Thank you so much for this. I'm vegan and will probably always be, but so confused by the all the science and interpretations. I'm an engineer and have ready lots of studies in the last 20 years, but cannot grasp all these nuances to cut though the narratives. We need people like you: strong in science, good debater, unbiased, respectful and great communicator.
Something significant he did not talk about, a commonality in his videos about topics that I know anything about, often things are overlooked while most audience doesn't know what is missing
My neighbor used to fish for tuna hoping to get a big-dollar catch but only got small ones. He ate tuna daily against his wife's advice and got mercury poisoning.
Tuna is high in mercury also yeah, it wasnt even mentionned in the video, thats too bad because it is the most common high mercury fish, there is reasons if it is recommended pregnant women avoid it.
Chunk is supposed to be lower in mercury than solid tuna. I'll eat about 2 cans a month. Greenpeace used to have a test for mercury and you'd mail them some hair for the test. Mine was low but detected.
I’m a whole food vegan who supplements with algae oil for the omega 3’s. I know they are essential fats for brain health so I try to include them in adequate amounts. I liked how he said he does not personally eat fish himself due to other factors (the environmental and animal ethics). If a pescatarian and vegan diet are equally great in terms of health then the tie breaker is to add in ethics and then a vegan diet wins hands down. That is how he apparently chooses to act and I am doing the same. Cool video!!
Same here. As you may know, Omega-3 can also be obtained from eating ground flax, walnuts, and other plant based foods. That type of Omega-3 is ALA, which is converted by the body to DHA and EPA, but not very efficiently. Some people convert it more effectively than others.
Doesn't eating fewer animals mean that fewer are bred and brought into existence? So the ethical question is which is better / worse: eating an animal that lived a life, or not eating an animal that never lived but could have?
Mercury levels in fish is different from country to country, even tuna and big fish can have acceptable mercury levels, so you have to check your fish to say if it's high in mercury or not. I think that fish is an important part in a healthy life. It lowers triglycerides better than drugs in my opinion, but it seems to increase LDL. So eating fish while having already good cholesterol panel and optimal fat percentage and distribution must be one of best health decisions you will take.
All things being equal, it would be better to eat lower on the food chain if mercury is an unknown risk. Sardines being better than tuna using that paradigm.
@1:50 I think what is misleading about just thinking fish = good or that you live longer is that fish, in my opinion, is more of a corollary than causal thing. People that eat fish tend to eat better in general. Also, look at how most fish dishes are served. Less you are getting some New Orleans boil with sausages and what not in it you will almost certainly see more veggies involved that someone who eats lots of beef which tends to be in the form of a burger that often has fries with it or a overly huge steak with some butter heavy sauce, fried this or baked that with sour cream all over it. Also portion sizes - when someone gets a steak it seems like people want a 12ox, 16oz, or larger to feel like they are getting their money's worth but you don't see restaurants, well in general I am not talking about ouliers, giving out 1lb, 1.5lb, or 2lb portions of trout or salmon. So I think even if fish and beef were equally bad for you just the portion size, prep, and what they are each served with is different enough that some, if not most or all, of the perceived benefit from fish is not the fish itself. Portion size alone - salmon, for example, is typically a 4 to 6 ounce portion in a restaurant. The smallest steaks that you might see start at 8oz to 10oz, in most cases, and go up from there. So even if they were equally bad for you the smallest steak portion is going to be up to twice as bad for you, again if they were equally bad for your health, as the salmon. Then, of course, cooking method and time. People like a nice crust on their steak or burgers. Well, that is cancer waiting to happen. Fish you can grill too but it won't take a crust like beef. But you can also steam, braise, boil in a soup, etc. fish. So the cooking method, portion size, sides or toppers that people typical get with beef or fish, etc.. could all be big factors in making one look healthier than the other.
It is more simple than this, benefit comes mostly from omega 3 boost and yeah because it is less harmful than mammals muscles and cheese but fish is muscle too as Mcougal says.
Could you please do a video talking about processed seed oils, like canola oil or other vegetable oils? I've heard so many horror stories about how bad vegetable oils actually are for you, and I'm trying to learn to eat helthy. Please do a video about this if you haven't already, it would be awesome!!!
@@NutritionMadeSimple Let's goooo!!! Can't wait to finally have some closure on the issue, I've read this one up and down both sides and just don't know what to make of it.
@@Maximas190 the truth is the evidence is pretty consistent for benefit if compared to butter or other saturated fat-rich options. ofc seed oils by themselves are one thing and seed oils in junk food are another! :) 1st video out will look at inflammation.
Plant chomper channel has a pretty good video on oil. Should be enough to get through the murky water. He invited Dr Pekka Puska for the interview. Pretty solid 👌
@@Al-vw8qtYour argument is flawed I'm 100% sure there are evidence ancient people also got heart diseases And even if polyunsaturated fat consumption increases along with heart diseases but so what? Is it a causation? if so where is the evidence? The evidence overwhelmingly says otherwise What's about sugar? sugar consumption also tripled the number in 70s. Why don't you also blame it? what's about fast food with highly refined carb? Scientists clogged monkeys' arteries with a mixture of coconut oil and sugar. The same for pigs and other omnivores. There are even books about how to do it.
These are really great conversations. Thank you. What I have never seen at least commonly is no one talks about the harsh chemicals, pesticides, growth harmones, wax coating and colouring agents used in agriculture/to grow veggies... Don't know why. Could you please cover this topic as well.
Healthy or not we are in climate crisis the oceans are being destroyed a huge part of that is the fishing industry.. so yeah it's up to you but I would ask nicely on behalf of our planet please stop eating fish.. oh and fish have feelings too
I switched to a pescaterian diet 3 months ago to reduce my ApoB and LDL-C by restricting saturated fat. Eliminated cheese which I was eating a lot of, except for fat-free or sometimes 2% cottage cheese and fat-free yogurt. I am prone to kidney stones, so I need the dairy. Learned that, thank you, from your guest, the NYU nephrologist. Also eliminated eggs, because they can raise cholesterol, if only temporarily. But as a pescaterian, I eat fish everyday, not once or twice a week, wild-caught salmon, mackerel, cod and flounder. Basically exchanged chicken for fish. Was eating very little meat. So, that's gone too. Getting enough protein, while trying to keep carbs fairly low (I eat a lot of vegetables) is a concern. Have to watch the oxalates, so don't know if I should eat tofu often. I'm over 70. MDs and Phds on YT, Dr. Stansfield et al., say we need 1.6-2.0 g/kg or more. Maybe 130 g/day. Not easy to get there.
Regarding the last point about the exposure to PCBs and Dioxins, the study that informed those numbers refers to the adult population in the USA. It is relevant to consider the intake of each food group in the US population. Apparently, people in the USA eat much more vegetables than fish. It may be true that 22% of the exposure comes from vegetables and 9% from fish, but if the intake of vegetables in this population is much higher than 2.4x the intake of fish (it is), that indicates that replacing fish with an equivalent amount of vegetables would decrease significantly the exposure to such toxins. The researchers say and I quote: "The share of TEQ contributed by fish is smaller than previous estimates, because fish is consumed in smaller quantities in the United States than in many other countries." I suggest taking a look at the tables provided in the study ( Schecter A, Cramer P, Boggess K. et al. Intake of dioxins and related compounds from food in the U.S. population. J Toxicol Environ Health A. 2001;63:1-1811346131 ) to verify that the concentrations of these chemicals in vegetables are indeed much lower than in fish. Even more to the point of the video, a great insight comes from comparing the concentrations of those chemicals in fish with the concentrations in the "simulated vegan diet sample" that they devised in the study. That gives you a good estimate of how much more exposure to these toxins you would get by adding fish to an otherwise vegan diet. Of course, eating a small bite of fish a week will not mean much, but people who decide to go pescatarian for health reasons usually eat much more than that and probably should be concerned about this.
“Seagans” exist, those who eat no meat, no dairy, no animal products except for fish. I would love to see how seagans stack up against these other groups.
I really felt this one swept the PCB/Dioxin issue under the rug, rather than dealing with it. It's the main reason I cut down on fish, they are highest in in fatty fish, the same fish that recommended for being low mercury. Also I think there was a quick implications that they were higher in vegetables than fish. In reality PCB/Dioxins are highest in fish. It's just the people don't eat that much fish. In vegetables, it's mainly in the fat/oil, so if eating a WFPB diet without added oil, your exposure would be VERY low.
