one of only one of the paragraphs that you mentioned even mentioned animal products and one and it didn't recommend excluding them entirely so so you would point out that one you agree that

predominantly plant-based is the way to go, and that as long as you plan it appropriately, vegan diets can be helpful. Yes, I agree. I said as much that vegan diets can be helpful on the first show if they're appropriately planned. And I don't know, you know, predominantly plant-based, again, if we look at the plate and we see mostly plants there and then animal products, then yes. But that's a bit disingenuous. If we're talking about by calories, I don't, you know.

So do you agree by calories then? No. Okay. So you're not in alignment with the scientific consensus again though? I'm not in alignment with that consensus. So it's not on the predominantly getting your calories from plants which is the scientific consensus.

You're not with saturated fat and cholesterol and a bunch of other things, heme iron. But anyway, so can we get a protein because we're really here to defend his critiques of

the film. Because, you know, honestly, I've got people that watch the film, change their diet, started feeling better, watch this podcast where he debunks the film and

then called me a lot, you know, like write me a message on Instagram saying you are full of shit you shouldn't read comments it was actually it was an you know it was an instagram like a message don't read that anyway but anyway i'm just saying like it's a shame that you have someone that doesn't really have the capability to really understand the literature coming on here and people buying into it talking smack on the film where you met he made a bunch of factually wrong comments so i think let's talk about let's get into protein for sure and again i like i'm not even the one that's qualified like if i'm beating him on some

arguments like what do you think you would get if you had a real nutrition expert in here like i'm not qualified to do this i would like to see it okay so can i just your concerns with the protein and just make sure i'm understanding your argument protein quantity and protein quality and within protein quality it would be the amino acid profile and the digestibility is that fair those are your issues with those are the considerations okay protein important we're on the same page for what we're discussing, right? So I just don't know where you… And again, not saying that it's not possible to get enough protein quantity and quality and mix of amino acids in if you're really on it.

Right. But it's well-planned, just like if any other diet was well planned i think it's less it's less likely that you'll get protein right on a completely vegan diet without yeah i agree that it is on a diet that contains animal protein it's more complicated uh it's not it's not more complicated what it is is if you just you don't know yeah if you don't know what you're doing and you've been eating a certain way for 30 years

and you suddenly take your meat off the plate and you only eat what was left on the plate you're going to have a problem yeah it's more complicated right exactly

that's why we put resources on our website the level of knowledge and understanding about that is pretty low in my experience right no I agree

that's why we put I agree I agree I think people need more resources to make better informed decisions about their health about their exercise and so on I agree. That's why we put... I agree. I agree. I think people need more resources to make better informed decisions about their health, about their exercise, and so on. I agree.

What's your position on what he said about protein? Okay, so I'm just quoting you from last time. Man, you really put me through a lot of hours of extra work. Now it's gone from like 3,000 to like 3,100, you know? Anyway, so there was just so much wrong with what you said that i just had to go into every single topic but anyway so three ounces of you said three ounces of 90 lean ground beef do you think that animal fat is not good for you because all of a sudden now chris is a that's not what he's saying he's's talking about protein content. What was the statement in the film?

Lean ground beef, meaning that for protein content. No, no, no, no. The statement in the film was. I think that's the most common. No, it's not actually. It's not actually not. It's 80, anywhere from grass fed beef, which is what I advocate. Okay, great.

That's generally leaner. Okay, great. But he was specifically talking about protein content. No, I know. That's what we're going to go into. Right. Okay. That's generally leaner. Okay, great. But he was specifically talking about protein content. No, I know. That's what we're going to go into. Right. Okay. So listen to lean ground beef. Okay. So, but basically what I had said, and I might be, I can't remember the exact words that I said, but, um, no, I pretty much do because I'd recorded it a number of times. So, um, one cup of cooked lentils or a peanut butter sandwich has about as much protein as three ounces of beef or three large eggs. That was what I said. I might be off on a word,

but that was what I said. I said about as much protein. Okay. So you go on to say three ounces of 90% lean ground beef. Well, already what you did is you picked leaner beef, but you know, even though you don't advocate for that, you, you, you don't think the animal fat is bad. So what you did is you picked the leanest beef. Anyway, you say it has 24 grams of protein. I'm not sure what your source is. But he does advocate for grass-fed beef. Grass-fed beef is leaner.

So if he's talking about what he does advocate for, that does make sense. It's three ounces of ground lean meat. Okay, but the thing is, the point in the film was that most people… You weren't saying that. Most people, yeah, exactly. So you were saying… I'm defending what we point in the film was that most people weren't saying that most people yeah exactly you were saying i'm defending what we said in the film right so you were saying regular standard american ground beef has about as much like it's about what we're trying to point the point of this thing was not to say this is the best foods to eat it was just say like you're making a comparison the regular stuff that you eat like a peanut butter sandwich people think

no protein at all right they think you know people think that plants have no protein the first question you get asked well where do you get your protein right so i said it's got about as much protein so you say then oh and by the way i'd listen to your 30 minute podcast trying to take down the film which came out before uh you came on on joe's podcast and you said that you and you sort of backed this up i don't know this happened from one article, and it got spread and spread and spread, that someone said, you need five tablespoons of peanut butter to get the same amount of protein. In what world does someone, and you changed your tune a little bit when you came on the podcast, but when I make a peanut butter sandwich, I use bread, two pieces of bread.

You would use two pieces of bread and a peanut butter sandwich? I think that's what a sandwich by definition right it's pretty much okay so what you did on your podcast you admit that a tablespoon of peanut butter is four grams right okay and what is uh four times five 20 right and and then by per USDA, how much is one piece of whole wheat bread? Four or five, depending on the source you look at. I agree. How many pieces of bread? Two? Yeah. Okay. So five grams of protein in bread. The one that I actually have at home is six grams, but let's take USDA.

Okay. So five plus five is? Ten. Plus 20 from the peanut butter is? 30. Well, even on the leanest beef that you chose, it was 24 grams. Why did you say you needed five tablespoons of peanut butter? And I know how it came about. Because I think what you do is you take other people's work like Denise Minger and all these other people, you read their articles, and you take their arguments, because some of the stuff that you have on your site is very reflective of people's other arguments on

other sites. So there was something that started where people started saying you need five tablespoons of peanut butter. And in the first article, it said without the bread. Now, I don't know why you don't include bread when you make a sandwich because I mean, most people do. It's not just peanut butter. And I almost bought a peanut butter sandwich in here today to show you what two tablespoons of peanut butter looks like, or two and a half. Because the one I had, I looked at it, and it was surprising, like,

when you actually measure a real tablespoon, it's actually not that much peanut butter. And, like, so mine, I figured out, has about, like, two and a half tablespoons and two pieces of bread. My bread has, like, six grams. So my peanut butter sandwich had, like, 22 grams of protein. Anyway, so...

White bread would be more like two or three grams. Yeah, but again like we showed a piece of whole wheat bread on there we're advocating eating mostly whole foods that's a whole grain no one is saying we even said in the film you know if we wanted cherry pick we just try and push plants we said white sugar and flat white flour bad for you associated with weight gain like carbohydrates from whole food sources are associated with uh better lean body mass lower body fat percentage and everything else but anyway so i don't understand your math what i think you did is you took that article because articles that spread from that article forgot to put the

bit in parentheses about without the two pieces of bread so you take five tablespoons of peanut butter at four grams a piece that's 20 grams right which is around what pieces of bread 10 grams so why did 24 grams of your hand-picked um lean beef which you don't even necessarily like there's no reason that you should be picking that when that's not what we showed in the film why are you comparing 24 grams to 30 grams why didn't you say four tablespoons of peanut butter fair enough fair enough got it wrong again okay so this is what it's frustrating when i watch the show because like every five minutes i'm hearing something that's just factually incorrect well that's why i'm here that's why i'm here now again appreciate to both of you so can we just look at actual the breakdown of all these different uh things so again the peanut butter sandwich

has 22 grams but that's maybe a little bit more than the other argument was the quality of the protein we'll get to that but quantity first so if you go to bread uh on slide five i don't need to do this you've agreed you've agreed right okay so and lentils if you want to do slide eight oh no no sorry what you haven't agreed on is i'm going to say two tablespoons of peanut butter and two pieces of bread okay fair? Fair enough? Say, for what? I'm just going to say, like, the comparison, roughly. I mean, you can put a bit more peanut butter if you want.

