Hello Dr Nick, could you please put your hands on this new videos that are circulating about “Oreo cookies lowering LDL cholesterol” if you could kindly find time to analyse the truth about these new so called “trend” which is hard to believe the science behind it (if there is any truth about it to begin with) Thanks
@@seekfactsnotfiction9056 Maybe ... They just announced going vegan will do it and Oreos are vegan ... So. Now wouldn't it be wild if it turned out there is some compound in Oreo that is the treatment for heart disease, the number one killer. Lol. That would be like finding out eating pop tarts helps prevent all forms of cancer.
WOW! I study data analysis and you just casually explained how to read and analyze data better than any of my professors have till now!! Would be WONDERFUL if you could maybe make a video on how to read and interpret statistical data as I was way more impressed with your ability to explain than any of my professor's I understand this isn't exactly your niche, but you're amazing at it and it would teach everyone how to be more analytical? 😅
Actually, each video he does really highlights of a lot of those skills in plain language. It's quite remarkable! I agree a video dedicated to the topic with health examples would be beneficial! But you can still gleam at the nuggets in his latest videoa
Nothing about this study is all that surprising, and is in line with other studies. A whole food oriented Vegan diet will typically be somewhat less calorie dense and have a high thermic effect of food, and that's going to play out in ad libitum eating situations. I don't think the lower LDL is merely due to lower calories. It probably has to do with more phytochemicals and fiber in the diet, as well as less saturated fat consumption.
You may be right - but hard to separate . My take from watching it was animal husbandry in The USA is appalling , here in NZ cows are grass fed . It confirmed known stuff exercise , diet are important . If lumped all meat together so kind of useless in that way . My take for most people who are omnivores and not into Keto etc . Take the mediterranean and modify it to your liking . eg push it more towards plant if choose , up more fibre if choose , drop red meat if choose , lower carbs more especially refined etc . Excepting highly restrictive diets . All diets promote huge variety of veggies , berries are wonderful , plus some other fruit , nuts are good , increased fiber is good , beans are good , spices and herbs are good , oils like olive are good . No liquid sugar , no fat/sugar/salt foods as snacks or treats . You do the basics and it works for you , it won't matter that much as will get most benefits . Plus reduced saturated fats ( of certain types ) or better medium yoghurt/kefir vs milk/butter . quality cheese vs some simple ones . Plus even if vegan is best - A person eating a healthy med diet is much better than a poor vegan diet . I try and keep all my carbs quality , but people struggle long term if carbs are low and you have to enjoy your food and life . Having the odd baguette , white rice or pasta is not going to be the problematic if exercising and eating really well. Plus if that odd baguette is now your cookie/cake then thats a big change . Plus having the "perfect" diet is restrictive as ... Limits eating at friends , travelling the world especially in remote or very expensive countries where you have no access to cooking . It's not by chance young backpackers in europe are munching baguettes cheap cheese+ salads+tuna , bananas , chocolate milk to get their daily calories Remember in USA when travelling when young hitchhiking to LA to pick up some money, but still going to national parks - was eating carrots/peanut butter and crackers - as was cheap way to fill up and easy to carry and not spoil
I do wonder what the obssession is with lowering ldl. I know most have drunk the kool aid regarding it being a key factor, but that comes directly from the pharmaceutical industry who have a trillion dollar industry to maintain. There are plenty of perfectly valid comprehensive studies that clearly indicate the opposite of reducing ldl and that low is just as associated with high mortality as high ldl and that longevity is also associated with high ldl. Feel free to obsess over it but it really ends up being a case of navel gazing. Your heart is surrounded by saturated fat and it runs on saturated fat and only switches to glycogen when put under stress. This is in fact the reason your heart stops when having a heart attack. Muscle failure due to lactic acid overload.
I would also like to point out that there seems to be a presumption that nobody cheated, especially during the last 8 weeks. I just cannot understand why they allowed the participants to make their own food for 8 weeks. I find it very hard to believe that there was 100% compliance.
Yes there was. There were outliers that were eliminated from the results because some of the participants obviously cheated due to outcomes. I can't remember the exact results that were eliminated but it is covered in I think "Mic The Vegan" or "Nutrition Made Simple" who looked closer at the entire study and anticipating the results yet to come. It was something like a significant increase in TMAO while supposedly following the whole food Vegan diet which is impossible.
@@jasonito23 See the paper. They started with 22 pairs (44 participants), but one pair dropped out at week 4. No data results were hidden, but further sensitivity analysis were undertaken. Eg, the 4 sets of twins that were in the documentary - this may have impacted on the results (extra supervision, more encouragement to exercise, etc), therefore statistical analysis was undertaken with them in the pooled data, and also excluding them, for comparison. Similarly with the TMAO results. Three outlier TMAO datapoints were eliminated, due to being greater than 15 ųM: 2 at baseline (ie before diet intervention began), 1 at 8 weeks. This was from two participant's datapoints (ie not all their samples taken), due to their high TMAO levels indicating high TMAO food intake consumed within 24hr of the blood samples taken.
From what I remember from the study the vegans lost weight but also lost more lean muscle, which is definitely not what you want to do. Even though Netflix were really biased and trying to push the vegan diet, that loss of more muscle highlighted a real negative effect of the diet.
But they didn’t match for protein in the study for both groups, correct? If so, then it could be argued that the vegans were not eating extra protein compared to the omnivore group and thus were at higher risk of muscle loss. Reason I say this is because we know plant proteins are lower in leucine and are bit less bioavailable, depending on the source and method of processing. Thus, more plant protein needs to be consumed to make up for this. And studies show that when a bit more plant protein is consent to make up for this, there are similar rates of muscle protein synthesis in vegan and non-vegan groups taking plant protein. Also some outcome studies on vegan vs non-vegan weightlifters adding muscle. And did they actually measure muscle loss? I didn’t see that they did unless I missed it.. Also, vegans were in a larger calorie deficit and with calorie deficits we know there is greater risk of muscle loss. So less more potent protein AND a greater calorie deficit in the vegan group I think probably would put them at a slightly greater risk of muscle loss, since we know caloric deficits can increase muscle loss. Thus, perhaps it could be argued that it was an effect of not getting extra protein in the vegan group rather than the vegan diet itself.
@@dragan176 Okay, so even if that is the trend and it ends up being reflected in the study, then the original point still stands: they age less total protein, which was also less potent in anabolic response, and there was 2 times a greater caloric deficit. So this wouldn’t be shocking to me, to be honest.
@@dragan176 Correct. That is why I said *assuming* that it is reflect in the study. We have more than enough data on other studies to know that if this study had that particular outcome that it was likely those factors. But regardless, we don’t need the study to be done to know that it was *not an even plain field* due to those major factors alone. The study design tells us that.
What would have been interesting is if they then switched halfway through to determine whether there could be personal factors aside from genetics that influence these changes. It would essentially double the length of the study but also double the data...
Yes and the profile- the macros, and the food chemistry- common knowledge that polyphenols inhibit starch digestion. And all that fiber can mess with your gut which interferes with digestion lowering your caloric absorption.
9 месяцев назад+3
Yeah, but it's hard to over eat on a good vegan diet (obviously if you only eat crisps it's all bad)
Since the participants were allowed to eat as much as they wanted, the plant based diet filled them sooner and resulted in less calories eaten. Plant based food tends to be lower in calorie density.
@@alexc2265 You are right about dietary cholesterol, but saturated fat can be converted by the body to cholesterol. There are some foods that could be part of a plant based diet with saturated fat, like coconut milk, but those who eat a typical plant based diet tend to consume a lot less saturated fat than meat eaters.
I hate how every time a vegan diet is compared to an omnivorous one they have the omnivore load up on as many carbs as they want while the vegan is just eating raw vegetables. I imagine they would get some dramatically different results if the vegans were eating candy and potato chips. In reality the most important choice isn't whether or not you should eat animal products, but rather whether or not you should eat heavily processed foods. Overloading on carbs isn't great for you, and if they just had the omnivore eat a steak dinner with a salad the results would likely be more or less the same between both groups. It's hard to eat too much when you're eating real food.
I watched it recently and found it interesting. However, although they talked about food quality, they never discussed whether the omnivores were actually eating grass fed beef, pastures raised eggs, wild caught fish etc. Also never really discussed the issues with seed oils. Would have liked them to have checked the Omega 3 levels, which has been shown to be important, as getting sufficient Omega 3 fats can be difficult on a vegan diet.
That wouldn't matter. Grass fed meat still contains all the components that make meat unhealthy: animal protein itself, saturated fat, cholesterol, tmao, lack of antioxidants, lack of fiber, cancer causing bacteria Hemp seeds, walnuts, flax seeds daily will cover omega 3 needs. It's not at all difficult
@@Justinegallows I eat all those too, plus I take fish oil. have you ever had your Omega 3 levels measured? can get through Omegaquant. Mine are very high.