The last point about sources of PCB's and Dioxins in the "Western diet" is for the average of all westerners, right? How would that look broken down by diet types? Not by percentages, but total intake of PCB's and dioxins? Wouldn't that be the relevant question for determining the best diet to avoid those pollutants?
I would also like to know the sources of PCB's and Dioxins in vegetables. Is it the manure used for fertilizer? Could that be reduced by using a different fertilizer?
"Dioxins can also potentially contaminate fruits and vegetables by being deposited with airborne particles (dust) on plant surfaces or directly from contact with contaminated soil. Food testing and research studies, however, have shown that plants can only take up a small fraction of the dioxins present."-Michigan (state government web site)
Speaking of PCBs, do you have any videos about bottled water and bisphenyls (A and other)?
2 года назад+5
You said nothing about fish consumption contributing to overweight/obesity and diabetes when compared to plant alternatives. Pescatarians have on average higher BMI and show a greater prevalence of diabetes and arterial hypertension when compared to vegetarians (let alone vegans).
Is all that true in Japan which consumes more fish than any other country?
2 года назад
@@dj-fe4ck, Japan is the country with highest prevalence of arterial hypertension in the world (and the highest incidence of stroke, one of the most serious complications of chronic hypertension). As for BMI, the average daily caloric intake in Japan is several hundreds kilocalories lower than the average intake of the population in any other developed economy. No wonder the average BMI is also lower than in any of those other countries. You can’t become overweight or obese if you don’t eat more calories than you spend. That’s direct consequence of the first law of thermodynamics and the law of conservation of energy.
@ the data that is presented here does not support what you say about fish. Fried foods, foods that are both sugary and fatty like most sweets and deserts, and too much fat overall, but not a mostly low fat mostly plants whole foods diet that includes some fish.
Thank you. Regarding the point about PCBs and dioxins, was the higher intake from vegetables due to people eating more vegetables than fish, or was actually a matter of concentration. Obviously, Americans eat a lot more chicken and beef and dairy than fish, so concentration could still be a concern there if that's what those stats were and someone were saying they should eat more fish because of this. Is it concentration or total volume??
2 года назад+2
I understand it’s total amount from each source. Since on average people eat less than 10% of the calories they intake as fish that means PCBs and dioxins are more concentrated in fish than in vegetables.
@ Yeah that, and PCB/Dioxins generally are in the fats, so people probably eat more calories of vegetable oil (higher exposure), than actual vegetables (lower exposure).
You should talk w Dr. Chris Palmer who argues that keto can be an effective metabolic intervention for mental illness; curious to hear your perspective on his work!
You didn't mention the risk of algal toxins and cyanobacteria. This is particularly a problem for fish that come from temperature or warm waters. There is some evidence that consuming alot of fish from these waters might contribute to risk for ALS.
@Marr033 probably because the SAD diet is so high in fat. It would be very hard to get too much fat from fish alone. Most fish are very lean and even if you eat fattier fish, you can still easily eat very low fat, meaning less than 15% calories from fat. Almost all fish are much lower in both total fat and saturated fat than soy. There is no evidence whatsoever that a high carb low fat whole foods diet where 1-5% of the diet is fish and 95-99% plant based is any less healthy than a high carb low fat whole foods diet that is 100% plant based. If anything, the former might be even healthier.
Conflicts with what Dr. Gil said about ischemic heart disease? "Vegetarian diets confer protection against cardiovascular diseases, cardiometabolic risk factors, some cancers and total mortality. Compared to lacto-ovo-vegetarian diets, vegan diets seem to offer additional protection for obesity, hypertension, type-2 diabetes, and cardiovascular mortality."- PubMed, National Institutes of Health (Title-"Beyond Meatless, the Health Effects of Vegan Diets: Findings from the Adventist Cohorts") "Cardiovascular mortality?"
Have you covered the issue of where the fish come from? Someone might choose sardines for the low levels of toxins low on the food chain, but many sardines come from Poland and Latvia (also Germany). Their fishing waters are usually the Baltic Sea. The Baltic is one of most polluted sources, because of all the heavy industry (including during the Soviet decades), which has been especially polluting. So, are such sardines significantly less desirable than sardines from less polluted waters? And if this concern is legitimate, then should people be careful to choose the least polluted waters? And where are those waters? Some available sardines come from Equador. Would these be safer? Or (in the case of small fish like sardines) does it not really matter? [My own sense, based on both observations and reason, is that small, young fish do not suffer in the same way as larger, adult fish. Their brains are not fully developed and they do not have the same look in their eyes when suffocating, struggling, and thrashing about. They don't really know what is going on, they don't have the same feelings or fear and terror, and they don't suffer the way the older, larger fish suffer.]
'As little dietary cholesterol as possible' - the guidelines go, so - healthwise- at the end of the day fish, it seems, should also be avoided. Or am I missing something?
is that from the USDA recs? if you go through they also recommend including fish and seafood. in fact iirc they recommend increasing it from current consumption levels. so it's a judgment call, where personal preference and individual circumstances also factor in
@@NutritionMadeSimple So they’re just inconsistent. They may recommend fish compared to other animal sources, but eventually their cholesterol line seems unequivocal.
@@Davygan you can eat a vegan diet that's very high in saturated fat with zero dietary cholesterol and have high cholesterol levels over 200, and you can eat a very low saturated fat diet that is mostly plant based but not vegan and have normal or lower cholesterol levels without statins.
@@Davygan we have a video on dietary cholesterol coming probably next week that will cover individual variation, effect on serum colesterol etc. pretty excited about that one!
Thank you for clarifying all the mumbo jumbo that pervades the media and media in general when it comes to interpreting the data out there. I'm vegan and feel much better about consuming plants including algae based DHA and EPA along with nuts and seeds daily.
Great video. Your approach to these topics are skillfully done to remain neutral but factual no matter which way the logic sways. Thanks for the hard work. 👍
I like that you don't let your morals affect your factual analysis. I've been semi vegetarian for 35 years, since about 25, for moral reasons (I do eat small amounts of seafood). But I don't trust most proponents of vegan diets, because their moral agenda pretty obviously influences their health theories a lot of the time. It seems to me that for my type two diabetes, a very low carb pesco vegetarian diet, combined with intermittent fasting, has the best results. I have been convinced by you, Thomas Delauer Joel Fuhrman, and some others to pay more attention to saturated fat and cholesterol. So far, my bloodwork is good, but I want to get my A1C into the sixes.
@@FleurPillager "The research team examined the specific relationship between sh consumption, Hg, and N3FA by generalized regres-sion. The team measured seafood consumption in terms of weekly servings and consumption of large-mouth. in terms of monthly servings. When the team regressed consumption against Hg level, the relationship was strongly positive, and the results were highly signicant, especially for >3 servings of seafood weekly or >3 serv-ings of large-mouth sh monthly"
I think an important note is that vegan men had a lower all cause mortality rate than pescatarians in the Adventist study. It was just that women had a higher all cause rate which brought the ratio down for both groups. So it was actually the vegan men that lived longer out of any group.
That’s not how I interpret the data. When compared with non-vegetarian Adventists (already a relatively healthy group vs general population), vegan Adventist men reaped more health benefit (I.e. lower hazard ratio) by going vegan vs non-vegetarian men, while vegan women reaped a lesser benefit vs non-vegetarian women. There was nothing there in the paper to say vegan men lived longer than vegan women, or even non-vegan women. In addition, while vegetarian men had lower hazard ratios across the board vs non-vegetarian men, vegan women had ‘higher’ hazard ratios in Ischemic heart disease and cardiovascular disease vs. non-vegetarian women. Pesco-vegetarian women, on the other hand, had lower hazard ratios in these two disease categories. Full paper available free to all here : www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4191896/#!po=39.6552
@@MT-sq3jo All cause mortality is a measure of lifespan. Vegan men had the lowest all cause rate therefore they live the longest. It doesn't matter how you interpreted it because that's what it means. What you said had no relation to what I said.
@@80slimshadys if you read the paper, they only compared vegan men vs men, they never cross compared men vs women. In addition, they never spelled out the end ages for those who died during the examination period. The mean age for all participants at the time of the study was less than 60 years old. So in other words, as an example, it’s possible that for those vegan men whom died, they died before age 85 on average, but the portion whom died among men was 5%. For vegan women whom died, the average age was 90, but 10% passed away at that point among all vegan women. In this example, I’d certainly not classified those men lived longer than the women. Obviously we do not know for sure since the data was not available in the paper, hence, we cannot draw conclusion on this specific question. This is the limitation of a paper which has not followed all the participants to their graves (not yet anyway).