Yeah, I'm just going to show it. Three tablespoons. So can you just... Three and a half tablespoons of peanut butter and two pieces of bread. No, no, no. I'm going to show you how... 24, 25. I'm going to show you...

I'm going to back up what I said in the film. So let's just go through the slides quickly, if that's OK. So slide five. And apologies to all the listeners who don't get to see my slides. Tell them to go to YouTube. Yeah. Here we go. So this is USDA.

So I don't know where you get the numbers from, but I went to the USDA site. Unfortunately, it changed in October. So it's not quite the same as when we were making the film. But anyway, one slice of bread, five grams of protein and you accepted that right okay good uh the peanut butter two tablespoons eight grams you accepted that you expect that um two tablespoons of peanut butter has eight grams yeah okay we could have more i have like more but whatever okay there we go so you agree that 18 grams of protein for the peanut butter that's the sandwich we showed in the film whole wheat bread peanut butter okay so the next slide

um and again i'm being very conservative on this like in the amounts so now we look at lentils one cup 17.9 grams of protein that is usda again would you accept that yeah i haven't looked at this but i mean it's, it's like, yeah. On the left side, one cup... I accept USDA as an absolutely good source. Okay, good. But you accept USDA when it comes to this, but not in terms of the recommendations? We're talking about...

Yeah, if we're talking about quantity of... Okay, cool. So we're on the same page. This is something that's been clearly measured. This is not something like recommendations. No, okay, sure. But we're on the same page. We is something that's been clearly measured. This is not something like recommendations. No, okay, sure. But we're on the same page. We're taking this as a source.

Okay. So now if we go to slide nine. Sorry, the one that you just had. The one with the eggs, Jamie. Yeah, yeah, yeah. There we go. So three eggs, 18 grams of protein. Would you say so far we've got about as much protein

in the peanut butter sandwich with two tablespoons not the five that you claim it's less I mean 18 is not 24 no no no I'm getting to the beef I'm saying so far

what I have presented just the two tablespoons of peanut butter and it's came to 18 I was really conservative right I could have put more peanut butter I could have had bread

that had more like the one, I don't want to name the brand, but it's like six grams. But you'd admit that you can get bread that's got six grams of protein. Sure. Okay.

So I'm being really conservative just to sort of prove a point. But so far, we've had a peanut butter sandwich with only two tablespoons of peanut butter. And seriously, try that at home, Joe. Like actually measure it with a measuring tape.

Yeah, well, I talked about it in the podcast. I would probably have about five. Okay, so anyway, I probably would too. Three large eggs. Three large eggs. Okay, so now we go to organic. This is organic ground beef. Standard organic ground beef.

Three ounces. So three ounces is 17.5 grams. If you want to get into it we can get into like because it's per 100 grams so i can if you what's the fat percentage uh 9.2 grams so it's half no no no sorry it's 9.2 grams per 100 grams so we had to do the calculation oh but that okay but this is the regular organic ground beef if you go in the neighborhood of and then what to be fair because i knew you'd bring up a grass-fed beef so that i found the lowest and the highest okay okay so go to grass-fed beef

slide 11 three ounces this is on the very low end so this would probably be the fattiest meat but you wouldn't be against uh animal fat right not typically depends on the very low end. So this would probably be the fattiest meat. But you wouldn't be against animal fat, right? Not typically. It depends on the person and their situation. But we're just talking about protein here anyway. So lowest, 14.4. On the highest end, I actually think my number, 18 grams.

Okay, so peanut butter sandwich, 18 grams. Lentils, 17.9. Can we round that up? Yeah. Three eggs, 18 grams. Lentils, 17.9. Can we round that up? Yeah. Three eggs, 18 grams. Okay. Three ounces of beef, 18 grams at best. Right, when I looked up grass-fed beef.

So it's essentially saying exactly what you said. I'm not saying if you go 90% lean, you can have more protein. No doubt. So you can find protein that's got higher i said about i was trying to show that dispel the myth that you you know plants have no protein and animal foods have all this protein so i've just shown you there now your second point was that the problem with um his second point was the problem with a peanut butter sandwich to get 18 grams of protein I think this is a fair point you would have to eat 410 calories right so if you go

to slide it was actually the more important point because I'm not necessarily you know that may not be a problem for somebody who's training no no no but I just want to do this but protein no I know quantity so can we finish quantity Can we finish quantity first? So can you bring up slide 15? So you'd admit that you can get a decent amount of protein. Your argument was you can get percentage.

So slide 15, the lentils for 18 grams of protein. Again, if you want to check this calculation and stop at any time, I'm fine. I have had this triple checked. Okay, 18 grams of protein 231 calories okay because you like point i love that people like to point out the beef and then the

peanut butter sandwich and try and compare those even though we were right on the protein now you're trying to pick on the calories so you didn't pick the lentils which have 231 calories uh the next one uh slide 16 has which is about the same for beef which is about 210 calories grass-fed beef in the first instance um grass-fed beef in the first in slide 17 275 calories and that was on the the one that wasn't so lean, and 70% lean beef. And I'm just pointing out there's different ranges. 417 calories for 18 grams of protein, right? So fatty meat, which you don't think fat,

like the animal fat is bad, right? No. Okay. So 700 calories. Again, it depends on the person. He's talking about the protein percentage. There was less in my peanut, like there was more protein percentage-wise in my peanut butter sandwich

than there was in the green beef. And then the the last no not the last one yeah we could have picked something with less calories so if we pick tempeh for example slide 19 um 170 calories so again would you say but i think his argument was no the the argument was the quality of the protein no no no no there was two arguments part yeah the part of the protein. No, no, no, no, no. There was two arguments. Yeah, the part of it was you would have to consume more calories. Okay, but just before,

can I just prove it at one point? Yeah. So the first part was you can't, like there's nowhere near as much protein. And then there was like, oh, it's based on the calories. So the percentage of protein isn't good. You would have to have more calories

to get the same amount of protein. Which is not true. You don't have to. You don't have to. Okay, so we made a mistake again. That was not a central part of my argument it was a part of it though quality yeah it was quantity and quality and the quantity was broken down to two things you just can't get as much for like you just can't get as much in that serving they're totally wrong you'd have to have five tablespoons of peanut butter totally wrong agree agree that

you don't have to have five tablespoons right thank you okay and then you also said that you don't have to have five tablespoons. Right. Thank you. Okay. And then you also said that you'd have to have so many calories that you couldn't get it, and you were wrong again. Agree? For the peanut butter sandwich or just in general? Just in general, from plant foods. Oh, yeah. I agree that you don't need to have 600 calories of lentils to get that much protein. So can we get slide 20, sweet potato and leek omelette from Chris's site, where the protein is

coming. So this is from your site, 18 grams of protein, 410 calories. The funny thing is I typed in recipes, and I think this was either the first or second that came up. All I do is pick the first two high protein recipes from your site, because I didn't pick the soup or the salad, because that would be unfair, so I picked the first couple. So sweet potato

and leek omelette, the protein coming from eggs, 18 grams of protein, 410 calories. Do you have an issue with your own meal? No. So do you have an issue with the peanut butter sandwich having 410 calories? No. Okay, second one. Like I said, that wasn't central to my point. There was a secondary argument. It secondary argument to get the same quantity which is not which is not which you just admit that it's not quality which is the ds score we'll get to the ds score in a minute and i will show that you were wrong again so taro and bacon hash slide 21 18 grams of protein 570 calories if you want to go to your breakfast of champions which i thought you know for athletes athletes, slide 22.

And by the way, I took your data. I didn't take USDA. I assumed that you were not lying. So I took the totals from the bottom, but I standardized it for 18 grams of protein because we're just comparing everything percentage-wise. 688 calories. Do you think that people should not eat that meal? It depends on who you're talking about, but no. It's low protein. It's low protein, right? I don't think that people shouldn but no it's low it's low protein it's low protein right

i don't think that people shouldn't eat it and we're talking is it low protein uh relatively you can't rely on that for your protein right so first of all it's low protein by like most people's standards but your standards of protein are much higher so that would be far off so that would mean to make up for the rest of the day you would have to have meals that were like almost just protein or maybe they'd have to buy the protein powder from your website in order to make that up anyway so let's move on to now the by the way slide 23 largest study ever done comparing uh completely plant-based eaters with um like uh studies showing plant eaters versus meat eaters. 75 grams a day?