@@Justinegallows life is just one big experiment. I didn't eat meat for almost half my life but changed to low carb/high protein/high fiber diet a few years ago and feel great. Turning 62, work out/exercise every day and eat the best quality foods I can. Fortunately I started eating broccoli sprouts 30 years ago and have been growing and eating my own for 20 years. Best anti-cancer food out there.
Even with using twins it's a simplistic study, from the food content perspective. Food chemistry and composition contribute greatly to digestion. Also, some polyphenols in plant foods act to prevent digestion of the food. Polyphenols have also been studied to use as nutrient blockers to prevent absorption of the food, in particular starches. Starches will raise triglyceride levels. Don't know if the study contained that variable. So it may be the study doesn't take into account the types of macros, vitamin intake and polyphenol content of the foods. So a follow-up question would be how did each set of twins react to eating their food digestion-wise? Also, such a small study. There are much larger studies out there not involving twins but if we're talking about diet then why do we need twins at all? Just look at the analysis and statistics.
I agree but that is exactly why you have to take a step back and simply say, "After 1 year am I in better or worse health on this diet" and go by that.
Macros, vitamin intake and polyphenols are inherent benefits of plants. You can't create a plant vs meat diet and match those variables. That's simply why plants are the better choice People need to just admit that plants are better
@@Justinegallows than omnivore? Omnivore also has all of that and a lot more. Everyone is different and everyone lives differently. There's no one diet for everyone
@@tracymullane8818 See the paper & suppl files, & ClinicalTrials info. Yes, they were tracking carb data (g) (soluble/ insoluble fiber, added/natural sugar & starch), what type of vegetables, legumes etc. Similar with proteins (animal based, plant based) & so on. They are doing microbiota analysis.
I see many comments saying that 8 weeks is too short a time making this study a waste of time. Well, if someone thinks this, change your diet and exercise strictly for a full 8 weeks and see how you will react when some random person looks at you says, "You wasted your time." See if you agree or disagree. 8 weeks is a very good amount of time for a person to participate in a study affecting their diet and exercise.
Thanks for the level setting. Fair. I switched from Omnivore to Vegan within a week of this study being out, and the first week I was starving hungry. Kept adding more plant protein, and the 2nd week hunger went away. Weight trained and ended up gaining weight, which is good because I'm 62 and was underweight and my Dr wanted me to gain strength and weight. So, up till now it's been good. Will see what my lipids are at the end of the month.
@@macheadg5er I think I agree with you in principle, but the only reason I tried a Vegan diet in the first place is I was having difficulty gaining weight/muscle because my cholesterol medication causes slow recovery and muscle pain, and if I cut back on it, I think some animal products I'm eating cause my LDL-P to go over 1000. Probably there's some version of an Omnivore diet that won't do that, but until I figure that out, I've switched to vegan, cut my meds in half, and am gaining weight and strength. Now to see if my cholesterol is still under control...
@@macheadg5er close but no cigar. omnivores could only eat fruit and veg in season but meat was available all year round. So eat meat 12mnths of the year and add in veg 4 mnths of the year.
Good point. Veganism is an ethical position which generally results in a fully plant based diet as well as other lifestyle and changes to what is purchased. A vegan could eat cultured meat made with lab technology, for example, since it wouldn't result in the cruelty and needless killing of non-human animals. This assumes that fetal bovine serum was not used, of course. Products made with Precision Fermentation would be another example, and are now available for purchase.
I used to be a vegan, before people made up the ridiculous title of “plant based.” It’s the same thing, but people are just trying to make it sound better. BTW - “cultured meat made with lab technology” is NOT meat.
Your mic still picks up annoying frequencies above 13khz. You can remove them easily by downloading equalizer apo and putting a adding high low pass filter.
I think the points you made about it were excellent and insightful. I have two concerns or questions or let’s say it’s opportunities for a more thorough future study. The first is that eight weeks is a pretty short period of time and vegans have a hard time getting enough protein & enough micro nutrients. And, in over an eight week study span, I’m not confident it’s long enough for any deficiencies to show up. However, if one were to do that over a longer time span, then, a whole mineral panel as well as the lipid panels would seem to be necessary as a baseline and then afterwards to see what happened. A threesome would’ve been better. You have a omnivore diet which is high in carbohydrates you have a vegan diet why don’t you have a keto or or Carnivore diet group I’m sure you could find more female twins. That would’ve been better. Also if it were iso-caloric as you’ve already mentioned, and all course, all of them would’ve had to have a full lipid panel plus and markers for things like I think kidney function may be liver function. Who funded the study anyway? That always is interesting even though I’m not a conspiracy theorist when it comes to it but there is some opportunity for unintended confirmation bias, especially If people are experts in vegan diets, they might not feel comfortable, trying to come up with a comparable omnivore I mean carnivore diet. And maybe they’ve already seen enough of those that says to them the outcome might very welcome out that the carnivore diet had better markers. We certainly won’t know from this study, but it would be interesting don’t you think That those other parameters would’ve been covered
When I went vegan I lost weight and was delighted. It was muscle. I gained the weight back and more and my gut suffered. Frustratingly, no one ever studies meat eating without dairy consumption. Dairy has unique traits that need to be separated
Perhaps the increased plant ratio resulted in increased blocking of nutrient uptake at the gut cell wall level, hence why weight loss was experienced? I know of a researcher that wrote about this blocking effect of plants. IDK, I’m just putting it out there for discussion.
Except when that isn't true, like in the case of carbs. You can sit down and eat your daily allowance in vegan junk food over the course of an hour and still have room for cake. As for plant based diets, yes that's pretty much the case. Unprocessed plants tend to have low caloric density. Same is true for real animal protein (in terms of satiety). In reality a healthy omnivore would eat plenty of unprocessed whole plants along with real meats. If a study ever forced people into such a diet and compared it to a plant based diet the results would likely be strikingly similar. For both vegans and omnivores the worst possible and best possible versions of their respective diets yield vastly different outcomes.
Part of the point here is that on the vegan diet people did not have to work at losing more weight. Yes, they ate less calories: but they weren't forcing themselves to do so. That's a feature, not a bug!
@@LowUTR - Bu the "Vegan" group didn't eat less. They ate what they wanted to eat as did the omnivores. Fruits and vegetables are less calorie dense and have more fiber. Therefore you can eat more, feel satiated while having consumed less calories. Eating two or three plates of salad is not eating less than a slab of steak. And how many people are actually going to eat less steak?
@@jasonito23 They did eat less. They consumed less calories once they free fed. I would eat less too. Because vegan food to the exclusion of other food is nasty. And for a few months fat Americans probably benefit from this. That stops being a benefit once you achieve a lower body fat percentage and actually need to retain/build muscle.
@@LowUTR - There is no such thing as Vegan food. Vegan food is plants and vegetables. I´ve been vegan for 8 years and I still enter small weightlifting competitions and I commute to work daily on my bike. I have no problem retaining muscle and I´m 47. And I have a two year old son too so no problem in that department either. Zero meds.
12:34 "the people who switched to a vegan diet" Where was pre-study diet analysis and assessment reported in the study? Who switched and who did not. Since the study used two very specific "balanced" diet designs would that mean that everyone switched to some extent? There were a lot of parameters that would have enabled time-related analysis, including baseline measurements like blood type distribution and sports medicine factor analysis from the blood draws to go with the missing body comp profiles. There was some self-selection involved. The study screened for people willing to follow a strict vegan diet for an appreciable time. Perhaps that is why the high female to male ratio. Blind protocols def need review.
In my opinion, LDL-C isn't an endpoint! It has a correlation with some health issues, but isn't a cause of them. Sadly, this makes most research on diets irrelevant and useless. This much too small study couldn't even make the change in the TG/HDL quota statistically significant, while it seems to me that it would be in a larger study. Physionics focus on that these aren't significant, but ignores what that tells us about the study! It would be nice if researchers really paid attention to their slogan "correlation isn't causation", and refrained from using LDL-C as an endpoint until they get a handle on the causation thing!
There's like a thousand studies over decades of research with LDL-C and they all point to a causal relationship between high LDL-C (more specifically ApoB) and heart disease. The final nail in the coffin for the claim that LDL is not causal for ASCVD was when we started doing Mendelian randomization studies. At this point, we're going to have to discover something crazy to turn over all the existing research.
Years ago I did a vegan diet for two weeks (we called it a fast). The last two days I just drank water and waited for it to be over. Of course you (well me) would be in a deficit for 60 days. The protein does not upchannel (DIAAS) and the muscle loss would be obvious. You have to eat more as a vegan to maintain muscle not less. It would make sense that your body would heal, due to the caloric decline. I live in a place where unicorns are overweight and can't fly, what I mean is, it's a place where vegans are obese. It shocks me, but when I see the processed foods and sugar they eat, so it's unsurprising. It will be interesting to see the study results on protein with the DEXA Scan. Plus, I hope they follow the twins for a year or two.