Importante esta correlação que você faz (como escolha pessoal) entre o produto alimentício e o impacto ambiental causado. Moro no litoral e vejo o estrago que a pesca industrial faz. Seria possível pensar a alimentação saudável levando em conta o impacto ambiental? Quero dizer, levando o próprio dano ambiental como mais ou menos saudável, já que a longo prazo um meio ambiente desequilibrado poderia ser considerado mais um risco à saúde?
Knowing what to eat is a head ache I would love to see studies done on Natural bodybuilders(non steroids) participants. Since they seem to be healthy and with lower health issues than your average person. Just a thought.
Why, do have low T? Are you on or need to be on TRT? I do not believe there is any evidence whatsoever that being vegan and having low cholesterol lowers testosterone. If you have, can I read it?
I don’t even care if you discount the pollution fish farms cause, micro plastics, mercery, etc …I’ve seen fish farm videos, no thanks Edit: don’t forget fish farms add antibiotics to the water… in the ocean. Yeah, that’s gonna work out well for us 😂 We’re already over-antibiotic’d in regular animal agriculture, now it’s being poured in the ocean for profits. Enough. Eat some damn vegetables
@@davidsheriff9274 yeah..plus he ain't missing out on a ton.. Probably on mercury and microplastics (consumed by fishes cuz they think it's plankton) .. and other harmful toxins dumped by none other than us..
Is a pescatarian also eating dairy though? Is there a term for a fish eater who doesn’t eat meat or dairy? It seems like comparing pescatarians to vegans without that distinction won’t tell you that much.
How can you compare omega 3s in fishes with a totally different array of nutrients in beans.. Mum (a doc) always recommends algea oil instead of eating all beans
I eat a can of sardines everyday because I love the taste and from what I understand shorter lived fish do not collect heavy metals like the larger species. I consider it my daily omega 3/vitamin D/selenium/calcium supplement.
What are the CVD risks of fatty fish compared to lean meat such as beef fillet? Salmon still contains 2.5 grams of saturated fat per 100g, versus 1.2 grams in beef fillet. Does it mean that beef fillet is potentially better to control LDL cholesterol vs fatty fish? Or is the type of saturated fat in fish different, hence still better than the fillet?
How about a program on which foods prevent gout flare-ups and amounts daily? There are alot of us who are experiencing this desease who are unsure of what to eat and hopefully avoid prescription medications and their side effects.
Love your videos! Regarding the pollution question, I do wonder about data drift. If it is true that pollution is getting worse, then "averaging" its effect over the course of an observational study may not be ideal. I work with healthcare, and it's a huge problem with our data, though one easier to solve -- the data is much different pre- and post-Covid! If instead there's a slower change in the average mercury levels of fish, for example, I wonder if that has an effect.
Are you aware of this study in The American J. Of Clinical Nutrition from July 2021? Researchers found that omega-3 levels in rbc's are very good predictors of mortality. "Having higher levels of these acids in the blood, as a result of regularly including oily fish in the diet, increases life expectancy by almost 5 years." Data came from the Framingham Offspring Cohort consisting of 2,240 people over the age of 65, monitored for 6 years. 4 types of fatty acids, including 2 saturated fatty acids, whose levels in the body can't be changed by diet, indicate longer life expectancy.
The last point about sources of PCB's and Dioxins in the "Western diet" is for the average of all westerners, right? How would that look broken down by diet types? Not by percentages, but total intake of PCB's and dioxins? Wouldn't that be the relevant question for determining the best diet to avoid those pollutants?
The problem with Adventist studies is that being based on a vegan religion there could be 1000 ways they can skew results. I would like to see a nonbias study. Also the small fish tend to be bottom feeders so you get what you eat eats.
Thank you for the high scientific standard you apply and for educating how to interpret studies objectivly. I am acutally a little disappointed in the plant based Gurus such as Dr. Greger, Barnard, Esselstyn,..... I was fascinated by listening to them, but over time realized that they often oversell very low evidence for hard facts.
I listen to Dr. Greger regularly, but agree that he does strenuously steer toward pro-vegan. At least, however, he cites studies all over the place. I’ve listened to all sorts of “influencers” from carnivore/keto to vegetarian/ vegan viewpoints. I’m disturbed how few of them are willing to convey a range of fact, not opinion, like Dr. Gil does. If you’re a discerning viewer, you’ll eventually start seeing the week spots in all of these guru’s presentations. If you haven’t, also see Plant Chompers. I am not vegan but follow Mediterranean…
I think there are complications. In Australia we can buy Canadian wild salmon fillets or local farmed salmon, which are fed pellets and a dye to make the fish orange/red. Some vegatables are grown hydroponically, so a man-designed diet for the tomatoes/lettuces etc. And I thought that calcium in natural milk didn't increase heart attack rates, but the pill form of calcium did. Implications for soy/almond/rice milk; is the calcium an additive in these?
I really appreciate your efforts to provide us the valuable information. Can you tell me wheather preservative INS 211 used in Vegan Multivitamins is Carcinogenic or not?? Some studies says it reacts with Vitamin C to produce Benzene which is Carcinogen. I would like to know your opinion.
INS 211 is sodium benzoate, a preservative found in many, many food products. Its safety IS questionable. However, I would think the microscopic quantity in a single tablet would be dwarfed by the sodium benzoate most of us already consume in our unhealthy diets.
I think you should look into biomagnification and 10percent law.. it's really basic.. but underrated.. Fishes and animals that eat plants and then are eaten by some other animal eg human..have higher amount of toxins cuz of biomagnification and it's even magnified when we as humans eat those fishes
There's no significant differences in life expectancy among the top 25 countries, from very different parts of the world, which means that several types of diets can achieve similar results.
Dr. Andrew Weil (MD, Harvard) recommends eating some fish (once or twice per week, as I recall), supplemented with fish oil. I haven't seen him explain his exact reasoning, though. Maybe he has done so somewhere (if anyone knows of anywhere he has done so, please post) and I just haven't seen it yet. I would like to hear your own views on why he makes this recommendation, or what the reasons might possibly be. He is a very credible source, in my view.
Vegans and sometimes even pescatarians point to the toxins in fish oil, but a good quality fish oil is purified whereas fish that we consume as food is more likely to be contaminated. I'm sticking with a small amount of fish oil and eat organic whole plant foods.
The omega 3 amount you get in fish oil supplement is nowhere near as good or even the same amount of omega 3 as you would in pure form. Wild salmon contain about 2500+ omega 3 in 100g portion, you can't get that in pill form unless it's alot of pill. Mercury amount is about 22. Sardines have 1500 and about 17, Atlantic Mackereal 2600+ and around 50 mercury. Atlantic wild fish are not that worrisome as there environment is still as stable as it's always been. Also you mention pointing to toxins, these studys are mostly with farmed fish which are a whole different story.
@@SupremeODMG I'm not as concerned about mercury in salmon as pcbs. Even wild salmon is now testing positive .Two of my fish oil capsules have 2150. I don't need more than this. I'm good.
@@Andrew-ug2cy Not enough omega 3s. I'd have to take 10 capsules a day and it would be a fortune. And I think the ratio of dha to epa in fish oil is preferable for inflammation. Also, most studies are done on omega 3s from fish.
Harvesting of fish is problematic, but every form of food production has caveats. Do we consider the hard lives of the migrant workers who harvest vegetables the same way we decry environment impact of fishing or possible cruelty in raising animals? I follow a pescatarian/Mediterranean diet. The only animal products I use on a regular basis are salmon (occasionally anchovies and sardines) and low-fat Greek yogurt. I look at tuna the same way I do chicken and beef, something to have on rare occasions.
No, because buying vegetables doesn't force migrant workers to pick vegetables. They chose it because it was better than the alternatives. It's government policy on immigrants/labor that prevent migrants from getting worker protections.
@@davidellis1550 WoW…how crass is that? Millions even billions do jobs just to survive, not because they choose to. You likely pay more for organic produce, but would never consider paying extra to give migrants and pickers a livable wage. Look at the stickers on your produce. Much comes from Mexico, central and South America where workers are treated like chattel and paid pennies. Naw, that ain’t your problem.
No, because in the case of human worker exploitation the workers often don't have a better option, so their jobs are the best they have access to. We can just leave animals alone.
@@Nicksonian I avoid organic and i absolutely would pay more if it meant migrant workers got a living wage. I don't set prices and working conditions. I do care about their conditions, but my food choice doesn't give them less work opportunities. It gives them more. Yes people are forced to work to survive. But me buying fish instead of veggies doesn't help migrant workers at all.