That was the average. Aren't you supposed to have one gram per pound of body weight? No. That's at the upper end for athletes. Okay. It's 0.8 grams. This is how much they were actually getting, the largest study ever done comparing plant-based eaters.

So you can see it's about the same. And actually, per pound of lean body mass fat-free mass the vegans were getting slightly more because they had better uh body mass index they were slightly leaner but anyway just want to say it's roughly similar so your next argument was that athletes need more protein it's like right but no it wasn't an argument because you admitted that i pointed it out in the show yeah so if you go to slide 20 i know uh 24 i just want to point and point about the amount that we're actually requiring we're going into the amount now we're still we're in um yeah we're in amount for athletes because because his point is like maybe you can get enough

to survive but not to be an athlete so i'm going to look at i don't think that was his point i think his point was that there's a different requirement no no no no no for athletes yeah there's a different requirement just to survive. We weren't arguing on this point. Your point is you need more. His recommendations, though, what he does is he pushes them to a really high end that isn't consensus, trying to make it out that it would be harder to get, which we've already shown you can get enough protein. Of course, an athlete eats more calories.

Therefore, they get more protein as a percentage. So I just wanted to show two positions on this. And then we can see if you, again, you don't agree with the consensus of science. So this is the joint position paper of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics, the Dietitians of Canada and the American College of Sports Medicine. So this is for athletes. Okay. This is just one. I'm going to show you another in a second. Do you want to read it out, Joe? Because you might get bored of my voice. Current data suggests that dietary protein intake necessary to support metabolic adaptation, repair, remodeling, and for protein turnover generally ranges from 1.2 to 2.0 grams or kilograms per day. Okay. And then the next slide, Jamie, if you could bring up slide 25.

I agree with that and have it in my notes. Yeah, okay. I just want to make sure we're on the same page. Okay. Protein supplementation beyond a total daily protein intake of 1.2 grams, kilograms a day. Wait, wait, wait. Is it the wrong one? Where are you reading that?

From the big square. You said 1.2. No, I said 1.6. Didn't I? Okay. No, you said 1.2 to 2 grams you read the thing from the last thing

how did I do that did I really do that that's pretty genius that doesn't make any sense okay this is what was in front of me right can you read it again yeah

oh okay I thought I read 1.6 I didn't that's what you heard you read 1.6 oh maybe I thought you said 1.2 to 2 no worries

either way no worries protein supplementation beyond a total daily protein intake of 1.6 uh the squiggle means about oh okay about 1.6 grams kilograms a day during ret that's resistance exercise training provided no further benefit on gains in muscle mass or strength and these are like really highly um and and if you look at the and i I'm not going to stick to 1.6. So a gram per kilogram, a kilogram is two pounds of body weight.

2.2. 2.2, so we're 1.6 grams, so it's less than one gram. It's 0.727272 grams per pound, if you want to. So you're looking at about three quarters of a gram per pound recommended. Anything over that provided no gains. Yeah, but I want to clarify. So you can see the two-phase breakpoint analysis on the top right, this chart. Yes.

Okay, so you can see as the chart goes up and then it flattens out, there was no further gains in fat-free mass, which is the y-axis, after 1.6. However, there's something called a confidence interval, like how confident are they that these findings are correct? And it was a very wide confidence interval. it actually took it there was six grams either side so it was actually up to 2.2 and down as low as one so it's one to 2.2 the other one the academy nutrition nutrition and dietetics and the academy of sportsman is 1.2 to 2 so the widest range is one to 2.2 so some so you think that this like recommendation that's a standard

thing that you hear in a gym one gram per pound of body it's probably just no that's legit that's that's legit at the upper end so 2.2 grams on the upper end the 2.2 grams per uh uh per kilogram of body weight per day is one gram per pound of body weight so no doubt and this is what you're talking about certain athletes like bodybuilders strength athletes when the confidence interval means to apply to everybody some people could actually build optimum and this is about optimally building muscle as fast as possible right uh and some people could do it at one gram some people might 2.2 but like regularly it looked like 1.6 1.8 like the scientific consensus is that and you said that you agree with these ranges of the scientific consensus and there's some evidence suggesting that higher

amounts may be beneficial so if you go to uh jamie if you search for examine.com how much protein do you need there's an article there and examine.com is a do you know about about them so i know that you're on a panel of scientists or a group of scientists. A group of scientists, right. Not the American College of Sports Medicine. It's Canadian, right? Indicator amino acid oxidation method, which is newer. If you scroll down, Jamie, to the optimal daily protein intake for athletes and similarly active adults,

or if you just click on that, you see in that paragraph, IAO studies in athletes found different numbers because four of the 49 studies in the meta-analysis that had that range, lower range, were conducted in people with with resistance training experience the other 45 were newbies iao studies found different numbers female athletes required 1.4 to 1.7 uh male endurance 2.1 to 2.7 amateur male bodybuilders but this seems the same it says the average amount of protein he's probably gonna get some higher one maximize lean mass is about 1.6 grams per kilogram. It's the same exact measurement. We don't even need to argue it.

It's totally accepted in the sports world, whatever. It also says some people need upwards of 2.2 grams per kilogram for those interested in comprehensive breakdown. It provides another link. I don't think we're far off. We're not far off on this. it provides another link so we're in the range we're not far off on this it says regular trainings male endurance athletes require 2.1 to 2.7 grams per kilogram so that's the high range yeah and so and you could you did say something about 2.3 to 3.3 in one in remembering one study you pointed out that was just doesn't actually help you build more

muscle mass but if you're trying to lean out yeah and also i think some of the studies that you've looked at that look at um like there's one at 2.3 i've actually got it on my computer i don't have in my slides but there's one at 2.1 to 3.3 you've got a mo there's two things about that one it's when you're in a caloric deficit because of gluconeogenesis you pull some of the protein and you create you know you use some of the energy so there's less protein less for building so if you're a bodybuilder cutting for competition trying to get down to like four or five percent then your protein requirements go up above that's the normal range because you're basically using so you're in caloric deficit you're using something for fuel

and that's also the case with those carnivore people and a lot of keto people as well right yeah and they probably adapt some because like in normal people you can actually only during exercise you can only get 10 of your energy from uh the oxidation of protein into glucose but so the um where are we going so the but the 2.3 to 3.1 by the way it's one in caloric deficit and it's two based on fat-free mass qualifications it's not based on total body weight which is what all the recommendations are on so the the 2.3 to 3.1 in some of these studies, if you did like, okay, if someone was 15% body fat, it would bring it down. It wouldn't be 2.3 to 3.1. It's 3.1 based on the lean body mass.

So if you're 200 pounds and you've got 20% body fat, you only weigh 160 pounds for this calculation. Got it. Anyway, where we are. So you like to talk about the IAO in terms of these recommendations. And if you look at slide 102, Jamie, how am I doing, by the way, defending the film? Excellent. You're really doing really well.

Good. Not bad for a dumb old UFC fighter, right? You're not that old. 41. Going great. I just thought, look what I did. Look what I did to the top of my head this morning. I cut it.

I just started, the last couple of months, I started shaving it with it. How much protein can the body use in a single meal for muscle building implications for daily protein distribution showed upward of uh c1 of 2.2 grams per kilograms a day in cohort of young male bodybuilders although the method of assessment indicator uh amino acid oxidation technique used in this study has not received universal acceptance for determining optimal protein requirements. So it's in that same range.

So I'm not, yeah, but I'm, what I'm, a couple of things. I'm not trying to point out that your IO is off. I'm saying if you want to take your IO, uh,

the indicator amino acid oxidation index, if you want to use that, then the upper confidence is still 2.2. So the scientific consensus, I just want to to make it very clear that you threw out a bunch of these numbers on high protein, making out that vegans couldn't hit that level. First of all, I've shown that foods can get that.