6:40 ish: Are those bars actually error bars as you state, or are they normal box plots which is what they looks like? If they are error bars, the people who made the graph are lying with statistics. Standard error is a way to minimize the apparent variation and is a way to hide information. That's why box plots or distributions are what is expected.
The study should continue. 6 weeks is really not enough. And I would love to see “Healthy Vegan vs healthy carnivore” LONG TERM. at least 6 months THS to 1 year. Because so many are doing it.
I wasn't as disappointed with the study as I was with the Netflix show, I made it through the first one and a half episodes and skipped to the end for the results. Frankly, it was so one-sided as to be ridiculous. I'm all for eating more vegetables but they kept pounding on how horrible any meat products are. It was like it was put together by a group from PETA.
Even if Netflix had a documentary that should positivity of a carnivore diet which I don't think they ever would I don't get mine nutritional advice from corporations that have shown to push a narrative when it comes to politics social issues or even dietary issues
It's interesting that given the choice to eat as much as they wanted, the "vegan twins" spontaneously dropped their caloric intake more than the omnivore ones.
I don't understand why they didn't do a low carb diet vs low fat (vegan). A big part of the problem is mixing fat and carbs (omnivore) both energy substrates vs a vegan diet which is nearly all carbohydrate with very little fat. The mixing of energy substrates definitely matters especially ad-libitum. I think if you're going to share this data to an audience of this scale you should design the study to have equal macro nutrient ratios and equal calorie consumption. Felt like vegan propaganda to me.
Oh yes and not taking into account the individuality of each twin who will have totally unique epigenetic influences prior to this study seems to be something that should be addressed. Your exposures change who you are and how your body functions.
Are the scientists behind the study interested in the truth or did they have a 'vegan' bias in the first instance and went out to look for specific data to support their bias? I didn't watch the 'series'. Did they spend time talking about 'new' plant based foods that were not consumed in the study? Were those who followed the vegan diet convinced to continue after the study ended? If it is heart healthier ... why or why not? Are we likely to see a similar study comparing vegan with non omnivore diets (lets face it, it was a plant based diet with an almost plant based diet or comparing two carb heavy diets). I think the answer is that we will never see such comparisons. Speaking anecdotally of course everyone I know on a plant based diet is suffering severe health issues. I was once plant based and suffered weight loss issues and pernicious anemia.
9 месяцев назад+1
Doesn't this study prove that vegan diet or vegetarian is fine to use?
Most nutrition experts do not dispute that a vegan compatible diet can be all that is needed to thrive. The Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics have officially said as much. The question is which diet option would be superior for health and longevity.
For the life of me I don't get it that they spent so much money on that kind of study and don't measure the best markers. That would cost perhaps 10 or 20 bucks more per person, it's peanuts.
There really isn't any such thing in the practical world as a low carb vegan diet. So I don't agree with the video snippet that these results might only apply when placed in the context of high-carb diets.
Who designs these studies, that always turn out to be disappointments, anyways? It's so frustrating. Can't they all pool their resources and do the one big 'superstudy', that finally answers all our questions? They could even crowdfund it. I bet enough people would contribute, funding wouldn't even be an issue.
A study that had less then a 1000 participants, that had a way too short duration and by design changed more then one variable showed no conclusive results. But still gets paraded by certain groups to promote a lifestyle. So, the sky is still blue. Having twins as subjects and giving the participants a strict meal plan (while enforcing it at the first half) is still kinda neat. what a waste
9 месяцев назад+4
Well by that stabdard no diet can be promoted, and almost no study is worth anything
You're never going to get 1000 pairs of identical twins, and you don't need to. Anyway the vid gives a lot better criticism than lack of number of participants. Like measuring more actually useful stuff, making sure the baselines were even, etc
8 weeks is definitely not "way too short a duration." Completely change your diet and exercise routine for 8 whole weeks and let someone tell you that you're wasting your time. 8 weeks is a perfect duration for people to develop habits. And a personal trainer will tell you that when you start exercising, you will notice changes in your body within a couple weeks but other people won't notice until around two months. An 8 week study looking at results is a good study, especially if you want people to possibly decide to change or take from the study.
@@jasonito23 but no it is not. even the video he says the changes are statistically insignificant thus to be sure 8 weeks is enough they needed to keep going for 1 year and then compare the 2 data set points. If 8 is enough (lol pun) then 6 weeks should be enough right? If 6 is enough then 4 should be enough right? how about 2 weeks?
I like Chris Gardner a lot. He is very focused on how people actually implement their diets. It is too bad he was featured so heavily in the Netflix propaganda film. I suppose in this day and age any exposure is good, but I think this flick diminishes his stature. I'm not sure I'd say that an isocaloric study would've been better. Nobody embarks on an isocaloric diet.
I thought I spotted Dr. Christopher Gardner in the clips. He always advocates for lower protein intake, lower than the RDA at times. He would have me reduce my protein by 60-70%
@@archiesutton1291 I think you may be confusing Dr. Gardner with Dr. Greger who I think had a small part in the film. Gardner was the principal of the study. Gardner observes that the average American eats 40% more than the RDA, which is ample. Greger advocates restricting protein to the RDA, not below. You might be interested in a "debate" between Gardner and Stu Phillips on RUclips. I can't give a link because of RUclips rules, but you can find it easily enough.
It was an interesting show but I was absolutely distressed by all the muscle loss that the most unhealthy participants had. The results just were not very impressive and did not control enough for adherence. Nobody talked about muscle loss at all. There was a personal trainer but that didn't seem to impact things for the unhealthiest participants.
Please note also that the characterization here of the Netflix documentary here as being inflammatory is appropriate -- it doesn't cross into pro-inflammatory territory until someone swallows it . . .
Definitely, if you want to design the study that way. That said, there are advantages and disadvantages of either style (controlling for each factor in total or leaving it be free-living). There's no 'right' or 'wrong', just different conclusions are made off each.
If you're going to claim that an argument in favor of the vegan diet being superior is because it gives you weight loss by default, without having to track calories, then you need to take a few things into consideration too. - Weight loss is useful for people who are overweight. If you're already at a normal body weight and just want to be healthy, you don't care about losing more weight. This is the case for most people in the world and the USA is one of just a few examples where the majority of the population is overweight. - The vegan diet in the study can't just be classified as a standard vegan diet. There's a plethora of highly processed vegan products nowadays and I think it's safe to assume that people who might want to switch to a vegan diet would be consuming them on a regular basis. The vegan diet from this study had no processed food in it, which in terms of translating to daily life, in my opinion, offsets the "weight loss by default" benefit by being more difficult to follow. And in case of people who don't need/want to lose weight, I don't see any particular benefit in this regard. - One thing that you didn't mention from this study was that the omnivore group liked their diet more than the vegan group. This is very very important in terms of long-term sustainability of a diet. As we've seen throughout the years, losing weight isn't really that big of a challenge. Maintaining it is. So if a vegan diet (not just any vegan diet, but this "clean" and harder to follow vegan diet from the study) is going to help people lose weight without having to worry too much about tracking calories, then what happens after they lose weight, considering how they didn't like their diet that much? Even if we assume that this diet would be superior overall, and not just because of weight loss, what that means is that in order to keep being healthy, people (at least those people from this study) would have to keep eating foods that they don't really like for the rest of their lives. We know how realistic that is and that the likelihood of them returning to whatever they were eating before is pretty high. So to me, it seems more practical in terms of daily life to introduce them to the omnivore diet because they would be more likely to stick to that one long-term and their health markers would still be in a healthy range.
Yup. I watched a few of his videos once and checked the studies he was referencing. Those studies would either not support the points he made or would contradict his points.
The obvious experimental bias of this sort of study (and this is hardly the only one) is that it is set up and plants vs plants+meat. That's not going to tell you if plants are good or bad is it? Why not plants vs meat? With several different food types that you could consider, you would need a bunch of different diet combinations and a large study to untangle the variables. But if you want to compare the two major food groups you should compare plants based food (grains, leaves, pulses, sugar etc) with animal based foods (meat, eggs, fish, dairy). I personally got fat and inflamed on plant based food and I got healthier and thinner on animal based foods. I've seen other people claim the opposite. That is why some large RCTs on vegetarian vs carnivore would be a much more informative study than comparing food group A with food groups A+B. Vegan vs omnivore is just stupid for a scientific experiment.
I really do not understand that this study, nor the oreo experiment, is getting so much attention from social media. I just hate that the nutrition field is split in two on the internet and both sides are fine with grasping at straws as long as it suits there narative. Sorry for the negativity, but after seeing 10 videos about the same subject, I am done.
@Physionic Thanks for the understanding. The worst part for me is the misinformation and false dichotomies that are produced because of this tribalism. People just do not want to fact-check their own "truths" and be disappointed by what they find. The fact that I have been required to research the supposed adverse health effects of MSG does not help my optimism about people's openness to contradicting information. It was settled in the previous century, but still, people believe it is bad because it is in the now public enemy number 1; 'processed foods' and some big "science" sources still fear monger about it. If nuance is a sign of intelligence, this tribalism is making us really dumb and seems to be getting worse.