@@basedblueboy8770 Char is my favourite! I live in middle/North Sweden. We have pretty clean waters here. Specifically the mountain water. I don't fish my self. But I wish, bc that fish is expensive! But not so strange when it's a smaller business.
at 8:21 you say it's controversial whether algae oil truly delivers a benefit. could you elaborate on that? i currently take a capsule of algae oil daily. should i switch to fish oil?
they're equally effective for omega 3 absorption. the controversy is whether pre-formed long chain omega3s are truly necessary. I´ve heard arguments both ways. taking it as precaution is ok IMO, although not clear whether it provides real benefit
@@NutritionMadeSimple can you please so a topic get into how omega 3 are easily oxidized and many supplements actually have rancid omega 3, also what’s the best way of contain those omega 3 rich food/supplements?
I watched a documentary about norwegian salmon being the most contaminated food of the world. Dont eat salmon any more. Also dont eat pagas (pangassus), with comes forma Mekong River, a very poluted river in China and Vietnam
There are other reasons why I would never eat fish and especially shell fish...but Mercury, PCBs, dioxins, et.al., should also be considered. Don't even get me started on the atrocities of farm fishing. Folks, save yourselves time and trouble...transition to a whole food, plant-based lifestyle. Save/prolong your lives (I will be demonstrating) and help save our planet.
If someone needed to stick to a ketogenic diet for mental health reasons, what do you think is the healthiest way to go about it that would be in-line with your eating pattern recommendations? What I had in mind was a "mediterranean" compatible keto: fish/shellfish, lean poultry, egg whites, nonfat greek yogurt, tofu/tempeh, olive/avocado/macadamia/sesame oils, nuts/seeds, avocados, olives, non-starchy fibrous low-carb vegetables/mushrooms, lacto-fermented vegetables (sauerkraut/kimchi), konjac noodles/psyllium husk/resistant starch powders for extra fiber. How does that sound?
Thanks, as always, for exploring the nuance of nutrition! I hope you will do a critique of the new SFA paper that's making the rounds on social media now. Thanks!
The thing with fish being contaminated is becoming a worldwide problem. But keep in mind that it is a much larger problem in specific locations on this planet; and less so in others. Though, it is also true that because of worldwide exports, fish from problem areas does wind up in stores where people don't suspect anything is wrong; mostly due to legislation allowing certain limits of substances before those food items are considered contaminated. For example, in South America, Surinam, a third world country with very little accountability and much corruption, there have been multiple problems with mercury in the rivers and thus the fish supply including the animals that live off of said fish, due to the small scale gold mining industry. And multiple times certain branches of the government have suppressed the problems which have arisen due to greed and irresponsible behaviors. This does not happen in every country, but it happens in more than a few. Unless one really takes fish and or fish products that are maybe suspect to a lab for specific analysis, one will not know for sure. And that takes time and money. So, most people will not want to care too much about the possibility of them eating contaminated fish or fish products, when all they really want is to enjoy a specific type of food: sushi or seafood chowder, etc. They will at most simply try and make a more or less educated guess about what they intend to eat; if at all. Three other problems that the world population faces, are apathy, stupidity, and mental laziness.
THanks for the vid - I have noticed that most of the time you talk about items in isolation, but as you remarked in the vid, it is the total spectrum and the balance of foods that provide nutritonal information correctness. So, in talking about the balance of O3, is it correct that it should be balanced 1:1 with O6?
You do not address Trimethylamine Oxide (TMAO) at all. Dr. Caldwell Esselstyn makes a very bold and firm claim that fish is very high in TMA which is converted into TMAO in your gut which, according to Esselstyn - is horrific for your arteries in terms of increasing atherosclerotic risk. Is Esselstyn full of it? He seems respected, i very experienced and has been around a long time. As usual - who to believe???
Esselstyn seems to more often point to animal studies and mechanistic data rather than human outcome studies. I think that research is a cause for concern. But, I don't think it generally lines up with the human outcome data. It's possible that Esselstyn is right that high unsaturated fat and TMAO is problematic for heart disease. But, as of now I don't think we can be certain. I don't think Esselstyn is "full of it". But, maybe he could be described as overly cautious.
the strongest evidence I´ve seen to date on TMAO suggests it's a marker but not causal. but even without knowing that, the logic is always the same. if someone argues a component of food X makes the food harmful, they should show you evidence of that harm in humans consuming the food. as discussed in the video, the outcome evidence on fish intake is overwhelmingly positive. even compared to legumes or whole grains we don't see a consistent, clear superiority of either this tells us that either TMAO is not a problem per se (as the evidence seems to indicate so far), or the rest of the components of fish are so beneficial they trump the effect of TMAO. either way... this logic carries over to mechanistic speculation in numerous scenarios. see our "compelling or story-telling?" video
For the past three years, I've eaten 3oz a day of wild salmon (about 1g omega3s) with 2g of algae oil and 2g krill oil ( and never any other fish or animal protein). No I'll effects or heath issues while eating mostly plant based. I guess I'm a Salgan.
Thank you so much for this. I'm vegan and will probably always be, but so confused by the all the science and interpretations. I'm an engineer and have ready lots of studies in the last 20 years, but cannot grasp all these nuances to cut though the narratives. We need people like you: strong in science, good debater, unbiased, respectful and great communicator.
Thank you for keeping it unbiased, as usual.
I fact checked on bias and you hit the "tick off all sides" mark again ✔️ Great video!!
Can you please compare wild caught vs farm raised fish? Not sure if good studies exist for this though
Something significant he did not talk about, a commonality in his videos about topics that I know anything about, often things are overlooked while most audience doesn't know what is missing
I can assure you that wild caught tastes better. Farmed fish tastes like cardboard
@@ronjones1414 Fishy cardboard at that.
It’s what’s fed to the fish that is the problem.
@@ronjones1414 taste wise yeah but farmed salmon has a flakier more moist consistency compared to wild salmon.
I appreciate the kind of forum you are trying to setup on this social media platform. That's the way we should be debating.
This channel is gold!
My neighbor used to fish for tuna hoping to get a big-dollar catch but only got small ones. He ate tuna daily against his wife's advice and got mercury poisoning.
I understand there are different types of tuna with albacore having more mercury than “light” tuna
Tuna is high in mercury also yeah, it wasnt even mentionned in the video, thats too bad because it is the most common high mercury fish, there is reasons if it is recommended pregnant women avoid it.
Chunk is supposed to be lower in mercury than solid tuna. I'll eat about 2 cans a month. Greenpeace used to have a test for mercury and you'd mail them some hair for the test. Mine was low but detected.
Yes, it happens a lot.
Dose makes the poison!
I’m a whole food vegan who supplements with algae oil for the omega 3’s. I know they are essential fats for brain health so I try to include them in adequate amounts. I liked how he said he does not personally eat fish himself due to other factors (the environmental and animal ethics). If a pescatarian and vegan diet are equally great in terms of health then the tie breaker is to add in ethics and then a vegan diet wins hands down. That is how he apparently chooses to act and I am doing the same. Cool video!!
Same here. As you may know, Omega-3 can also be obtained from eating ground flax, walnuts, and other plant based foods. That type of Omega-3 is ALA, which is converted by the body to DHA and EPA, but not very efficiently. Some people convert it more effectively than others.
Ethics?vegan diet literary kills more animals
Doesn't eating fewer animals mean that fewer are bred and brought into existence? So the ethical question is which is better / worse: eating an animal that lived a life, or not eating an animal that never lived but could have?
@@biggestsign How about just leaving animals in the wild and humans not eating them at all?
@@biggestsign Ask yourself if you would want to be bred into existence to suffer and then be needlessly killed. Is that a life worth living?
Mercury levels in fish is different from country to country, even tuna and big fish can have acceptable mercury levels, so you have to check your fish to say if it's high in mercury or not. I think that fish is an important part in a healthy life. It lowers triglycerides better than drugs in my opinion, but it seems to increase LDL. So eating fish while having already good cholesterol panel and optimal fat percentage and distribution must be one of best health decisions you will take.
All things being equal, it would be better to eat lower on the food chain if mercury is an unknown risk. Sardines being better than tuna using that paradigm.
Thank you for your service 🙏 It has enriched my scientific understanding and my health probably aswell 😊
Tunas are a also high in mercury, it is not without reason it is recommened that pregnant women avoid it.
Neither oily fish nor EVOO helped me avoid high BP. WFPB no SOS low fat did.