I've shown that vegans can get sufficient protein. And I've shown the levels, the scientific consensus on the protein ranges for athletes are not in scientific consensus with these 3.3. But even if they were, there's no reason you couldn't get it on a plant-based diet. I didn't argue that everyone should be eating 3.3 grams. No, but you did argue, you made out that vegans couldn't get enough protein and you were wrong.

I didn't say they couldn't get enough. I said that it's less likely that they will get enough. No, but it's not though. If they eat like some of those recipes on your website, they'll be getting less. So you're being disingenuous, Chris. The first recipe was sweet potatoes, right? Was it? No, it had eggs in it. The second one. No, it was a sweet potato and leek omelet.

It was a taro and bacon hash. And then it was breakfast of champions with milk, yogurt, and eggs. So all I'm saying is people that watched the last episode where he was bashing the film people walked away thinking you can't get enough protein and then they thought the quality is not good enough and now we can get into that let's get into that let's get into that because this is the crux of it right yes it's like you can get all these amino acid content of protein first of all b12 is an argument smash that protein is the next argument i've just smashed the protein quantity argument and now we'll get into the i've just smashed the protein quantity argument and now we'll

get into the quality we certainly smash the protein quantity versus caloric uh intake right and so it's fair to say is it fair to say that based on what i've presented you can get about as much protein from the things that i said well based on what you presented you haven't lost an argument yet there's not one thing that you've said that's incorrect. And I even agree. If you're going to eat some meat, it should be some elk that you went and hunted yourself. So let's get into the amino acid content. Love this.

I was like really like researching for this. I really enjoyed it because there were so many flaws that I was just like, I love, I was a truth seeker, right? So I went for the search for the truth in combat. You know, Bruce Lee would say, research your own experience, absorb what is useful, reject what is useless, add what is specifically your own. I don't care about all the George Dillman, you know, BS about you can knock people out. I don't care about that. I don't care about all these traditional styles of martial arts. I care about what is the truth. Before I did this, you know, I thought, oh yeah, paleo diet makes sense. I actually switched to grass-fed beef because the omega-6

made a three ratios. I started eating air-chilled chicken, but then I read the research and I wasn't biased by like anything other than finding out the truth between the optimal diet for health and athletic performance and recovery in my injuries. And that is the truth. And that is what I have done. And now we're going to expose how you were incorrect about the protein quality. So you said, what's a little disingenuous about the film, they said every plant has every amino acid. Well, yeah, nobody disagrees with that. But it does have, does it have enough of each of them? Well, first of all, people do disagree with that. Like if you want to search, does, you know, plants have missing amino acids, people think that it's missing some of the 9-Zentral amino acids. So that's why we put that in the film. Okay. And we did, and I said, you left off part of my quote. I said, every plant

has every amino acid. That's what you said. But you left off the end of my quote, which said, every plant has every amino acid in varying proportions. That is what I said. And you left out the invariant proportions, which again, I think is disingenuous. He did not complete my quote. You handpicked part of my quote to represent your view. So people, number one, do think that plants are completely, a lot of people think just like, you know, that people, there's articles saying, well, no one thinks that protein gives them energy. I've got five studies here, the only five studies that I could find, on the knowledge of collegiate athletes. And around 50% in each of the studies think that protein is what gives you energy.

So people were saying, like, why did you put that in the film? That's a straw man. People don't think that protein gives you energy. About 50% of collegiate athletes think that protein gives you energy. That's why I addressed it in the film. Anyway, back to, you like the DIAAS, digestible indispensable amino acid score or the pdcaas which preceded it yeah either of those right so can you can you just mention um why you like it and you know what the benefits are and how it's determined. How is it determined? So the

DAAAS takes into consideration amino acid profile and bioavailability. Okay, and how is it studied? The DAAAS did not take into consideration bioavailability. Right, it looks at crude protein, it looks at the total amount of protein absorption, not the individual amino acids, because

different individual amino acids absorb differently. So that was one of the benefits of the ds scoring we call it ds and pdcas or whatever so but how is it determined chris do you know how it's determined the ds yeah i don't know the details so i'm sorry i'm sorry it's like it's just it's like it's almost like comedy that someone is talking about these systems that does not know how okay so slide 27 and i'll tell you one of the benefits of the dias so and i think you might have mentioned this so i think you might know more than you're um letting on so one of the benefits is the oro ileal digestibility so the pdcas right that took the whole digestive tract to what came out of the end are we looking at here so look at this so this is how the dias is um brought about so basically past the ileum

you can't digest your body doesn't absorb the protein really it's digested by the bacteria right so this is one of the benefits of the dias versus the pdcas right the old system is that they saw how much protein went through the whole digestive tract, but that wasn't reasonable, right? Because past the ileum, you're not digesting the protein, the bacteria digesting it, and you're not getting it.

Does that make sense? Yes. So basically they put a paw in the pig. Now PDC-AAS was mostly in rats and this is done in rats and there's some in humans, but it's mostly done in pigs because it's a more similar digestibility to humans.

And they're basically assessing how much of that protein was absorbed, right, and how much of the amino acids were absorbed. Now, some people make the argument, even the FAO point out the flaws. Some people make the argument, well, pigs have a different digestibility rate, which is true, and they have a different amino acid profile requirement. Different. So some people would say, therefore, DAS, bunch of crap, right? I'm not going to make that argument. Even though it's testing in animals primarily, not in humans, they've got a different amino acid requirement and different digestibility capability. Okay? So, I mean, would you think that that score is the best one to use for humans? It doesn't make sense. Right. But I'm not going to

even make that argument. I'm going to go with you and say okay ds is the best thing out there okay okay so even though you can question it so um you've said this is a quote from last time when you were trying to bash the film it's all about protein quality and this as you said is an established science a firmly established science he was talking to you obviously and you must have said it was established they look at this especially in like third world countries where protein deficiency is common so they try to figure out how to address this okay now the fao the food and agricultural organization of the united nations what is their purpose chris to prevent nutrient deficiency thank you developing yeah so hunger i've got a slide if you want to prove,

but it's basically defeating hunger, providing food security, not for America or for England, but for like the nation, you know, like 130, more than 130 countries, right, where people are starving, malnutrition. That is their purpose. So you've got to look at it through the lens of that.

So if you can just put up slide 29, because I just want to really back these claims up i know the slides are getting kind of boring and again apologize for people just listening but i really focusing on protein malnutrition was largely conducted after the identification of say that and the realization that many children globally are suffering from subclinical protein malnutrition. To address protein malnutrition, the composition and digestibility of proteins must be determined. Okay, so if you go to the next slide, and this is, by the way, that was looking at the DS score. You can see at the top, can the DIS score decrease protein malnutrition?

Then they go on to say, Joe, do you want to do it? The Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations has developed methods to evaluate the protein quality of food items. And in 2011, the Digestible Indispensable Amino Acid Score, DIAAS, was recommended as a successor to their previous method. Okay. So we're not in a disagreement right now. I'm even going to forego, like I'm not going to argue about the animal having different amino acid requirements, even though that's pretty funny, right? Like why are you assessing?

Anyway, so I'm not going to have that argument. What I'm going to have is I'm going to go with everything so far, FAO, they're endorsing it over the PDS, a lot of experts endorsing it over the DIAS, over the PDCAS. So now in slide uh 31 it's made for starving children okay this is what it's made for so i would agree if you're in a caloric deficit and you're in a country where there's very little protein and you're only getting 30

grams of protein a day let's just say that the animal like take the animal stuff out of it and like the way that the method is flawed which the fao points out yeah so let's just say it's legit i would agree i would say eat eat say it's legit. I would agree. I would say get your protein from meat. I would agree because that's what it was designed for. As you can see in looking at post-exercise skeletal muscle, the DIAS does not attempt to consider how scores translate into optimizing more downstream physiological targets of interest

to a physically active person or athlete. So it wasn't designed for that system it was designed for starving people in countries where they were not getting enough protein and they weren't getting enough protein as you would call high quality okay so so would you recognize that it wasn't developed for that system? Yes. Based on the scientific literature. But you're inferring it now for the amount that… I still think it's a relevant measure of protein quality because it looks at amino acid profile and ileal digestibility. Yeah, it is.