The calories of the vegan diet might have been even lower because plant protein is lower in calories than reported. 400 calories is almost a pound per week which is a pretty intense caloric restriction.
At 5:56 Sure BUT the comparison is omnivore VS vegans and not statistical significance study and in that regard there is a difference. Compared to omnivore the triglycerides tracks correctly so you saying it is not correct is incorrect. For example lets swap the triglycerides well guess what THAT would be a rather large change, thus the difference between the two groups is significant. Simply put the fact that triglycerides went in different directions is very significant even with small p=.98 value.
Just don't disregard the moral, ethical and environmental aspect when talking about vegan diet. Science always needs moral accountability. Even so, by almost all measures, whole food vegan diet is consistently better than any other type of diet involving meat
I saw the Netflix documentary and was appalled at the blatant vegan propaganda and, in some cases, direct lies, posing as science. The study itself is interesting. I would argue that any weight loss is not a good thing. If you lose lean mass, that's far worse than losing fat. You need to retain the muscle, especially if you are above 50.
That was not the best show from neither perspective. There was too much topics pulled into one - study, downsides of farming, Micheling vegan restaurant...and plant based meat and cheese alternatives, which is I guess falls to processed food category...
I'd say one should be careful with every single study, and certainly ones making it to popular media, but taken together with the thousands of other studies out there, and health authorities all over the world realising the benifits of plant based diets, it is VERY evident this is the healthiest way to eat. Now couple this with the fact that it is ALSO best for the environment, the climate, the animals, AND it reduces the risk of pandemics, it is pretty clear how one should eat.
We've been eating and thriving on meat since the dawn of time. Meat (especially fatty red meat) is the proper human diet. Nothing will change that simple fact.
@@ACT1ON_JACKSON I hesitate to reply to such a childish comment, where you 'forget' to address the issues of environment, climate, ethics and pandemics, not to mention the health issue, because no, no we haven't. Some people ate meat, and not a lot, and some of them survived a few years _despite_ this, but to say that we "thrived" on meat, when we died in our thirties, is to reflect very little on the myths you spread.
No we haven't. Meat was barely a part of the human diet. Look at our Body. Where are our meat eating traits? We don't have any An animal that has eaten meat for millions of years as you claim would have adaptations that reflect that behavior The human body is a pure herbivore body
Totally expected results, so nothing Earth-shattering, but I love how this study gets ripped to shreds by Carnivores like that clown Metabolic Mike, but then they tout the results of the laughable Harvard Carnivore ‘study’, which was just an extremely biased internet poll with no control group.
Questions on the protein and vegan diet: Given that Americans eat much more protein than they need, do we know if the 6-7% reduction still prevented them from having a protein deficit? I heard that the source isn't an issue as long as one gets sufficient protein (particularly sufficient in Lysine) in the diet.
Your body uses macros differently depending on how much and in what way you exercise. Your body can recycle a lot. Nick just made video showing how we recycle lactate, for example, but in general older adults who exercise need more protein bc they can't digest it as well as younger folk.
the idea that "Americans eat much more protein than they need" is based on a 50g/day RDA that is too low for optimal health. I'm guessing Nick would agree with that, maybe he can cover it at some point. There's a good discussion on Simon Hill's podcast (ep. 228), and he's a vegan. He recommends up to a gram per pound of lean body weight.
@@dkeener13 then the statement in the study isn't helpful unless we have a marker on how much is enough protein. If the 6% - 7% less is still more than what they need, then it doesn't matter if they ate less; if they went below what their body needs, then that is a problem even if they lost weight. Is @Physionic mentioning this as a means to determine what their protein needs were in the study?
As someone who has been vegan since 1999, I can tell you that it is extremely difficult to be vegan in this non-vegan world, so to do it only because you think it might be somewhat healthier than an omnivorous diet, is not the way to go, lol. I believe you won't be able to do it and it won't benefit your health in any meaningful way.
I think the reason why it's easier to lose weight on a vegan diet is portion size and filling foods,,, some plant food will give you a bigger portion size for less Calories compared to animal foods, animal foods give you a smaller portion size for more calories (except for nuts seeds). But the problem with the vegan diet is you also get less protein grams per serving size compared to animal foods Which give you more protein grams per serving size,, you also have to eat more calories from plant proteins to equal the same amount in animal foods,, so the vegan diet is perfect for weight loss IF you don't care about eating high protein unless calories are not an issue and you don't mind going over your daily calories allowance ,, that's why I can't eat fully plant-based because then I would have to take in more calories than what I need and I would just get chubby
There are higher protein plant based foods that you could just eat more of to avoid the problem you presented. Seitan, for example, is even higher in protein density than meat! Legumes are also high in protein and low in calories. There are also plant based protein powders which are low in calories.
@@someguy2135 I really don't think that stuff is healthy to be honest , yes it's a source of protein and nothing else,, I like protein foods that also contain vitamins and minerals and are also good for bone health, because although yes protein is important and yes there is some way of tweaking a plant-based diet to where you could get enough protein without overeating calories, but I also care about quality of protein and I want more than just protein alone , and I don't like mono meals I like a variety of foods in one meal That's why I'm not going to eat 450 calories worth of beans just to get 21 grams of protein when I can eat a meatball for 150 calories that will give me the same amount of protein as the beans for less Calories and I can still have enough calories left to spend on other foods
Vegan vs Carni/Herbi is the most interesting discussion of our time. All I know is, I developed IBS in about 3 years when my new gf was strong vegan and I followed her lifestyle. I have never solved my IBS / colon permeability, now I'm trying to significantly lower my vegetables intake and see what happens. I think studies like this should have a scope of a much larger timeframe, say, at least 5 years or more.
Yes, then we can see heart explosions in the non-vegan groups too. We can expand it to 10 years and see the cancer differences (higher in more animal products based diets).
I agree with you Few months is a to short period of research And must be done using as subjects the average street vegan who have no money for specialized professionals
Everyone would like to see this, but it almost never happens because it is cost prohibive. The only studies we see that long are epidemiological survey studies. I've only seen 2 or 3 that actually run tests over years, and that is not on a managed diet.
@@Santa-ny1yp about the vegan group probably would not be needed a diet management due to their high level of commitment About the omnivorous, it's possible to develop apps to take pictures of their meals and infere how was the diet There's a researcher who developed an app like this, but I don't remember his name now
You are certainly brilliant in your analysis, but you missed the major win which you only talked around: the fact that the vegans naturally wanted to eat less calories is the win for longevity!!! Their last muscle loss?,when you have less weight to carry you need less muscle to support that weight. Want to keep the muscle but not the fat? Eat vegan and periodically wear a weighted vest with the poundage of the fat lost. Herodotus recorded that the ancient Spartans ran,yes ran a mile into battle wearing 60 pounds of armour in a winning battle against the Persians!!! What did these Spartans eat? A broth without the meat (which they fed their growing children), vegetables and heavy dark brown fermented bread without the germ removed like in today's white flour. Being a low meat hop lite, training in heavy armour produced the beautiful muscled bodies which Athenian artists captured in Greek sculptures.
And, of course, if caloric restriction is part of the effect - a very likely hypothesis, or, at the least, a highly confounding variable - then simply doing time restricted eating and/or intermittent fasting achieves this no matter the diet....for despite exhortations to 'eat the same amount' while fasting or doing only two meals a day, one almost never does (plus there are all the other benefits of these TR and IF regimes, e.g., insulin leveling etc.).
The commentator talking about HDL and Triglyceride being a better marker for heart disease and diabetes is correct because the ratio is a measure of insulin resistance which is the key factor. A significantly lowered LDL is linked to an increase in heart disease as per the Minnesota Study.
And as Mike mentioned before he has worked with former women who was vegan and vegetarians like me and have insulin resistance and on their way to heart disease! Unfortunately I think the body stress more without the meat! And the animal fat we need it
I'd also like to see what they were in fact eating. Just how sencible was it? I've never seen a vegan diet survivable without a fistful of additives that don't come from nature.
Interesting. We can all agree that u need more work on vegan jokes... 😂 I would point out that there seems to be a wealthy of data from epidemilogical studies on vegans having the lowest BMI for any group group. Weight loss is a feature of vegan diets... healthy whole food vegans are better... we would assume. 😊
Thanks I guess I just watch who lives longest and, surprise, it is non-meat eaters. It won't hurt not to eat meat, and might kill you early if you do, so just eat plants and Gardein products. Simple, simple concept with too much babble about it.