@1:50
I think what is misleading about just thinking fish = good or that you live longer is that fish, in my opinion, is more of a corollary than causal thing. People that eat fish tend to eat better in general. Also, look at how most fish dishes are served. Less you are getting some New Orleans boil with sausages and what not in it you will almost certainly see more veggies involved that someone who eats lots of beef which tends to be in the form of a burger that often has fries with it or a overly huge steak with some butter heavy sauce, fried this or baked that with sour cream all over it.
Also portion sizes - when someone gets a steak it seems like people want a 12ox, 16oz, or larger to feel like they are getting their money's worth but you don't see restaurants, well in general I am not talking about ouliers, giving out 1lb, 1.5lb, or 2lb portions of trout or salmon.
So I think even if fish and beef were equally bad for you just the portion size, prep, and what they are each served with is different enough that some, if not most or all, of the perceived benefit from fish is not the fish itself.
Portion size alone - salmon, for example, is typically a 4 to 6 ounce portion in a restaurant. The smallest steaks that you might see start at 8oz to 10oz, in most cases, and go up from there. So even if they were equally bad for you the smallest steak portion is going to be up to twice as bad for you, again if they were equally bad for your health, as the salmon.
Then, of course, cooking method and time. People like a nice crust on their steak or burgers. Well, that is cancer waiting to happen. Fish you can grill too but it won't take a crust like beef. But you can also steam, braise, boil in a soup, etc. fish.
So the cooking method, portion size, sides or toppers that people typical get with beef or fish, etc.. could all be big factors in making one look healthier than the other.
Thats exactly what I suspect to be the explanation!
It is more simple than this, benefit comes mostly from omega 3 boost and yeah because it is less harmful than mammals muscles and cheese but fish is muscle too as Mcougal says.
There's a lot of people eating fried fish with french fries, or white rice as a side dish.
Could you please do a video talking about processed seed oils, like canola oil or other vegetable oils? I've heard so many horror stories about how bad vegetable oils actually are for you, and I'm trying to learn to eat helthy. Please do a video about this if you haven't already, it would be awesome!!!
coming :)
@@NutritionMadeSimple Let's goooo!!! Can't wait to finally have some closure on the issue, I've read this one up and down both sides and just don't know what to make of it.
@@Maximas190 the truth is the evidence is pretty consistent for benefit if compared to butter or other saturated fat-rich options. ofc seed oils by themselves are one thing and seed oils in junk food are another! :) 1st video out will look at inflammation.
Plant chomper channel has a pretty good video on oil. Should be enough to get through the murky water. He invited Dr Pekka Puska for the interview. Pretty solid 👌
@@Al-vw8qtYour argument is flawed
I'm 100% sure there are evidence ancient people also got heart diseases
And even if polyunsaturated fat consumption increases along with heart diseases but so what?
Is it a causation? if so where is the evidence?
The evidence overwhelmingly says otherwise
What's about sugar? sugar consumption also tripled the number in 70s. Why don't you also blame it?
what's about fast food with highly refined carb?
Scientists clogged monkeys' arteries with a mixture of coconut oil and sugar. The same for pigs and other omnivores.
There are even books about how to do it.
These are really great conversations. Thank you. What I have never seen at least commonly is no one talks about the harsh chemicals, pesticides, growth harmones, wax coating and colouring agents used in agriculture/to grow veggies... Don't know why. Could you please cover this topic as well.
Healthy or not we are in climate crisis the oceans are being destroyed a huge part of that is the fishing industry.. so yeah it's up to you but I would ask nicely on behalf of our planet please stop eating fish.. oh and fish have feelings too
Nope, I'll support stronger regulations but fish, dairy, and poultry are part of my diet.
@@295Phoenix massive L for 295Phoenix
Legendary Jamie Pitcher
I switched to a pescaterian diet 3 months ago to reduce my ApoB and LDL-C by restricting saturated fat. Eliminated cheese which I was eating a lot of, except for fat-free or sometimes 2% cottage cheese and fat-free yogurt. I am prone to kidney stones, so I need the dairy. Learned that, thank you, from your guest, the NYU nephrologist. Also eliminated eggs, because they can raise cholesterol, if only temporarily. But as a pescaterian, I eat fish everyday, not once or twice a week, wild-caught salmon, mackerel, cod and flounder. Basically exchanged chicken for fish. Was eating very little meat. So, that's gone too. Getting enough protein, while trying to keep carbs fairly low (I eat a lot of vegetables) is a concern. Have to watch the oxalates, so don't know if I should eat tofu often.
I'm over 70. MDs and Phds on YT, Dr. Stansfield et al., say we need 1.6-2.0 g/kg or more. Maybe 130 g/day. Not easy to get there.
Regarding the last point about the exposure to PCBs and Dioxins, the study that informed those numbers refers to the adult population in the USA. It is relevant to consider the intake of each food group in the US population. Apparently, people in the USA eat much more vegetables than fish. It may be true that 22% of the exposure comes from vegetables and 9% from fish, but if the intake of vegetables in this population is much higher than 2.4x the intake of fish (it is), that indicates that replacing fish with an equivalent amount of vegetables would decrease significantly the exposure to such toxins.
The researchers say and I quote: "The share of TEQ contributed by fish is smaller than previous estimates, because fish is consumed in smaller quantities in the United States than in many other countries."
I suggest taking a look at the tables provided in the study ( Schecter A, Cramer P, Boggess K. et al. Intake of dioxins and related compounds from food in the U.S. population. J Toxicol Environ Health A. 2001;63:1-1811346131 ) to verify that the concentrations of these chemicals in vegetables are indeed much lower than in fish.
Even more to the point of the video, a great insight comes from comparing the concentrations of those chemicals in fish with the concentrations in the "simulated vegan diet sample" that they devised in the study. That gives you a good estimate of how much more exposure to these toxins you would get by adding fish to an otherwise vegan diet. Of course, eating a small bite of fish a week will not mean much, but people who decide to go pescatarian for health reasons usually eat much more than that and probably should be concerned about this.
“Seagans” exist, those who eat no meat, no dairy, no animal products except for fish. I would love to see how seagans stack up against these other groups.
look for health outcome data of pescatarians.
I really felt this one swept the PCB/Dioxin issue under the rug, rather than dealing with it. It's the main reason I cut down on fish, they are highest in in fatty fish, the same fish that recommended for being low mercury.
Also I think there was a quick implications that they were higher in vegetables than fish.
In reality PCB/Dioxins are highest in fish. It's just the people don't eat that much fish.
In vegetables, it's mainly in the fat/oil, so if eating a WFPB diet without added oil, your exposure would be VERY low.
Genius!
The last point about sources of PCB's and Dioxins in the "Western diet" is for the average of all westerners, right? How would that look broken down by diet types? Not by percentages, but total intake of PCB's and dioxins? Wouldn't that be the relevant question for determining the best diet to avoid those pollutants?
I would also like to know the sources of PCB's and Dioxins in vegetables.
Is it the manure used for fertilizer? Could that be reduced by using a different fertilizer?
"Dioxins can also potentially contaminate fruits and vegetables by being deposited with airborne particles (dust) on plant surfaces or directly from contact with contaminated soil. Food testing and research studies, however, have shown that plants can only take up a small fraction of the dioxins present."-Michigan (state government web site)
Wouldn't the fact that toxins bio-accumulate up the food chain tell us that by eating lower on the food chain, we can minimize our intake of toxins?
Speaking of PCBs, do you have any videos about bottled water and bisphenyls (A and other)?
You said nothing about fish consumption contributing to overweight/obesity and diabetes when compared to plant alternatives. Pescatarians have on average higher BMI and show a greater prevalence of diabetes and arterial hypertension when compared to vegetarians (let alone vegans).
Is all that true in Japan which consumes more fish than any other country?
@@dj-fe4ck, Japan is the country with highest prevalence of arterial hypertension in the world (and the highest incidence of stroke, one of the most serious complications of chronic hypertension). As for BMI, the average daily caloric intake in Japan is several hundreds kilocalories lower than the average intake of the population in any other developed economy. No wonder the average BMI is also lower than in any of those other countries. You can’t become overweight or obese if you don’t eat more calories than you spend. That’s direct consequence of the first law of thermodynamics and the law of conservation of energy.
@ the data that is presented here does not support what you say about fish. Fried foods, foods that are both sugary and fatty like most sweets and deserts, and too much fat overall, but not a mostly low fat mostly plants whole foods diet that includes some fish.
Thank you for the video!
Please do a video on the role of diet on preventing dementia.