It is in starving country when people are starving. I agree. But as you can see, it's not just, this is not my opinion. It's still looking at amino acid profile, right? Do you concede that? It's looking at the relative content of amino acids in a particular food. Yes. And it's looking at the ileal digestibility. Which I think is an improvement over the, I think it's got elements, even though the FAO has pointed out its flaws and 10 years from now we'll have a better system right but right you agree probably 10 years from now probably have a better system okay but it's the best that it can kind of go off but again it looks at and it's not just my opinion that it's not used for that

this is like in sports medicine 2019 and i agree you're busy with other stuff you probably haven't seen this article that came out in February. Have you seen this article, Will? I have not seen this particular article. So basically, can you look at the, now in the 2018 Journal of International Sports Nutrition, slide 32, Society of Sports Nutrition. Because you like to say it's all about muscle protein synthesis, right? That's an important factor. Okay.

Because you like to say it's all about muscle protein synthesis, right? That's an important factor. Okay. It has been proposed that muscle protein synthesis is maximized in young adults with an intake of 20 to 25 grams of high-quality protein. About. The script was about. About 20 to 25 grams of a high-quality protein. Okay, high-quality protein. Okay.

protein okay do you disagree that like eating four or five times a day at um 20 to 25 grams of high quality protein way be whatever you want to take highest score whatever under your you know the scoring system you agree with do you agree that that is the amount to maximize personal when it shows that that does for a four-hour window acute muscle proteins is this yeah the most of the sports uh organizations suggest that for acute protein right intake but if you now again i'm going with the consensus so if you take that 20 to 25 grams four or five times a day multiply that what is that that's 80 to uh 100 about 120 grams of protein a day. Is that enough for a big athlete? Or muscle protein synthesis. Is that enough for like a 250-pound athlete?

I would say no. So I'm not saying that it is. I think you need more protein than that. Right? Because muscle protein synthesis is only one factor. Right. Can you tell me what the other factors are? Tissue regeneration and repair, recovery.

Right. Yeah. Okay. So I think we're on we're on the same page that 20-25 grams has basically been shown in a single sitting over a four-hour window in what we call acute short term that's been shown to maximize muscle proteins in this and that is because 20 grams and it's been shown actually you can get less with like egg you could get like 17 grams or something because basically you're hitting two things. You're hitting leucine.

You're getting 1.8 to 2 grams of leucine, which is basically like a formin, right? It's like telling the others, like, hey, you should build protein. If you don't have any leucine, even if you had all the essential amino acids you want, except for leucine, you wouldn't have the formin telling all the workers

to like build the muscle, basically. That's what leucine is. So you're getting enough leucine and you're getting eight to 10 grams of essential amino acids. That is what is important in the acute stage of muscle protein synthesis. You're getting eight to 10 grams of,

and we can get more granular around like it's, you know, 0.0 grams per pound of body weight. But it's, this is basically accepted. And in fact, they've shown that like, even if you're 400 pounds, you know, you probably don't need even more than 20, grams for some reason there's something in that number about getting the leucine amount it doesn't really matter how big you are you know there's a small percentage that say you might need a bit more 2.5 or whatever but consensus is this 20 25 grams and i'm sorry this is like long but it's like it's important to like

break down okay so so by the way just going back to your ds scoring you're basically looking at like a rules for jujitsu tournament like a gi jujitsu tournament and you're trying to apply them to mma so just because jujitsu is involved in mma it doesn't mean that a scoring system for for like ibjjf or whatever that doesn't mean that that's the best scoring system for mma right is that fair sure yeah you could get points for like IBJJF or whatever, that doesn't mean that that's the best scoring system for MMA, right? Is that fair, Josh? Sure. Yeah, you could get points for like, yeah, whatever. Okay. So essentially, and this isn't just my opinion, okay, this is scientific literature, not an article that you just pulled on examine.com. But that's not how science works. You don't just pull

up an article. So slide 33. And it's very clear. This is just very obvious. It cannot just be about short-term acute muscle protein synthesis, right? It can't be because you wouldn't be hitting the 1.6 to 2.2. So this states acute anabolic responses are not necessarily associated with long-term muscular gains. necessarily associated with long-term muscular gains. The topic can only be answered by assessing the results of long-degenerate studies that directly measure changes in lean mass with the provision of varying protein dosages. Okay, so you agree that it's not just about short-term muscle protein dosages. Okay, so what it is, Joe, it doesn't matter. At a certain point,

it doesn't matter because, yeah, let's say you're going to have four times a day, and let's say you're going to have 160 grams of protein, and you have 40 grams, right, of protein four times a day. That's 160 grams. So if you're going to optimize muscle mass, and by the way, like how much muscle have you put on in the last 15 years? I'm not sure.

Me, I put on none, basically. I'm about the same. But anyway, let's just say that you're a bodybuilder and you're trying to stack on as much muscle as possible

because that's like, when I get like, I'm like 190, 193 maybe sometimes. If I go over 200, I just feel slow. I feel slow with the handgun. I just feel slower punching,

like whatever. So it's not everyone's goal is to optimize muscle mass as quickly as possible, right? But let's say that your goal is, right?. So it's not everyone's goal is to optimize muscle mass as quickly as possible, right? But let's say that your goal is, right? Clearly, it's not enough to do that. You have to hit the 1.6 to 2.2 grams, right? Right.

Once you hit that amount, you have to do two things. You have to hit the short-term leucine threshold and amino acid in the short-term, right? And then you have to hit the… What are you doing, Jamie? And then you have to hit the... What are you doing, Jim? So you have to do two things. You have to maximize the muscle protein in the short term, and you have to get enough protein during the day,

right, of 1.6 to 2.2. Is that fair? Okay, so once you hit the 1.6 to 2.2, let's say you have 40 grams, it doesn't matter. You follow me? You even quoted... So it doesn't matter the amino acid profile of the food? Is that what you're saying?

No, because as long as you hit the essential amino acid amount and the leucine amount in the four... And you can hit the leucine amount and the amino acid amount in virtually all of these vegan forms of protein? Is that what you're saying? No. First of all, you could do it with like if you do beans rice and vegetables yeah you'd hit uh two grams of protein for like 570 calories now again you could like you know that most athletes supplement right yes like i can got slides if you want scientific proof but you would accept that like an elite athlete's even more so it's like over percent so people are

supplement with protein powder anyway. They're supplementing with branched-chain amino acids because it contains leucine, isoleucine, and phenol. Elite athletes are, yes. Well, no. Over 50% are supplementing with protein powder

and a higher percentage of elite. Athletes? Just athletes, period? Yeah. Okay. And elite athletes are supplementing even more. It's probably more like 90%.

So if your goal is to do something and take creatine or protein, these athletic endeavors or like you know these athletic endeavors like you pointed out the thing that patrick does and we can get into by the way the misrepresentation of um from robert o'hurst obverse into his um you know patrick's records if you want because there was a lot of claims that were made that were completely false again um so basically if you get enough protein if you hit one of the windows, if you hit the 1.6 to 2.2 with plant protein, you can hit the muscle protein synthesis.

And, like, all of a sudden, he's like, oh, you're going to… So, you're saying there's no benefit in animal protein for an amino acid profile versus plant protein? No, I'm not. Not if you're getting enough protein. So, you're saying if you're getting enough protein, there's no benefit. I'm even talking about the who. And you're getting the right ratio, as you have acknowledged, of the right ratio of plant proteins. No, no, no.

It's not difficult at all. I'm talking about leucine. If you were really messing up and eating like people just don't eat healthy, you might not get enough leucine. But if you're planning to become as big and as strong as possible and you're dedicated do you need a specific workout plan but this is only assuming that you're taking supplements so we're assuming everyone's taking supplements to achieve no no i'm saying not at all no no you can do it with supplements and i'm not you're not assuming that people are taking supplements no you can do it but are you assuming that people are taking supplements no you can these guidelines okay you can do it but are you assuming that people are taking supplements no you can do it on a whole food diet plant-based diet with with just food with b12 like just

supplement b12 nothing else you can achieve the same amino acid profile as meat yeah i mean i want to touch on that i'm not saying that the only thing that is the argument right that was what he said but i just want to throw people off like depending on where you live you might want to supplement vitamin d based on not getting enough sun i just want to like don't want to throw people off, like, depending on where you live, you might want to supplement vitamin D based on not getting enough sun. I just don't want to throw out. Everybody should do that anyway. Anyway. Particularly D3.