I am a male statistician, and the evidence for vegetarian diet was absolutely conclusive 35 years ago, I became a vegetarian 33 years ago when I came across this information in college. The nurse's health study, the Seventh-Day Adventist study, hundreds of studies. There is a point where we simply have enough evidence, but most people are not willing to change, and on the research side, careers must continue, so conclusions are understated or purposely made fuzzy or tepid to avoid stirring up the anger of ideologues or lobbies for these industries. In the United States, men are fatter than women in every state, statistically. My friend tried dating vegetarians and vegans, and they were all neurotic and corpulent females, but this was before the days when it became fashionable. A great diet of any type doesn't have to be lower in protein or fat. The quality of the calorie in question is also relevant. Fat from avocado and fat from cheap potato chips are at opposite ends of the spectrum. If you eat low quality food or too much food then you are almost guaranteed to have a problem eventually. In the next few days I'm probably going to have 4-5 soursop, and a quart of turmeric juice among other healthy foods, and I bet there are not 1000 people in the world receiving the quality of nutrition that I will be consuming. I don't preach and it's not an ideology. All ideologies are evil, and preaching doesn't work. I became a vegetarian for reasons personal health, and environmental stability, and even saving money. There is also antibiotic and pesticide and herbicide overuse that is poisoning the planet, meaningfully centered around a meat-based diet. Most people don't have a full life, they just waste their life working and breeding and chasing status. Most health problems come late in life when people are rigid and lazy and largely useless to the human population. The result was usually determined (the die was cast) decades ago, based on inaction, indolence or ideology. If you want to have a good life before you retire then just do simple things: 1) Be thin, don't eat too much. 2) Avoid fried food and processed foods with lots of sugar and salt, and/or cheap low quality oils. 3) Do not be a fanatic. People with ideologies about ANYTHING.... meat or not meat, or gender equality, or wealth inequality, or intelligence equality based on geographic origin of their heritage are generally delusional and not happy. There are differences in people, and these are very real. You can't unbake the cookie. I didn't mention smoking or drinking or drug use because these are typically genetic tendencies. IQ is genetic, most of obesity is genetic (and I'm talking mostly about the mindset here) People (with ideologies, and weak inferior people) who make poor choices will obfuscate true progress at every turn, or simply engage in reality denial.
Interesting. My children worked at a Veganic farm (Seventh-Day Adventist). They were in good cardio shape, but not very "extra" muscular. You make a good point though. For those without a sense of self-control a vegetarian diet is better. It keeps the variables more in check. I see omnivores going over the deep end more than plant-based dieters. Although I live in a land where obese vegans graze (yet omnivores outnumber the rotund herd).
![Johnny Harris: Your Supplements are a Lie [Fact Checked]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/x62GLHs3Hi4/mqdefault.jpg)
AMENDMENT: I mispronounced Dr. Scher’s name. It should be “sure”, if I recall correctly. My apologies.
Hello Dr Nick, could you please put your hands on this new videos that are circulating about “Oreo cookies lowering LDL cholesterol” if you could kindly find time to analyse the truth about these new so called “trend” which is hard to believe the science behind it (if there is any truth about it to begin with) Thanks
Tune in Wednesday, if I can get the video edited in time.
@@Physionic God bless your soul. I can’t thank you enough
@@Physionic Dr. Alo just posted a YT video about the Oreo study.
@@seekfactsnotfiction9056 Maybe ... They just announced going vegan will do it and Oreos are vegan ... So.
Now wouldn't it be wild if it turned out there is some compound in Oreo that is the treatment for heart disease, the number one killer. Lol.
That would be like finding out eating pop tarts helps prevent all forms of cancer.
WOW! I study data analysis and you just casually explained how to read and analyze data better than any of my professors have till now!!
Would be WONDERFUL if you could maybe make a video on how to read and interpret statistical data as I was way more impressed with your ability to explain than any of my professor's
I understand this isn't exactly your niche, but you're amazing at it and it would teach everyone how to be more analytical? 😅
…professors’.
@@clacclackerson3678 professors (apostrophe not required)
Actually, each video he does really highlights of a lot of those skills in plain language. It's quite remarkable! I agree a video dedicated to the topic with health examples would be beneficial! But you can still gleam at the nuggets in his latest videoa
Nothing about this study is all that surprising, and is in line with other studies. A whole food oriented Vegan diet will typically be somewhat less calorie dense and have a high thermic effect of food, and that's going to play out in ad libitum eating situations.
I don't think the lower LDL is merely due to lower calories. It probably has to do with more phytochemicals and fiber in the diet, as well as less saturated fat consumption.
Exactly. Well thought out comment.
You may be right - but hard to separate . My take from watching it was animal husbandry in The USA is appalling , here in NZ cows are grass fed . It confirmed known stuff exercise , diet are important . If lumped all meat together so kind of useless in that way . My take for most people who are omnivores and not into Keto etc . Take the mediterranean and modify it to your liking . eg push it more towards plant if choose , up more fibre if choose , drop red meat if choose , lower carbs more especially refined etc . Excepting highly restrictive diets . All diets promote huge variety of veggies , berries are wonderful , plus some other fruit , nuts are good , increased fiber is good , beans are good , spices and herbs are good , oils like olive are good . No liquid sugar , no fat/sugar/salt foods as snacks or treats . You do the basics and it works for you , it won't matter that much as will get most benefits . Plus reduced saturated fats ( of certain types ) or better medium yoghurt/kefir vs milk/butter . quality cheese vs some simple ones .
Plus even if vegan is best - A person eating a healthy med diet is much better than a poor vegan diet .
I try and keep all my carbs quality , but people struggle long term if carbs are low and you have to enjoy your food and life .
Having the odd baguette , white rice or pasta is not going to be the problematic if exercising and eating really well.
Plus if that odd baguette is now your cookie/cake then thats a big change .
Plus having the "perfect" diet is restrictive as ... Limits eating at friends , travelling the world especially in remote or very expensive countries where you have no access to cooking . It's not by chance young backpackers in europe are munching baguettes cheap cheese+ salads+tuna , bananas , chocolate milk to get their daily calories
Remember in USA when travelling when young hitchhiking to LA to pick up some money, but still going to national parks - was eating carrots/peanut butter and crackers - as was cheap way to fill up and easy to carry and not spoil
I do wonder what the obssession is with lowering ldl. I know most have drunk the kool aid regarding it being a key factor, but that comes directly from the pharmaceutical industry who have a trillion dollar industry to maintain. There are plenty of perfectly valid comprehensive studies that clearly indicate the opposite of reducing ldl and that low is just as associated with high mortality as high ldl and that longevity is also associated with high ldl. Feel free to obsess over it but it really ends up being a case of navel gazing. Your heart is surrounded by saturated fat and it runs on saturated fat and only switches to glycogen when put under stress. This is in fact the reason your heart stops when having a heart attack. Muscle failure due to lactic acid overload.
I would also like to point out that there seems to be a presumption that nobody cheated, especially during the last 8 weeks. I just cannot understand why they allowed the participants to make their own food for 8 weeks. I find it very hard to believe that there was 100% compliance.
Yes there was. There were outliers that were eliminated from the results because some of the participants obviously cheated due to outcomes. I can't remember the exact results that were eliminated but it is covered in I think "Mic The Vegan" or "Nutrition Made Simple" who looked closer at the entire study and anticipating the results yet to come. It was something like a significant increase in TMAO while supposedly following the whole food Vegan diet which is impossible.
@@jasonito23 See the paper. They started with 22 pairs (44 participants), but one pair dropped out at week 4.
No data results were hidden, but further sensitivity analysis were undertaken.
Eg, the 4 sets of twins that were in the documentary - this may have impacted on the results (extra supervision, more encouragement to exercise, etc), therefore statistical analysis was undertaken with them in the pooled data, and also excluding them, for comparison.
Similarly with the TMAO results. Three outlier TMAO datapoints were eliminated, due to being greater than 15 ųM: 2 at baseline (ie before diet intervention began), 1 at 8 weeks. This was from two participant's datapoints (ie not all their samples taken), due to their high TMAO levels indicating high TMAO food intake consumed within 24hr of the blood samples taken.
From what I remember from the study the vegans lost weight but also lost more lean muscle, which is definitely not what you want to do. Even though Netflix were really biased and trying to push the vegan diet, that loss of more muscle highlighted a real negative effect of the diet.
But they didn’t match for protein in the study for both groups, correct? If so, then it could be argued that the vegans were not eating extra protein compared to the omnivore group and thus were at higher risk of muscle loss. Reason I say this is because we know plant proteins are lower in leucine and are bit less bioavailable, depending on the source and method of processing. Thus, more plant protein needs to be consumed to make up for this. And studies show that when a bit more plant protein is consent to make up for this, there are similar rates of muscle protein synthesis in vegan and non-vegan groups taking plant protein. Also some outcome studies on vegan vs non-vegan weightlifters adding muscle. And did they actually measure muscle loss? I didn’t see that they did unless I missed it..