Thank you. Regarding the point about PCBs and dioxins, was the higher intake from vegetables due to people eating more vegetables than fish, or was actually a matter of concentration. Obviously, Americans eat a lot more chicken and beef and dairy than fish, so concentration could still be a concern there if that's what those stats were and someone were saying they should eat more fish because of this. Is it concentration or total volume??
I understand it’s total amount from each source. Since on average people eat less than 10% of the calories they intake as fish that means PCBs and dioxins are more concentrated in fish than in vegetables.
@ Yeah that, and PCB/Dioxins generally are in the fats, so people probably eat more calories of vegetable oil (higher exposure), than actual vegetables (lower exposure).
I know this is about nutrition but I avoid fish for the terrible environmental impact the fish/seafood industry is causing. Same for beef.
You should talk w Dr. Chris Palmer who argues that keto can be an effective metabolic intervention for mental illness; curious to hear your perspective on his work!
You didn't mention the risk of algal toxins and cyanobacteria. This is particularly a problem for fish that come from temperature or warm waters. There is some evidence that consuming alot of fish from these waters might contribute to risk for ALS.
Are there high rates of ALS in Japan which consumes more fish than almost any other country?
@Marr033 probably because the SAD diet is so high in fat. It would be very hard to get too much fat from fish alone. Most fish are very lean and even if you eat fattier fish, you can still easily eat very low fat, meaning less than 15% calories from fat. Almost all fish are much lower in both total fat and saturated fat than soy. There is no evidence whatsoever that a high carb low fat whole foods diet where 1-5% of the diet is fish and 95-99% plant based is any less healthy than a high carb low fat whole foods diet that is 100% plant based. If anything, the former might be even healthier.
@@dj-fe4ck They consume cold water fish, mostly. Warm-water fish can have toxins in them if there are cyanobacteria blooms (red tide, etc.)
Conflicts with what Dr. Gil said about ischemic heart disease? "Vegetarian diets confer protection against cardiovascular diseases, cardiometabolic risk factors, some cancers and total mortality. Compared to lacto-ovo-vegetarian diets, vegan diets seem to offer additional protection for obesity, hypertension, type-2 diabetes, and cardiovascular mortality."- PubMed, National Institutes of Health
(Title-"Beyond Meatless, the Health Effects of Vegan Diets: Findings from the Adventist Cohorts") "Cardiovascular mortality?"
Have you covered the issue of where the fish come from? Someone might choose sardines for the low levels of toxins low on the food chain, but many sardines come from Poland and Latvia (also Germany). Their fishing waters are usually the Baltic Sea. The Baltic is one of most polluted sources, because of all the heavy industry (including during the Soviet decades), which has been especially polluting.
So, are such sardines significantly less desirable than sardines from less polluted waters? And if this concern is legitimate, then should people be careful to choose the least polluted waters? And where are those waters? Some available sardines come from Equador. Would these be safer? Or (in the case of small fish like sardines) does it not really matter?
[My own sense, based on both observations and reason, is that small, young fish do not suffer in the same way as larger, adult fish. Their brains are not fully developed and they do not have the same look in their eyes when suffocating, struggling, and thrashing about. They don't really know what is going on, they don't have the same feelings or fear and terror, and they don't suffer the way the older, larger fish suffer.]
'As little dietary cholesterol as possible' - the guidelines go, so - healthwise- at the end of the day fish, it seems, should also be avoided. Or am I missing something?
is that from the USDA recs? if you go through they also recommend including fish and seafood. in fact iirc they recommend increasing it from current consumption levels.
so it's a judgment call, where personal preference and individual circumstances also factor in
@@NutritionMadeSimple So they’re just inconsistent. They may recommend fish compared to other animal sources, but eventually their cholesterol line seems unequivocal.
@@Davygan you can eat a vegan diet that's very high in saturated fat with zero dietary cholesterol and have high cholesterol levels over 200, and you can eat a very low saturated fat diet that is mostly plant based but not vegan and have normal or lower cholesterol levels without statins.
@@dj-fe4ck Sure. However, that changes nothing about the line in question. And isn’t comparing apples to oranges (unhealthy vs. healthy)?
@@Davygan we have a video on dietary cholesterol coming probably next week that will cover individual variation, effect on serum colesterol etc. pretty excited about that one!
What about microplastics in fish?
Thank you for clarifying all the mumbo jumbo that pervades the media and media in general when it comes to interpreting the data out there. I'm vegan and feel much better about consuming plants including algae based DHA and EPA along with nuts and seeds daily.
Great video. Your approach to these topics are skillfully done to remain neutral but factual no matter which way the logic sways. Thanks for the hard work. 👍
Very unbiased ❤
The ocean & lakes are one big cesspool....think about it.
I do enjoy his videos as well. I didn’t know you went on the channel! I’ll check it out!
I like that you don't let your morals affect your factual analysis. I've been semi vegetarian for 35 years, since about 25, for moral reasons (I do eat small amounts of seafood). But I don't trust most proponents of vegan diets, because their moral agenda pretty obviously influences their health theories a lot of the time. It seems to me that for my type two diabetes, a very low carb pesco vegetarian diet, combined with intermittent fasting, has the best results. I have been convinced by you, Thomas Delauer Joel Fuhrman, and some others to pay more attention to saturated fat and cholesterol. So far, my bloodwork is good, but I want to get my A1C into the sixes.
I'm looking for algae based omega 3's which have a smaller pill. My wife can't take the large pills.
"Conclusions: Excessive seafood intake, particularly largemouth fish, elevates Hg levels and causes cognitive dysfunction, especially for mercury levels ≥15 µg/L. Higher N3FA
intake initially is associated with improved cognitive function, but rising Hg levels ultimately overwhelm the moderating effect of N3FA intake"
10.3945/jn.113.175695
"Excessive"
The poison is in the dose.
@@FleurPillager agreed
@@StillTrustNo1 How is excessive defined in the study?
@@FleurPillager "The research team examined the specific relationship between sh consumption, Hg, and N3FA by generalized regres-sion. The team measured seafood consumption in terms of weekly servings and consumption of large-mouth. in terms of monthly servings. When the team regressed consumption against Hg level, the relationship was strongly positive, and the results were highly signicant, especially for >3 servings of seafood weekly or >3 serv-ings of large-mouth sh monthly"
Wrong citation.
I think an important note is that vegan men had a lower all cause mortality rate than pescatarians in the Adventist study. It was just that women had a higher all cause rate which brought the ratio down for both groups. So it was actually the vegan men that lived longer out of any group.
That’s not how I interpret the data. When compared with non-vegetarian Adventists (already a relatively healthy group vs general population), vegan Adventist men reaped more health benefit (I.e. lower hazard ratio) by going vegan vs non-vegetarian men, while vegan women reaped a lesser benefit vs non-vegetarian women. There was nothing there in the paper to say vegan men lived longer than vegan women, or even non-vegan women.
In addition, while vegetarian men had lower hazard ratios across the board vs non-vegetarian men, vegan women had ‘higher’ hazard ratios in Ischemic heart disease and cardiovascular disease vs. non-vegetarian women. Pesco-vegetarian women, on the other hand, had lower hazard ratios in these two disease categories.
Full paper available free to all here : www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4191896/#!po=39.6552
@@MT-sq3jo All cause mortality is a measure of lifespan. Vegan men had the lowest all cause rate therefore they live the longest. It doesn't matter how you interpreted it because that's what it means. What you said had no relation to what I said.
@@80slimshadys if you read the paper, they only compared vegan men vs men, they never cross compared men vs women. In addition, they never spelled out the end ages for those who died during the examination period. The mean age for all participants at the time of the study was less than 60 years old. So in other words, as an example, it’s possible that for those vegan men whom died, they died before age 85 on average, but the portion whom died among men was 5%. For vegan women whom died, the average age was 90, but 10% passed away at that point among all vegan women. In this example, I’d certainly not classified those men lived longer than the women. Obviously we do not know for sure since the data was not available in the paper, hence, we cannot draw conclusion on this specific question. This is the limitation of a paper which has not followed all the participants to their graves (not yet anyway).
Importante esta correlação que você faz (como escolha pessoal) entre o produto alimentício e o impacto ambiental causado. Moro no litoral e vejo o estrago que a pesca industrial faz. Seria possível pensar a alimentação saudável levando em conta o impacto ambiental? Quero dizer, levando o próprio dano ambiental como mais ou menos saudável, já que a longo prazo um meio ambiente desequilibrado poderia ser considerado mais um risco à saúde?
Just ran across another issue: micro plastics which contaminate many fish.