Okay. So what I'm saying is as long as you get that amount of protein, and again, if you're eating, if you're exercising to optimally build muscle, you're exercising a fair bit, right? Yes. You're burning more calories, right? Right. So you eat more calories right right so you eat more calories and i don't think i don't know where my slide is we're deep into the woods here and this is getting really confusing but the question was but this is what his assertion was that the amino acid profile of meat is superior yeah it is the amino acid profile it is in context

and that is what it's important it's important when you look at the FAO and the goals that they're doing to try and stop world hunger. It is not important in the Western world, number one, and not important if you're an athlete and you're getting between 1.6 to 2.0 grams per kilogram of protein, whether it's lentils or peanut butter or something, that you have enough amino acids to achieve the desired results. Yeah. And it's essentially the exact same as if you're hitting that 2.2 grams. If you're getting 2.2 grams, it doesn't matter. It's irrelevant. Do you think that's true?

If you're getting 2.2 grams of protein and you're doing it and you're not doing it in the way that you said where you're not planning it and not making sure you're getting enough leucine, which is lower. We wouldn't have to try. It's low. Leucine you're saying is low in certain plant sources. Yeah, I would say leucine is lower. I agree. But there's a certain quantity that you will achieve. There's a plateau.

So it doesn't matter once you've got that amount. The other point that you had about protein quality is digestibility. So that's the last point that I want to address. Okay. How am I doing? Good. Okay. So slide 34, because you basically claim that, okay, even if there are enough amino acids, you can't digest it as well.

Even if there are enough amino acids, you can't digest it as well. The more precise data collected so far in humans assessing real specific oral ileal nitrogen digestibility has shown that the differences in the digestibility between plant and animal protein sources are only a few percent contrary to historical findings in rats or determinations using less precise methods in humans. Okay, and just so you know, I understand that you haven't seen this, probably, because it just came out last month, published by Stanford. So I get that you haven't seen it. Now, I'll take this one step further. There's only at most like two or three percent different in digestibility of plant protein. And you know how it's assessed in the pigs? They give them raw food. So they give raw beans raw grains and you have said

one of the reasons that it's less digestible is because of trypsin inhibitors yeah what happens when and what happens when you cook you definitely break them down are you getting it so when you when you heat food the likelihood is even though it hasn't been tested, we know that the digestibility is less in plants by a few percent. Only a few percent, not the 40% versus 100% that he was claiming last time. That's old science. I'm talking about current science, right? And there's only a few percent difference. And they imagine that not only if you heated it, that you would get equivalent,

you might even get more, because you're killing the trypsin inhibitors by heating it. So that whole nonsense about the quantity, you were wrong. The quality, the DI score was not designed for that. It doesn't matter when you get enough protein. So as long as you get enough protein, you're using measures for a organization that is looking at hunger. We're talking about if people have got enough. I agree. If you're in a developing country and you have very little diversity of plant foods and maybe not enough and there's animals, you should be eating the animals. I agree. But that is not what it was designed for and it doesn't matter. The amino acid profile doesn't matter and the digestible doesn't matter when you get enough protein let me pause you for a second here because you've been going on for a

long time yeah i think it's amazing points chris this has not been that good for your arguments so what are your thoughts on what he said so far and what are your thoughts on what he's refuted about what you had asserted about his show i I think he's made some good points. And, you know, my original argument and what we started out talking about was, so you take the film and the claims of the film, the specific claims of the film, and then you also take the question that we started talking about,

which was, is there evidence that a hundred percent plant-based diet is better than a diet that contains animal foods you see what you're doing that's real you see what you're doing and for the protein i mean come on and there was a lot of claim there were a lot of claims in the film that we talked about about you know dairy products causing cancer dairy products contributing to cardiovascular disease, chicken and fish causing cancer, red meat clogging the arteries that we addressed

and haven't had a chance to go into detail on in this show. But there was a bunch of stuff that you did say. But Joe asked you about protein, and we were talking about protein, and what you just did there is you segued into something else. So can you answer definitively, do you think I've presented very good arguments against your rebuttal about both protein quality, including the amount and the ratio, and about protein quality and quantity, including digestibility and amino acid scores i think the protein quantity uh is is still an issue or the question of getting but how i mean you've got to have some like logical arguments chris i'm sorry but you're like i have disproven your rebuttal on protein and on b12 i think the

quality and quantity still matter the quality the the quality okay yeah sure sure go ahead so even though that scale was developed for the fao there's still a difference a quantitative difference in the amino acid profile i didn't argue with that digestibility i didn't argue with that that was not my point do you think but if it's about amino acids and it's about protein content and digestibility if what he's saying is correct then there really is no need to eat meat that's what he's saying but that just isn't that is his argument for protein i mean you can like come up with some other like you we can go at nutrient if you want to look at nutrient profiles and like then we can look at that but you've got to admit i've presented some good arguments

in both favor of quantity and quality. I do, and I hadn't seen that last study from 2000. And so I just want to sum it up. I want to sum it up by slide 30. Just one last slide on this. Well, I mean, yeah, one, well, I've got slides proving the outcomes as well. But if you just want to look at,

this is not me. This is not me making up like a, it's like, oh, I'm a vegan. I'm just making stuff up. Like there's a bunch of bullshit that's put out by vegans about arguments that are totally terrible. Agreed.

Yeah. Okay. And honestly, I think vegans are like the worst people for their own movement. I agree as well. Like throwing blood on people that are wearing like fur jackets or whatever.

I think it's ridiculous. Right? But that doesn't, don't lump me in and the film in with vegans in general. You've done a far better job of explaining things here than you did even in the film. Yeah, but it's very tricky.

It's very tricky because you don't have them out of time. This is worth three and a half hours in. Right. Well, I would have made a 10-hour film, and it was upsetting. I'm sure you would have. People say, oh, you – for example, a couple of arguments that were made. Half of the athletes you filmed, you didn't put in the film because they stopped being vegan completely not true you're also a bunch of experts we didn't put in the film that we couldn't put in

and we didn't put them in because there wasn't room it was like i understand in filmmaking it's called killing your babies there was amazing scenes that would be really convincing that we couldn't put in like the evidence in the film is far less than one percent of the evidence that i don't you guys do it as like a Netflix thing? A series? Like Wild Country where you do like seven hours. No, I would like – we're considering doing more. It seems like a wiser thing to do.

Yeah, but I think like how many people are going to sit down? How many people are going to watch this? Well, I know how many people – I mean I don't know how many people are going to watch the film. A lot, millions. So when we're talking about – we don't really have that much time left unfortunately because we are here at three and a half hours in and i have another one right after this but what what about the film do you think he hasn't refuted your criticism just put that last slide yes please what is it again it's slide 34 and also i've got a bunch of slides showing that actually

um here we go there's no research to suggest that protein recommendations are different for athletes following a vegetarian diet than for those on an omnivorous diet. Now that is the handbook, the textbook that is used when you become a board certified specialist in sports dietetics. So what this is basically saying is what you said earlier. The amino acid profile, once you reach a certain point in a certain amount of grams per you've got to reach that amount anyway even with meat that's the thing okay so yeah got so um and and again what about the the film do you think that he hasn't refuted your criticisms i mean we can i i would love to know how productive that's going to be there's the blood flow and endothelial function and inflammation. I would love to get to it.

Let's get to that. The meat and… Let's do it. Let's do the erections and the dolphins soon. The erections. That's the most scientific part of the movie. What was the other thing, Chris? Well, I mean, just talking about inflammation and endothelial function will take the rest of the time.

Can we take endothelial function? The cancer and dairy, the chicken and fish and cancer. I can refute all of that, all of your claims. Do you want to look at the erection and the dolphin scene because they're related to endothelial function? Why don't we talk about research about endothelial function? Yeah, okay, great. Okay. That's related. Okay, endothelial function? Yeah, okay, great. Okay. That's related.

Okay, endothelial function. We'll close with this because these are going to – It's already 2.30. It's just a shame because all the other claims he made were false. All right. What other ones were false? In the interview or in the film, when you said, and I've seen you say this on interviews, we have 22 years of research showing that a single high-fat meal impairs endothelial function. That study was called, it was from 1997. No, multiple studies, and I can put them up if you want.