Also, vegans were in a larger calorie deficit and with calorie deficits we know there is greater risk of muscle loss. So less more potent protein AND a greater calorie deficit in the vegan group I think probably would put them at a slightly greater risk of muscle loss, since we know caloric deficits can increase muscle loss.
Thus, perhaps it could be argued that it was an effect of not getting extra protein in the vegan group rather than the vegan diet itself.
"The study" is not out there yet. However, that was the trend in the 4 twins we follow in the documentary
@@dragan176
Okay, so even if that is the trend and it ends up being reflected in the study, then the original point still stands: they age less total protein, which was also less potent in anabolic response, and there was 2 times a greater caloric deficit. So this wouldn’t be shocking to me, to be honest.
@@BlahBlahPoop617 Sure, but let's see what the study said before we jump to conclusions
@@dragan176
Correct. That is why I said *assuming* that it is reflect in the study. We have more than enough data on other studies to know that if this study had that particular outcome that it was likely those factors. But regardless, we don’t need the study to be done to know that it was *not an even plain field* due to those major factors alone. The study design tells us that.
Did you expect more from "Netflix"?
What would have been interesting is if they then switched halfway through to determine whether there could be personal factors aside from genetics that influence these changes. It would essentially double the length of the study but also double the data...
Are you sure that they didn't?
They didn't.@@someguy2135
@@someguy2135they didn't, they stayed on the same diet the 8 weeks.
LOL @ the baby bird feeding joke. Love your humor bro
It should be compared to a keto diet/ carnivore diet.
Okay. I am not a statistician. But one of the statistical nuances I learned about (in Ecology) is that there is waaay to much focus on the holy p
The calories deficit alone between them could explain much of the results.
Yes and the profile- the macros, and the food chemistry- common knowledge that polyphenols inhibit starch digestion. And all that fiber can mess with your gut which interferes with digestion lowering your caloric absorption.
Yeah, but it's hard to over eat on a good vegan diet (obviously if you only eat crisps it's all bad)
Since the participants were allowed to eat as much as they wanted, the plant based diet filled them sooner and resulted in less calories eaten. Plant based food tends to be lower in calorie density.
Yeah, that and the complete absence of cholesterol from vegan diets.
@@alexc2265 You are right about dietary cholesterol, but saturated fat can be converted by the body to cholesterol. There are some foods that could be part of a plant based diet with saturated fat, like coconut milk, but those who eat a typical plant based diet tend to consume a lot less saturated fat than meat eaters.
I hate how every time a vegan diet is compared to an omnivorous one they have the omnivore load up on as many carbs as they want while the vegan is just eating raw vegetables. I imagine they would get some dramatically different results if the vegans were eating candy and potato chips. In reality the most important choice isn't whether or not you should eat animal products, but rather whether or not you should eat heavily processed foods. Overloading on carbs isn't great for you, and if they just had the omnivore eat a steak dinner with a salad the results would likely be more or less the same between both groups. It's hard to eat too much when you're eating real food.
"Weight loss is a good thing" No, not if it's lean mass ... fat loss is a good thing .... the study was missing at the end ... a dexa scan !
I watched it recently and found it interesting. However, although they talked about food quality, they never discussed whether the omnivores were actually eating grass fed beef, pastures raised eggs, wild caught fish etc. Also never really discussed the issues with seed oils. Would have liked them to have checked the Omega 3 levels, which has been shown to be important, as getting sufficient Omega 3 fats can be difficult on a vegan diet.
That wouldn't matter. Grass fed meat still contains all the components that make meat unhealthy: animal protein itself, saturated fat, cholesterol, tmao, lack of antioxidants, lack of fiber, cancer causing bacteria
Hemp seeds, walnuts, flax seeds daily will cover omega 3 needs. It's not at all difficult
@@Justinegallows I eat all those too, plus I take fish oil. have you ever had your Omega 3 levels measured? can get through Omegaquant. Mine are very high.
@@badgernbuster
Algea oil is much better. Straight from the source , no contamination
@@Justinegallows life is just one big experiment. I didn't eat meat for almost half my life but changed to low carb/high protein/high fiber diet a few years ago and feel great. Turning 62, work out/exercise every day and eat the best quality foods I can. Fortunately I started eating broccoli sprouts 30 years ago and have been growing and eating my own for 20 years. Best anti-cancer food out there.
@@badgernbustersimular, but higher fat and lower fiber. Too much fibre causes constipation in me.
Wow the timing of this video, I just heard from a podcast talking about this vegan twin study :)
I hacked your podcast player and knew you wanted this video.
Even with using twins it's a simplistic study, from the food content perspective. Food chemistry and composition contribute greatly to digestion. Also, some polyphenols in plant foods act to prevent digestion of the food. Polyphenols have also been studied to use as nutrient blockers to prevent absorption of the food, in particular starches. Starches will raise triglyceride levels. Don't know if the study contained that variable.
So it may be the study doesn't take into account the types of macros, vitamin intake and polyphenol content of the foods. So a follow-up question would be how did each set of twins react to eating their food digestion-wise?
Also, such a small study. There are much larger studies out there not involving twins but if we're talking about diet then why do we need twins at all? Just look at the analysis and statistics.
I agree but that is exactly why you have to take a step back and simply say, "After 1 year am I in better or worse health on this diet" and go by that.
Macros, vitamin intake and polyphenols are inherent benefits of plants.
You can't create a plant vs meat diet and match those variables. That's simply why plants are the better choice
People need to just admit that plants are better
@@Justinegallows than omnivore? Omnivore also has all of that and a lot more. Everyone is different and everyone lives differently. There's no one diet for everyone
@@tracymullane8818 See the paper & suppl files, & ClinicalTrials info.
Yes, they were tracking carb data (g) (soluble/ insoluble fiber, added/natural sugar & starch), what type of vegetables, legumes etc. Similar with proteins (animal based, plant based) & so on.
They are doing microbiota analysis.
@@tracymullane8818
That's what Jeffery Dahmer says.
Let people eat what they want!
The biggest difference could be the toxic oils. Maybe the omnivores were consuming more soybean oil and that's why they performed a little worse.
"Weight loss" is not a proper measure. It should have been a measurement of fat loss. Losing muscle is not a good thing.
I agree. The difference in calories between the two diets is a confounding variable. I wish they had a stronger study design.
I see many comments saying that 8 weeks is too short a time making this study a waste of time. Well, if someone thinks this, change your diet and exercise strictly for a full 8 weeks and see how you will react when some random person looks at you says, "You wasted your time." See if you agree or disagree. 8 weeks is a very good amount of time for a person to participate in a study affecting their diet and exercise.
Thanks for the level setting. Fair.
I switched from Omnivore to Vegan within a week of this study being out, and the first week I was starving hungry. Kept adding more plant protein, and the 2nd week hunger went away.
Weight trained and ended up gaining weight, which is good because I'm 62 and was underweight and my Dr wanted me to gain strength and weight.
So, up till now it's been good. Will see what my lipids are at the end of the month.
Hate to break it to you but a well balanced diet is way better than vegan or carnivore. Humans are omnivores.
@@macheadg5er I think I agree with you in principle, but the only reason I tried a Vegan diet in the first place is I was having difficulty gaining weight/muscle because my cholesterol medication causes slow recovery and muscle pain, and if I cut back on it, I think some animal products I'm eating cause my LDL-P to go over 1000.
Probably there's some version of an Omnivore diet that won't do that, but until I figure that out, I've switched to vegan, cut my meds in half, and am gaining weight and strength. Now to see if my cholesterol is still under control...
@@macheadg5er close but no cigar. omnivores could only eat fruit and veg in season but meat was available all year round. So eat meat 12mnths of the year and add in veg 4 mnths of the year.
@@ConradJupiter77 I wonder if that helps explains why the month with the most cardiovascular deaths is January? Food for thought, anyhow. 🙂
@@macheadg5er It's funny how the benefits of diversification apply to a lot of things.
its actually a plantbased diet (not vegan) 😁so they got that wrong too... thanks for covering !
Good point. Veganism is an ethical position which generally results in a fully plant based diet as well as other lifestyle and changes to what is purchased. A vegan could eat cultured meat made with lab technology, for example, since it wouldn't result in the cruelty and needless killing of non-human animals. This assumes that fetal bovine serum was not used, of course.
Products made with Precision Fermentation would be another example, and are now available for purchase.
How is it distinct in this case?
What's the difference between vegan diet and plant-based diet?
@@anamimi18milk duds are vegan 😊
I used to be a vegan, before people made up the ridiculous title of “plant based.” It’s the same thing, but people are just trying to make it sound better.
BTW - “cultured meat made with lab technology” is NOT meat.
Your mic still picks up annoying frequencies above 13khz. You can remove them easily by downloading equalizer apo and putting a adding high low pass filter.
I think the points you made about it were excellent and insightful.
I have two concerns or questions or let’s say it’s opportunities for a more thorough future study.
The first is that eight weeks is a pretty short period of time and vegans have a hard time getting enough protein & enough micro nutrients.