Would love to see you discuss this topic with Dr. Michael Greger
Me too!
Yes, can you discuss this with Dr. Greger?
What would be the point? That guy only cherry-picks "studies" to fit his vegan agenda.
Would love to see this but Greger would never
@@joshleedy6127 Feel the same but wonder why?
Knowing what to eat is a head ache I would love to see studies done on Natural bodybuilders(non steroids) participants. Since they seem to be healthy and with lower health issues than your average person. Just a thought.
I would truly love to see a video pertaining to being vegan, cholesterol and the effects on testosterone levels.
i would love to see this
Why, do have low T? Are you on or need to be on TRT? I do not believe there is any evidence whatsoever that being vegan and having low cholesterol lowers testosterone. If you have, can I read it?
I don’t even care if you discount the pollution fish farms cause, micro plastics, mercery, etc …I’ve seen fish farm videos, no thanks
Edit: don’t forget fish farms add antibiotics to the water… in the ocean. Yeah, that’s gonna work out well for us 😂
We’re already over-antibiotic’d in regular animal agriculture, now it’s being poured in the ocean for profits. Enough. Eat some damn vegetables
lol vegetables are full of toxins too even the "biologic" ones
Benefits of fish are not only in the omega 3s. There must be a whole package of healthy nutrients and components work synergistically.
I remember that collab! I'm a Vegan because I subscribe to sentiocentric morality, so the health effects of eating fish don't matter to me.
But fish are sentient, so their affects be they good or bad shouldn't matter to a vegan.
@@davidsheriff9274 yeah..plus he ain't missing out on a ton..
Probably on mercury and microplastics (consumed by fishes cuz they think it's plankton) .. and other harmful toxins dumped by none other than us..
@@davidsheriff9274That's exactly what s/he said.
Is a pescatarian also eating dairy though? Is there a term for a fish eater who doesn’t eat meat or dairy? It seems like comparing pescatarians to vegans without that distinction won’t tell you that much.
Yes, seagan. That means only fish and no meat, poultry, dairy, or eggs
@@dj-fe4ck hahaha. That’s perfect.
@@dj-fe4ck hahaha. That’s perfect.
@@tnijoo5109 I know it is
Doctor, what about the high TMAO in fish, which I read is a marker for heart disease.
How can you compare omega 3s in fishes with a totally different array of nutrients in beans..
Mum (a doc) always recommends algea oil instead of eating all beans
I'm 173 and eat nothing but shrimp and sea grass
I eat a can of sardines everyday because I love the taste and from what I understand shorter lived fish do not collect heavy metals like the larger species. I consider it my daily omega 3/vitamin D/selenium/calcium supplement.
@@Marr033 Everything collects something. Kale collects thalium, a radioactive compound.
What are the CVD risks of fatty fish compared to lean meat such as beef fillet? Salmon still contains 2.5 grams of saturated fat per 100g, versus 1.2 grams in beef fillet. Does it mean that beef fillet is potentially better to control LDL cholesterol vs fatty fish? Or is the type of saturated fat in fish different, hence still better than the fillet?
How about a program on which foods prevent gout flare-ups and amounts daily? There are alot of us who are experiencing this desease who are unsure of what to eat and hopefully avoid prescription medications and their side effects.
Can u please compare omega 3 fish oil supplements versus algae based supplement benefits if there are any studies on this topic?
see ruclips.net/video/n4xxO9Tai04/видео.html
Better overall mortality seems significant. How much better, though? Does anyone here know?
Love your videos! Regarding the pollution question, I do wonder about data drift. If it is true that pollution is getting worse, then "averaging" its effect over the course of an observational study may not be ideal. I work with healthcare, and it's a huge problem with our data, though one easier to solve -- the data is much different pre- and post-Covid! If instead there's a slower change in the average mercury levels of fish, for example, I wonder if that has an effect.
Are you aware of this study in The American J. Of Clinical Nutrition from July 2021? Researchers found that omega-3 levels in rbc's are very good predictors of mortality. "Having higher levels of these acids in the blood, as
a result of regularly including oily fish in the diet, increases life expectancy by almost 5 years." Data came from the Framingham Offspring Cohort consisting of 2,240 people over the age of 65, monitored for 6 years. 4 types of fatty acids, including 2 saturated fatty acids, whose levels in the body can't be changed by diet, indicate longer life expectancy.
My uncle drove a Mercury - at a traffic stop police found cans of tuna in the trunk - THE MERCURY CONTAINED TUNA !
Sorry
🐟
you win the internet :)
Nice one.
The last point about sources of PCB's and Dioxins in the "Western diet" is for the average of all westerners, right? How would that look broken down by diet types? Not by percentages, but total intake of PCB's and dioxins? Wouldn't that be the relevant question for determining the best diet to avoid those pollutants?
This was great, I would love to see a similar one about cheese? 🍀☀️
Tony Robbins nearly died from consuming fish and likely it was the highest quality.
it was mainly swordfish, daily intake not recommended as those are very high in the food chain
The problem with Adventist studies is that being based on a vegan religion there could be 1000 ways they can skew results. I would like to see a nonbias study. Also the small fish tend to be bottom feeders so you get what you eat eats.
Thank you for the high scientific standard you apply and for educating how to interpret studies objectivly. I am acutally a little disappointed in the plant based Gurus such as Dr. Greger, Barnard, Esselstyn,..... I was fascinated by listening to them, but over time realized that they often oversell very low evidence for hard facts.
I listen to Dr. Greger regularly, but agree that he does strenuously steer toward pro-vegan. At least, however, he cites studies all over the place. I’ve listened to all sorts of “influencers” from carnivore/keto to vegetarian/ vegan viewpoints. I’m disturbed how few of them are willing to convey a range of fact, not opinion, like Dr. Gil does. If you’re a discerning viewer, you’ll eventually start seeing the week spots in all of these guru’s presentations. If you haven’t, also see Plant Chompers. I am not vegan but follow Mediterranean…
I think there are complications. In Australia we can buy Canadian wild salmon fillets or local farmed salmon, which are fed pellets and a dye to make the fish orange/red. Some vegatables are grown hydroponically, so a man-designed diet for the tomatoes/lettuces etc. And I thought that calcium in natural milk didn't increase heart attack rates, but the pill form of calcium did. Implications for soy/almond/rice milk; is the calcium an additive in these?
What is known in about contaminated algae in consumed food/supplements? Surely they will also containt mercury and other pollutants.
I really appreciate your efforts to provide us the valuable information.
Can you tell me wheather preservative INS 211 used in Vegan Multivitamins is Carcinogenic or not??
Some studies says it reacts with Vitamin C to produce Benzene which is Carcinogen.
I would like to know your opinion.
INS 211 is sodium benzoate, a preservative found in many, many food products. Its safety IS questionable. However, I would think the microscopic quantity in a single tablet would be dwarfed by the sodium benzoate most of us already consume in our unhealthy diets.
Aren’t small, wild caught fish safe? as well as chunk light tuna once a week
7:21 yeah that's cuz of biomagnification and 10 percent law..
The amount of fish consumed also matters..
Very good video...
We're still waiting for white meat video.
I think you should look into biomagnification and 10percent law.. it's really basic.. but underrated..
Fishes and animals that eat plants and then are eaten by some other animal eg human..have higher amount of toxins cuz of biomagnification and it's even magnified when we as humans eat those fishes
Can you do a video on seed oil and its health effects?
There's no significant differences in life expectancy among the top 25 countries, from very different parts of the world, which means that several types of diets can achieve similar results.
He mentioned saturated fat in fish but left out cholesterol
You are the man Gil
Dr. Andrew Weil (MD, Harvard) recommends eating some fish (once or twice per week, as I recall), supplemented with fish oil.
I haven't seen him explain his exact reasoning, though. Maybe he has done so somewhere (if anyone knows of anywhere he has done so, please post) and I just haven't seen it yet.
I would like to hear your own views on why he makes this recommendation, or what the reasons might possibly be.
He is a very credible source, in my view.
Can you maybe do a video on the healthiest type of cardio to do for longevetiy ? Its mostly talked about zone 2 cardio
Vegans and sometimes even pescatarians point to the toxins in fish oil, but a good quality fish oil is purified whereas fish that we consume as food is more likely to be contaminated. I'm sticking with a small amount of fish oil and eat organic whole plant foods.