So that's 22 years. But you said a study from like— Effect of a single high-fat meal on endothelial function in healthy subjects. So this compared a 900-calorie diet. Both were on 900 calories. One group was eating 50 grams of fat, and one group was zero grams of fat. The high-fat meal was an egg McMuffin, a sausage McMuffin— I'm not talking about those.

—two hash browns, and a non-caffeinated drink, all a sausage McMuffin. I'm not talking about those. Two hash browns and a non-caffeinated drink all from McDonald's. Yeah, I'm not talking about those. Okay, but that is one study. You just picked one. Well, which one are you talking about? Well, I got a bunch. Okay. Well, I got a bunch that study found that taking vitamin C and E after the high-fat meal completely

eliminated the effect that it had on endothelial function, which suggests that a healthy omnivorous diet with plants wouldn't have the same impact. There was a 2019 review, and this will be at kresser.co slash gamechangers, adding nuts, avocados, olives, berries, spice blends, orange juice, red wine, and protein, including milk protein, to a high-fat meal prevents endothelial dysfunction and oxidative stress. We've got several studies that suggest that dairy and egg proteins improve endothelial function, 2015 controlled trial with 52 subjects, dietary proteins including milk and egg improved endothelial function. 2006 study adding dietary protein to a high-fat meal prevented postprandial endothelial dysfunction. We have 2009 study followed subjects for 12 weeks, a low-carb diet improved endothelial function, whereas a low-fat diet decreased it.

2007 study with uh all of these studies show that animal proteins don't uh increase and decrease endothelial you have to know more about nutrition and it's really funny and the plants in the context respond to it okay so first of all you just you compared low carb and high carb i am not a i'm not for health i'm not promoting high carb that wasn't the point the point is that low carb diets that contain animal products and that milk and egg protein have been shown to improve endothelial function not worsen it right so the claim in the film was the animal protein worsens endothelial right because that is the scientific consensus and we keep going back to this tell us why tell us why that is i mean or these other seafood consumption protects against endothelial

damage seafood is an animal protein mediterranean diet which includes animal products improves pulse wave velocity blood flow markers of atherosclerosis these are studies in the peer reviewed literature yeah but lots of them so what's wrong with this so the industry funding studies what you do wait wait who said anything about these being industry funded but what you do see is compare everything is healthy compared to what healthy or unhealthy compared to what so if you have a low carb diet and you replace the bunch of white sugar and flour you might not see it's gonna the outcome is going to be a decrease the claim that was made in the film is that animal product animal proteins worsen endothelial function i just listed a whole

bunch of studies especially those suggesting here's one that says influence of food patterns on endothelial biomarkers is a systematic review. The conclusion was that healthy food patterns, abundant in fruits and vegetables, had a beneficial impact on endothelial function, westernized patterns, higher intakes of processed meats, sweets, fried foods, refined grains were positively associated information. Which makes my point. No, it makes my point, which is quality matters. Yeah, quality matters. So if you give someone sausage McMuffin and egg McMuffins and you show that... I'm not showing that. My studies are not showing those.

Okay, well, let's let him explain his studies. Okay, so for example, slide 71. I purposely didn't include those studies because I don't think that they're a good thing to compare to. So slide 71. Okay, this is nice because there's a graph, right? So you can see, so everyone's saying like that fat in the blood, that's normal. Well, what do you mean by normal? Yeah, lots of people do that. That's normal. That doesn't mean it's optimal when you see the fat in the blood like that. And by the way, it was a film. We couldn't throw everything in. So when you see fat, that's called postprandial lipemia. That means after a

meal, fat in the blood, right? That is associated with up to a 50% decreased endothelial function, which means less nitric oxide is produced, which means that the arteries can't open up as much, less oxygen, less nutrients to the muscles, okay? So that is associated. As you can see in this graph, I don't know. So the solid line is how, uh, the tri, uh, no, the solid line is, uh, how much your arteries are dilating flow mediated vasodilation, right? So as the triglycerides, this is after the meal. Okay. Which was by the way, uh, a shake of whipping cream and liquid chocolate and nonfat dry milk. Okay. As the, as you eat the meal, you can see that the triglycerides go up. That's the fat in your blood.

See, between two and four hours, it kind of peaks. We measured those athletes at two hours. And again, this is not just a film. It's been done for over 20 years in the scientific literature. So as you can see in the graph, right, Joe? As the dotted line goes up, that's the appearance of more fat in the blood, right? You get that lactescence, the milkiness of the blood. You can see very clearly that the flow media dilation drops. So it drops by 11%. Okay. If you look, for example, does that make sense? So that when you have those fat in the blood, your ability to,

your arteries to expand goes down. And there's no, like what, that's not an egg McMuffin. That is a milk and whipping cream. And that's it. So now if you go to slide 73, and whipping cream and that's it so now if you go to slide 73 now i agree this had some so they compare now they're here yeah we can skip to the next one that was 11 okay so here what i've done is um the only thing i changed about this graph is i put the um green dots for the plant-based meal and the red dots for the animal-based meal so they were eating korean barbecue egg milk oil mayonnaise rice and vegetables and on the other hand they were having a vegan meal of soup, kimchi, vegetables, orange juice, apple. So it was matched for calories at 800 calories. The green is in red, and the, sorry, the green is plants, and the red is animal-based.

So, I don't know if you want to go into, but basically, I mean, you've slide 74. But again, please try to remember a lot of people listening to this. Oh, sorry. Do you want to read the two? No, you can if you want. Here, changes of serum triglycerides were negatively correlated with changes of FMD. That's flow-mediated dilation. No doubt.

Well, low-carb diets often will lower serum triglycerides, and they contain animal protein and fat. Not postprandially. Not after the meal, which is important to test because that lasts for six to eight hours and what do you do again? You eat another animal-based meal. So the next part, Joe? Go ahead.

Then how is it that triglycerides go down over time if someone's just eating? Because your body adapts to it. So Joe, can you read the second book? The study suggests that acute HTG... That's hypertriglyceremia. It's the fat in the blood, basically. ...causes endothelial dysfunction via enhanced oxidant stress,

and this may pave the way for the development of arthrosclerosis. That's a mouthful. Atherosclerosis. Under chronic conditions mouthful. Atherosclerosis. Under chronic conditions. So what that's saying, like in the short, acute means short term and chronic is like long term.

Under acute thing, it affects your endothelial function, your ability to exercise and perform. And in the long term, affects chronic conditions like heart disease. And if you go to slide 75, remember that chart

that we looked at with the green dots and the red dots? 8.2% decrease in FMD two hours following the animal-based meal. 2.7% increase in FMD two hours following the plant-based meal. Okay, so you got less blood flow. So Chris makes out there's no science, no evidence.

It was just this crazy thing that they made up. It was the co-chair of the cardiovascular community for the NFL that has been researching this for years. I didn't say that, James. I said there was a lot of other evidence contradicting it so right but you're choosing we want to bring up study you can effects of dietary carbohydrate restriction versus low fat diet on flow mediated dilation this is what you've been talking about no because you're not comparing it to the diet after 12 weeks peak flow mediated dilation at three hours increased from 5.1 percent to 6.5

percent the carbohydrate restricted group and decreased from 7.9 percent to 5.2 percent in the low-fat diet right 12 week low carbohydrate diet improves postprandial vascular function more than a low-fat diet right because the low-fat diet has a bunch of, like, white flour and stuff in it. That's the thing. But so does often the low-carb diets, too, that are being compared to the diets with animal. If we're talking about protein, the claim in the film was that animal protein causes endothelial dysfunction. Somehow we've gotten off talking about fat. And I've just mentioned many studies that

show that that dietary proteins including milk and egg improve endothelial function no they don't fish okay they don't study right here nobody joe so what are these you can't you can't just say a study right because i chris can bring up studies dietary proteins improve endothelial function under fasting conditions, but not in the postprandial state, with no effects on markers of low-grade inflammation. This is in the British Journal of Nutrition, 2015 study. Okay, but dietary proteins doesn't even necessarily mean animal-based proteins, right?