And, in over an eight week study span, I’m not confident it’s long enough for any deficiencies to show up.
However, if one were to do that over a longer time span, then, a whole mineral panel as well as the lipid panels would seem to be necessary as a baseline and then afterwards to see what happened.
A threesome would’ve been better. You have a omnivore diet which is high in carbohydrates you have a vegan diet why don’t you have a keto or or Carnivore diet group I’m sure you could find more female twins.
That would’ve been better. Also if it were iso-caloric as you’ve already mentioned, and all course, all of them would’ve had to have a full lipid panel plus and markers for things like I think kidney function may be liver function.
Who funded the study anyway?
That always is interesting even though I’m not a conspiracy theorist when it comes to it but there is some opportunity for unintended confirmation bias, especially If people are experts in vegan diets, they might not feel comfortable, trying to come up with a comparable omnivore I mean carnivore diet.
And maybe they’ve already seen enough of those that says to them the outcome might very welcome out that the carnivore diet had better markers.
We certainly won’t know from this study, but it would be interesting don’t you think That those other parameters would’ve been covered
When I went vegan I lost weight and was delighted. It was muscle. I gained the weight back and more and my gut suffered. Frustratingly, no one ever studies meat eating without dairy consumption. Dairy has unique traits that need to be separated
Loss of muscle mass can lead to more health issues
Perhaps the increased plant ratio resulted in increased blocking of nutrient uptake at the gut cell wall level, hence why weight loss was experienced?
I know of a researcher that wrote about this blocking effect of plants.
IDK, I’m just putting it out there for discussion.
Also a possible factor. Good idea. :)
...or maybe they just got full on less calories.
Also true
@@megavegan5791 Exactly. Plant based foods tend to be lower in the density of calories than are animal products.
Except when that isn't true, like in the case of carbs. You can sit down and eat your daily allowance in vegan junk food over the course of an hour and still have room for cake. As for plant based diets, yes that's pretty much the case. Unprocessed plants tend to have low caloric density. Same is true for real animal protein (in terms of satiety). In reality a healthy omnivore would eat plenty of unprocessed whole plants along with real meats. If a study ever forced people into such a diet and compared it to a plant based diet the results would likely be strikingly similar. For both vegans and omnivores the worst possible and best possible versions of their respective diets yield vastly different outcomes.
Part of the point here is that on the vegan diet people did not have to work at losing more weight. Yes, they ate less calories: but they weren't forcing themselves to do so. That's a feature, not a bug!
Well said!
Wow, eating less improves health outcomes. Or, you can eat less and make it meat and get ALL the benefits and maximize health.
@@LowUTR - Bu the "Vegan" group didn't eat less. They ate what they wanted to eat as did the omnivores. Fruits and vegetables are less calorie dense and have more fiber. Therefore you can eat more, feel satiated while having consumed less calories. Eating two or three plates of salad is not eating less than a slab of steak. And how many people are actually going to eat less steak?
@@jasonito23 They did eat less. They consumed less calories once they free fed. I would eat less too. Because vegan food to the exclusion of other food is nasty. And for a few months fat Americans probably benefit from this.
That stops being a benefit once you achieve a lower body fat percentage and actually need to retain/build muscle.
@@LowUTR - There is no such thing as Vegan food. Vegan food is plants and vegetables. I´ve been vegan for 8 years and I still enter small weightlifting competitions and I commute to work daily on my bike. I have no problem retaining muscle and I´m 47. And I have a two year old son too so no problem in that department either. Zero meds.
Fantastic video. Bravo.
Are you familiar with the new oreo cookie study and cholesterol?
12:34 "the people who switched to a vegan diet"
Where was pre-study diet analysis and assessment reported in the study? Who switched and who did not. Since the study used two very specific "balanced" diet designs would that mean that everyone switched to some extent?
There were a lot of parameters that would have enabled time-related analysis, including baseline measurements like blood type distribution and sports medicine factor analysis from the blood draws to go with the missing body comp profiles.
There was some self-selection involved. The study screened for people willing to follow a strict vegan diet for an appreciable time. Perhaps that is why the high female to male ratio. Blind protocols def need review.
9:46 no not a stretch, but an indicator that the study needs an independent review regarding design integrity
In my opinion, LDL-C isn't an endpoint!
It has a correlation with some health issues, but isn't a cause of them.
Sadly, this makes most research on diets irrelevant and useless.
This much too small study couldn't even make the change in the TG/HDL quota statistically significant,
while it seems to me that it would be in a larger study.
Physionics focus on that these aren't significant, but ignores what that tells us about the study!
It would be nice if researchers really paid attention to their slogan "correlation isn't causation",
and refrained from using LDL-C as an endpoint until they get a handle on the causation thing!
There's like a thousand studies over decades of research with LDL-C and they all point to a causal relationship between high LDL-C (more specifically ApoB) and heart disease. The final nail in the coffin for the claim that LDL is not causal for ASCVD was when we started doing Mendelian randomization studies. At this point, we're going to have to discover something crazy to turn over all the existing research.
Years ago I did a vegan diet for two weeks (we called it a fast). The last two days I just drank water and waited for it to be over. Of course you (well me) would be in a deficit for 60 days. The protein does not upchannel (DIAAS) and the muscle loss would be obvious. You have to eat more as a vegan to maintain muscle not less. It would make sense that your body would heal, due to the caloric decline. I live in a place where unicorns are overweight and can't fly, what I mean is, it's a place where vegans are obese. It shocks me, but when I see the processed foods and sugar they eat, so it's unsurprising. It will be interesting to see the study results on protein with the DEXA Scan. Plus, I hope they follow the twins for a year or two.
Hi, Have you looked into this study which I cannot myself believe : "Oreo Cookie Treatment Lowers LDL Cholesterol ...".
So interesting. I see no "crazy" vegans in the comments making absurd claims. On the other hand...
Edit* Ok. I found one. One.
6:40 ish: Are those bars actually error bars as you state, or are they normal box plots which is what they looks like? If they are error bars, the people who made the graph are lying with statistics. Standard error is a way to minimize the apparent variation and is a way to hide information. That's why box plots or distributions are what is expected.
@physionic isn't it weird to expect statistically significant results from such a small sample size study ?
The study should continue. 6 weeks is really not enough. And I would love to see “Healthy Vegan vs healthy carnivore” LONG TERM. at least 6 months THS to 1 year. Because so many are doing it.
Nobody funds carnivore diet because it's the absolute worst possible diet for a human and scientists must follow ethical standards
I wasn't as disappointed with the study as I was with the Netflix show, I made it through the first one and a half episodes and skipped to the end for the results. Frankly, it was so one-sided as to be ridiculous. I'm all for eating more vegetables but they kept pounding on how horrible any meat products are. It was like it was put together by a group from PETA.
Agree with you. I couldn't make it past all the propaganda.
Even if Netflix had a documentary that should positivity of a carnivore diet which I don't think they ever would I don't get mine nutritional advice from corporations that have shown to push a narrative when it comes to politics social issues or even dietary issues
Gonna be interesting to see what their release of 'extra data' includes.
It's interesting that given the choice to eat as much as they wanted, the "vegan twins" spontaneously dropped their caloric intake more than the omnivore ones.
I don't understand why they didn't do a low carb diet vs low fat (vegan). A big part of the problem is mixing fat and carbs (omnivore) both energy substrates vs a vegan diet which is nearly all carbohydrate with very little fat. The mixing of energy substrates definitely matters especially ad-libitum. I think if you're going to share this data to an audience of this scale you should design the study to have equal macro nutrient ratios and equal calorie consumption. Felt like vegan propaganda to me.
Oh yes and not taking into account the individuality of each twin who will have totally unique epigenetic influences prior to this study seems to be something that should be addressed. Your exposures change who you are and how your body functions.
Are the scientists behind the study interested in the truth or did they have a 'vegan' bias in the first instance and went out to look for specific data to support their bias? I didn't watch the 'series'. Did they spend time talking about 'new' plant based foods that were not consumed in the study? Were those who followed the vegan diet convinced to continue after the study ended? If it is heart healthier ... why or why not? Are we likely to see a similar study comparing vegan with non omnivore diets (lets face it, it was a plant based diet with an almost plant based diet or comparing two carb heavy diets). I think the answer is that we will never see such comparisons.
Speaking anecdotally of course everyone I know on a plant based diet is suffering severe health issues. I was once plant based and suffered weight loss issues and pernicious anemia.
Doesn't this study prove that vegan diet or vegetarian is fine to use?
I didn’t realize that was in question?
Most nutrition experts do not dispute that a vegan compatible diet can be all that is needed to thrive. The Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics have officially said as much. The question is which diet option would be superior for health and longevity.
Lol thanks for not blurring the thumbnail. Lol
For the life of me I don't get it that they spent so much money on that kind of study and don't measure the best markers. That would cost perhaps 10 or 20 bucks more per person, it's peanuts.