The omega 3 amount you get in fish oil supplement is nowhere near as good or even the same amount of omega 3 as you would in pure form. Wild salmon contain about 2500+ omega 3 in 100g portion, you can't get that in pill form unless it's alot of pill. Mercury amount is about 22. Sardines have 1500 and about 17, Atlantic Mackereal 2600+ and around 50 mercury. Atlantic wild fish are not that worrisome as there environment is still as stable as it's always been. Also you mention pointing to toxins, these studys are mostly with farmed fish which are a whole different story.
@@SupremeODMG I'm not as concerned about mercury in salmon as pcbs. Even wild salmon is now testing positive .Two of my fish oil capsules have 2150. I don't need more than this. I'm good.
Why not through algae?
@@Andrew-ug2cy Not enough omega 3s. I'd have to take 10 capsules a day and it would be a fortune. And I think the ratio of dha to epa in fish oil is preferable for inflammation. Also, most studies are done on omega 3s from fish.
Why not just take algae oil? Genuine question btw?
Harvesting of fish is problematic, but every form of food production has caveats. Do we consider the hard lives of the migrant workers who harvest vegetables the same way we decry environment impact of fishing or possible cruelty in raising animals? I follow a pescatarian/Mediterranean diet. The only animal products I use on a regular basis are salmon (occasionally anchovies and sardines) and low-fat Greek yogurt. I look at tuna the same way I do chicken and beef, something to have on rare occasions.
Skipjack tuna is also low in mercury.
No, because buying vegetables doesn't force migrant workers to pick vegetables. They chose it because it was better than the alternatives. It's government policy on immigrants/labor that prevent migrants from getting worker protections.
@@davidellis1550 WoW…how crass is that? Millions even billions do jobs just to survive, not because they choose to. You likely pay more for organic produce, but would never consider paying extra to give migrants and pickers a livable wage. Look at the stickers on your produce. Much comes from Mexico, central and South America where workers are treated like chattel and paid pennies. Naw, that ain’t your problem.
No, because in the case of human worker exploitation the workers often don't have a better option, so their jobs are the best they have access to. We can just leave animals alone.
@@Nicksonian I avoid organic and i absolutely would pay more if it meant migrant workers got a living wage. I don't set prices and working conditions. I do care about their conditions, but my food choice doesn't give them less work opportunities. It gives them more. Yes people are forced to work to survive. But me buying fish instead of veggies doesn't help migrant workers at all.
I eat local mountain fish! Not from any industrial fishing and very clean waters. 🎉
What species? Where do you live? Do you catch your own? I'm thinking about trying this myself, in Colorado btw
@@basedblueboy8770 Char is my favourite! I live in middle/North Sweden. We have pretty clean waters here. Specifically the mountain water. I don't fish my self. But I wish, bc that fish is expensive! But not so strange when it's a smaller business.
What about PFAs though?
at 8:21 you say it's controversial whether algae oil truly delivers a benefit. could you elaborate on that? i currently take a capsule of algae oil daily. should i switch to fish oil?
they're equally effective for omega 3 absorption. the controversy is whether pre-formed long chain omega3s are truly necessary. I´ve heard arguments both ways. taking it as precaution is ok IMO, although not clear whether it provides real benefit
@@NutritionMadeSimple can you please so a topic get into how omega 3 are easily oxidized and many supplements actually have rancid omega 3, also what’s the best way of contain those omega 3 rich food/supplements?
I watched a documentary about norwegian salmon being the most contaminated food of the world. Dont eat salmon any more.
Also dont eat pagas (pangassus), with comes forma Mekong River, a very poluted river in China and Vietnam
My problem with meat vs beans is that beans is full of carbs too.
Good video! 🙌
There are other reasons why I would never eat fish and especially shell fish...but Mercury, PCBs, dioxins, et.al., should also be considered. Don't even get me started on the atrocities of farm fishing. Folks, save yourselves time and trouble...transition to a whole food, plant-based lifestyle. Save/prolong your lives (I will be demonstrating) and help save our planet.
Great stuff!! Thanks!
Isn't farm raised salmon bad.
Farm raised fish should generally be avoided, yes, would love to see Gil go over this info.
Not as good as wild, but still better than grass fed red meat and dairy
What about genetic mutations like mthfr and other gene mutations that lend them selves to poor detoxification profiles?
If someone needed to stick to a ketogenic diet for mental health reasons, what do you think is the healthiest way to go about it that would be in-line with your eating pattern recommendations? What I had in mind was a "mediterranean" compatible keto: fish/shellfish, lean poultry, egg whites, nonfat greek yogurt, tofu/tempeh, olive/avocado/macadamia/sesame oils, nuts/seeds, avocados, olives, non-starchy fibrous low-carb vegetables/mushrooms, lacto-fermented vegetables (sauerkraut/kimchi), konjac noodles/psyllium husk/resistant starch powders for extra fiber. How does that sound?
yup 100% got the right idea. I imagine you've seen this: ruclips.net/video/CjL41H_Dz4k/видео.html
@@NutritionMadeSimple Yes, thank you for the valuable info!
Fresh salmon has no odor. If it smells fishy, don't eat it.
If the fish market smells fishy, don't buy there.
Thanks, as always, for exploring the nuance of nutrition! I hope you will do a critique of the new SFA paper that's making the rounds on social media now. Thanks!
Yes! New SFA paper please!
The thing with fish being contaminated is becoming a worldwide problem. But keep in mind that it is a much larger problem in specific locations on this planet; and less so in others. Though, it is also true that because of worldwide exports, fish from problem areas does wind up in stores where people don't suspect anything is wrong; mostly due to legislation allowing certain limits of substances before those food items are considered contaminated. For example, in South America, Surinam, a third world country with very little accountability and much corruption, there have been multiple problems with mercury in the rivers and thus the fish supply including the animals that live off of said fish, due to the small scale gold mining industry. And multiple times certain branches of the government have suppressed the problems which have arisen due to greed and irresponsible behaviors. This does not happen in every country, but it happens in more than a few. Unless one really takes fish and or fish products that are maybe suspect to a lab for specific analysis, one will not know for sure. And that takes time and money. So, most people will not want to care too much about the possibility of them eating contaminated fish or fish products, when all they really want is to enjoy a specific type of food: sushi or seafood chowder, etc. They will at most simply try and make a more or less educated guess about what they intend to eat; if at all. Three other problems that the world population faces, are apathy, stupidity, and mental laziness.
THanks for the vid - I have noticed that most of the time you talk about items in isolation, but as you remarked in the vid, it is the total spectrum and the balance of foods that provide nutritonal information correctness. So, in talking about the balance of O3, is it correct that it should be balanced 1:1 with O6?
we have a video coming on n6:n3 ratio :)
I like your channel……but you trip over your words …slow it down a little.
More effective and clear
Thanks for that mate. I eat a lot of fish
You do not address Trimethylamine Oxide (TMAO) at all. Dr. Caldwell Esselstyn makes a very bold and firm claim that fish is very high in TMA which is converted into TMAO in your gut which, according to Esselstyn - is horrific for your arteries in terms of increasing atherosclerotic risk. Is Esselstyn full of it? He seems respected, i very experienced and has been around a long time. As usual - who to believe???
FYI: Esselstyn has videos online where he presents his case with "his" evidence. Can you analyze and discuss?
Esselstyn seems to more often point to animal studies and mechanistic data rather than human outcome studies. I think that research is a cause for concern. But, I don't think it generally lines up with the human outcome data. It's possible that Esselstyn is right that high unsaturated fat and TMAO is problematic for heart disease. But, as of now I don't think we can be certain. I don't think Esselstyn is "full of it". But, maybe he could be described as overly cautious.
the strongest evidence I´ve seen to date on TMAO suggests it's a marker but not causal. but even without knowing that, the logic is always the same. if someone argues a component of food X makes the food harmful, they should show you evidence of that harm in humans consuming the food. as discussed in the video, the outcome evidence on fish intake is overwhelmingly positive. even compared to legumes or whole grains we don't see a consistent, clear superiority of either
this tells us that either TMAO is not a problem per se (as the evidence seems to indicate so far), or the rest of the components of fish are so beneficial they trump the effect of TMAO. either way...
this logic carries over to mechanistic speculation in numerous scenarios. see our "compelling or story-telling?" video
Is 2000 EPA / 1000 DHA too much everyday if we dont eat fish at all?
Is this beneficial
For the past three years, I've eaten 3oz a day of wild salmon (about 1g omega3s) with 2g of algae oil and 2g krill oil ( and never any other fish or animal protein). No I'll effects or heath issues while eating mostly plant based. I guess I'm a Salgan.
Bring back the old music at the end of your videos!