No, it says including milk and egg. Including. Yeah. I'm not disputing. The bottom line is that he can present any study. I'd have to dig into it, see the funding, whatever, because it's always what it's compared to. So you can show a huge benefit for eggs if you compare it to lard, right? There's all sorts of things.

These were proteins that included soy, soy, milk, and egg, and they all improved endothelial function. Yeah. And then another study showing adding dietary protein, milk or soy, to a high-fat meal prevented postprandial endothelial dysfunction. And then there are the two low-carb studies that I mentioned. There's a controlled trial that found that a low-carb, high-fat diet improved pulse wave velocity, which is another marker of endothelial function there are studies of the mediterranean diet which is a healthy diet pattern that includes some animal products include improved pulse wave velocity seafood consumption protects against endothelial damage yes compared compared to beef it does and that's can i just say like for example you said you were trying to refute the study about the increased risk of colon cancer between vegetarians and non-vegetarians, right?

The three times increased risk for those who had white meat like fish or chicken once or twice a week. And then you go to a meta-analysis, which is not comparing. You're comparing fish to bacon or beef, course these aren't comparing any that these are controlled trials that look at dietary proteins milk right again and egg but chris first of all you admitted that you don't even know how to read the science is that fair do you honestly feel qualified to read even a single paper yes but you don't know how to read a forest plot. I took a master's level research methodology class. And these are, I'm referring to studies that are in the peer-reviewed literature, James. And you haven't answered the question.

Like, if protein impairs endothelial function, why are studies showing that milk and egg don't do that george dillman george dillman did a study you know showing that like the heart rate went up when he did like a knockout without touching someone just because you can show studies that i can't like i haven't had a chance to read and dig into doesn't need me my point is valid i have shown studies no no i gave like the film has been reviewed and has been accredited by the defense health agency yeah we've heard that right so you think that they like the science The film has been reviewed and has been accredited by the Defense Health Agency. Yeah, we've heard that. Right? So you think that they, like, the science, basically your debunk, which you failed miserably to debunk the film, right?

I have proven again and again that your points were invalid. I have presented data with healthier meals. You thought I was going to go to the feeding someone McDonald's. I didn't i showed one with just basically dairy just dairy increasing and i've showed three or four studies with dairy proteins and i am talking about and i interfere with endothelial function actually improve it the bottom bottom line is joe right that at each step of the way chris is not in line with the scientific consensus okay not on protein

recommendations not on definition of carbohydrates not on uh endothelial function not on heme iron he's just not he's just like you shouldn't be having him on to say he's he said himself he's not an expert in nutrition he is unable to read us unable to read a single study and understand it, I am not qualified either. That's a mischaracterization. Okay, then tell me the confidence interval of this in the Forrest plot. Listen, I'm presenting... You've presented some studies. Anyone can say anything about studies. I have not put myself out. I'm the expert that is doing these studies.

That's what people think. That is doing these studies. In the same way that you did, you collected information from experts. From the scientific consensus. From leading researchers with thousands of years, thousands of hours. There is not. Okay, go ahead. There are many experts that would disagree.

Yeah, but it's the same thing with climate change or whatever. No, it's not the same at all. It's absolutely not the same. The consensus of experts that agree that we should be on 100% or even 95% plant-based diet is the same as the consensus on climate change. It's not even close to that. The parallel is that the scientific consensus says that we should be in predominantly plant-based diets and that vegan diets are helpful for all stages of life cycle. I've shown that you can get enough protein.

I've shown that the quality DS scoring doesn't matter. I've shown that the B12 stuff that you got is completely wrong. What else do you want me to show you? You want me to show you that even despite having lower creatine levels because people have pointed out in the film oh you said as long as you get all the amino acids that's enough you didn't point out that the study said um uh they didn't oh vegetarians have lower creatine stores therefore it may affect performance they didn't test it i've got a bunch of studies where it has been tested where they had vegetarians and meat eaters had equivocal fat-free mass, equivocal power

output, equivalent time to fatigue, despite lower creatine levels. And we know that creatine is ergogenic. I've also got other studies showing that when vegetarians actually take supplemental creatine, they get increased gains of over one pound of muscle over the meat eaters. So despite lower creatine, which we know the most studied supplement they're getting that because their intake of creatine is lower yes and so and so when they're supplementing they see a bigger response you could look at that the other way you could say you should have more creatine in their diet and they then they wouldn't need to supplement with that to get the bigger response right but i, but it points out that despite lower creatine solids, which we know are ergogenic,

which are performance enhancing, they still have equivocal fat-free mass, muscle, and power output and time to fatigue. And when you add creatine in, you get a benefit. Now, I'm not saying that everyone should be taking creatine, but if you're trying to build as much muscle as possible, I think you should. And by the way, meat eaters also tend to supplement that are trying to bodybuild with creatine as well so i'm saying that despite the fact of lower creatine which we know is the would you argue that's like the probably the most well studied and best um supplement that we know of that can

help uh muscle muscle yeah okay fair enough so despite lower creatine people on plant-based diets can still have as much muscle mass and when they hate creatine they get even more than the meat eaters and i've got a bunch of science to prove that too so basically joe if someone watched the last episode where he tried to debunk the film for two hours and 50 minutes do you feel that i fairly addressed a lot of the critiques and i've been addressed a lot more he talks about nutrient quality he likes to refer to like diet quality says that we're lower in um we're lower in certain but I've fairly addressed a lot of the critiques. And I've been addressed a lot more. He talks about nutrient quality. He likes to refer to diet quality. He says that we're lower in certain nutrients. Yeah, vegans are low, typically in B12 and D, calcium and zinc,

because they eat a bunch of shit. But meat eaters are low in about nine. So he likes to point to a nutrient score which favors a paleo-type diet. That's not comparing equivalent vegans. nutrient score which favors a paleo type diet that's not comparing equivalent vegans vegans and vegetarians in general are uh do you know they smoke less they have a higher uh drink less they have a higher diet quality in general because they do all the pairing apples to apples because they do all of the things that are better for health including eating a plant-based diet because he thinks that just the only one thing that they don't do better is eat more more

plants well he's saying that you lump in meat eaters with people that eat the standard american diet when you say meat eaters you're not talking about people who are eating organic but when we're talking about when we're talking about american gets 60 of their calories from ultra processed and refined food so that's why that's why they're nutrient but that's what they are saying just said that you're not comparing like joe rogan's and his diet versus an equivalent no yeah but all i'm saying all i'm pointing it out is that you are saying that vegans are typically more deficient in certain nutrients they are in certain nutrients but that's because a lot of people aren't smart and don't like so you're looking at the overall

group of them versus the people that are doing it as recommended by these studies that are showing the appropriate amount of amino acids they're doing it or they're balancing it out and planning it i don't even think about it i don't count how much protein i'm taking i just eat a wide variety and if a really good source actually is nutritionfacts.org and he's got this useful thing called yeah he doesn't like that because it's not in alignment. What's wrong with nutritionfacts.org? Oh, it's just it has a very strong plant-based agenda. Yeah, well, because they follow the science. So anyway, forget all of the useful videos that are on there. They do like three-minute videos for people to learn about the science.

It gives all the references. But the useful thing, the really useful thing is it has like the daily dozen you know about what all of the evidence has shown we should be eating whether you're eating meat or not all of the evidence showing like how much legumes how much fruits how much vegetables you know the flax seed and you know these types of things so it's just like it's like a fridge magnet you can throw on your fridge and um james you made an excellent point uh chris do you have anything to say in closing no thank you for i mean i really appreciate the time sorry if it felt a bit combative no you knocked it out of the park you did a fantastic job i think i mean it makes me consider well let me explain my position coming in here i felt like you'd put your film out

i felt chris felt the same way having you in here while he debunked it was just going to be a waste of time you had put your position out he was going going to chance to debunk. But I've also felt that would be unfair to not have you come in and explain and refute his debunking. And I think you did a fantastic job.

I really appreciate you having me on. My pleasure. And I'd love to come back and talk about combatives and massage sometime. Whatever, man. Let's do that next time. Awesome.

Okay. Thank you, Chris. Thank you, James. Bye, everybody. Sorry I felt combative. For you, Chris. Thank you, James. Bye, everybody. Sorry I felt like I was invited. For me, it's

like part two.