There really isn't any such thing in the practical world as a low carb vegan diet. So I don't agree with the video snippet that these results might only apply when placed in the context of high-carb diets.
anyone knows a study where weight stayed the same while health measures improved?
this is a very long-winded way of saying vegan diet totally rocks
Who designs these studies, that always turn out to be disappointments, anyways? It's so frustrating. Can't they all pool their resources and do the one big 'superstudy', that finally answers all our questions?
They could even crowdfund it. I bet enough people would contribute, funding wouldn't even be an issue.
A study that had less then a 1000 participants, that had a way too short duration and by design changed more then one variable showed no conclusive results.
But still gets paraded by certain groups to promote a lifestyle. So, the sky is still blue.
Having twins as subjects and giving the participants a strict meal plan (while enforcing it at the first half) is still kinda neat. what a waste
Well by that stabdard no diet can be promoted, and almost no study is worth anything
@
Yeah and thats why most studies get buried and we never hear of them.
You're never going to get 1000 pairs of identical twins, and you don't need to. Anyway the vid gives a lot better criticism than lack of number of participants. Like measuring more actually useful stuff, making sure the baselines were even, etc
8 weeks is definitely not "way too short a duration." Completely change your diet and exercise routine for 8 whole weeks and let someone tell you that you're wasting your time. 8 weeks is a perfect duration for people to develop habits. And a personal trainer will tell you that when you start exercising, you will notice changes in your body within a couple weeks but other people won't notice until around two months. An 8 week study looking at results is a good study, especially if you want people to possibly decide to change or take from the study.
@@jasonito23 but no it is not. even the video he says the changes are statistically insignificant thus to be sure 8 weeks is enough they needed to keep going for 1 year and then compare the 2 data set points. If 8 is enough (lol pun) then 6 weeks should be enough right? If 6 is enough then 4 should be enough right? how about 2 weeks?
I don't see this "study" as useful or productive, simply entertainment.
Entertaining ... I'm not laughing. I have stock in McDonald's. If there a big vegan study, I'm loosing money!!! Screw people's health.
@@joeboxter3635 😄
no, it was a commercial
I like Chris Gardner a lot. He is very focused on how people actually implement their diets. It is too bad he was featured so heavily in the Netflix propaganda film. I suppose in this day and age any exposure is good, but I think this flick diminishes his stature. I'm not sure I'd say that an isocaloric study would've been better. Nobody embarks on an isocaloric diet.
He conducted the study, for crying out loud.
@@megavegan5791 Yes, he conducted the study, but the film misrepresents its findings.
I thought I spotted Dr. Christopher Gardner in the clips. He always advocates for lower protein intake, lower than the RDA at times. He would have me reduce my protein by 60-70%
@@archiesutton1291 I think you may be confusing Dr. Gardner with Dr. Greger who I think had a small part in the film. Gardner was the principal of the study. Gardner observes that the average American eats 40% more than the RDA, which is ample. Greger advocates restricting protein to the RDA, not below. You might be interested in a "debate" between Gardner and Stu Phillips on RUclips. I can't give a link because of RUclips rules, but you can find it easily enough.
It was an interesting show but I was absolutely distressed by all the muscle loss that the most unhealthy participants had. The results just were not very impressive and did not control enough for adherence. Nobody talked about muscle loss at all. There was a personal trainer but that didn't seem to impact things for the unhealthiest participants.
Please note also that the characterization here of the Netflix documentary here as being inflammatory is appropriate -- it doesn't cross into pro-inflammatory territory until someone swallows it . . .
I do care , thank you for being honest
Thank you sir !
Didn't make sure subjects ate an equal amount of calories. Should be the first priority. Poorly designed study.
They should do triplets to compare carnivore, herbivore and omnivore diets. That way everyone is covered.
Nice I like both of those people! But as I have said before look into Paul mason on vegetable oils cause I don’t believe ldl in itself is bad so 😮❤
Are the protein and calorie deficits a preventable design error?
Definitely, if you want to design the study that way. That said, there are advantages and disadvantages of either style (controlling for each factor in total or leaving it be free-living). There's no 'right' or 'wrong', just different conclusions are made off each.
If you're going to claim that an argument in favor of the vegan diet being superior is because it gives you weight loss by default, without having to track calories, then you need to take a few things into consideration too.
- Weight loss is useful for people who are overweight. If you're already at a normal body weight and just want to be healthy, you don't care about losing more weight. This is the case for most people in the world and the USA is one of just a few examples where the majority of the population is overweight.
- The vegan diet in the study can't just be classified as a standard vegan diet. There's a plethora of highly processed vegan products nowadays and I think it's safe to assume that people who might want to switch to a vegan diet would be consuming them on a regular basis. The vegan diet from this study had no processed food in it, which in terms of translating to daily life, in my opinion, offsets the "weight loss by default" benefit by being more difficult to follow. And in case of people who don't need/want to lose weight, I don't see any particular benefit in this regard.
- One thing that you didn't mention from this study was that the omnivore group liked their diet more than the vegan group. This is very very important in terms of long-term sustainability of a diet. As we've seen throughout the years, losing weight isn't really that big of a challenge. Maintaining it is. So if a vegan diet (not just any vegan diet, but this "clean" and harder to follow vegan diet from the study) is going to help people lose weight without having to worry too much about tracking calories, then what happens after they lose weight, considering how they didn't like their diet that much? Even if we assume that this diet would be superior overall, and not just because of weight loss, what that means is that in order to keep being healthy, people (at least those people from this study) would have to keep eating foods that they don't really like for the rest of their lives. We know how realistic that is and that the likelihood of them returning to whatever they were eating before is pretty high. So to me, it seems more practical in terms of daily life to introduce them to the omnivore diet because they would be more likely to stick to that one long-term and their health markers would still be in a healthy range.
I would be surprised if high intensity health even knows what a p-value is.
Yup. I watched a few of his videos once and checked the studies he was referencing. Those studies would either not support the points he made or would contradict his points.
Cavemen didn't care about p-values, so neither does he. 😂
HiH seems to just be the guy that tells people who like meat and saturated fat what they want to hear.
The obvious experimental bias of this sort of study (and this is hardly the only one) is that it is set up and plants vs plants+meat. That's not going to tell you if plants are good or bad is it? Why not plants vs meat? With several different food types that you could consider, you would need a bunch of different diet combinations and a large study to untangle the variables. But if you want to compare the two major food groups you should compare plants based food (grains, leaves, pulses, sugar etc) with animal based foods (meat, eggs, fish, dairy). I personally got fat and inflamed on plant based food and I got healthier and thinner on animal based foods. I've seen other people claim the opposite. That is why some large RCTs on vegetarian vs carnivore would be a much more informative study than comparing food group A with food groups A+B. Vegan vs omnivore is just stupid for a scientific experiment.
I really do not understand that this study, nor the oreo experiment, is getting so much attention from social media.
I just hate that the nutrition field is split in two on the internet and both sides are fine with grasping at straws as long as it suits there narative.
Sorry for the negativity, but after seeing 10 videos about the same subject, I am done.
Understandable. Unfortunately, people get pretty tribalistic about nutrition. It’s an odd phenomenon.
@Physionic Thanks for the understanding.
The worst part for me is the misinformation and false dichotomies that are produced because of this tribalism. People just do not want to fact-check their own "truths" and be disappointed by what they find.
The fact that I have been required to research the supposed adverse health effects of MSG does not help my optimism about people's openness to contradicting information. It was settled in the previous century, but still, people believe it is bad because it is in the now public enemy number 1; 'processed foods' and some big "science" sources still fear monger about it. If nuance is a sign of intelligence, this tribalism is making us really dumb and seems to be getting worse.
The calories of the vegan diet might have been even lower because plant protein is lower in calories than reported. 400 calories is almost a pound per week which is a pretty intense caloric restriction.
These clowns can't even register that something with a p-value of 98 percent isn't relevant.
I saw that Netflix documentary. It was a waste of time..
Can you make a video about what your own diet and exercise routine is?
At 5:56 Sure BUT the comparison is omnivore VS vegans and not statistical significance study and in that regard there is a difference. Compared to omnivore the triglycerides tracks correctly so you saying it is not correct is incorrect. For example lets swap the triglycerides well guess what THAT would be a rather large change, thus the difference between the two groups is significant. Simply put the fact that triglycerides went in different directions is very significant even with small p=.98 value.
I’m confused by everything you wrote. Can you rewrite this so I can understand your point?
@@Physionic I was schooled in the statistical significance of the data and how it related to the p value. Thanks
I tried to go vegan but i like meat too much. So i just cut down meat instead. About 70g a day.
Great video.
Not isocaloric? What a waste of a study.
Just don't disregard the moral, ethical and environmental aspect when talking about vegan diet. Science always needs moral accountability. Even so, by almost all measures, whole food vegan diet is consistently better than any other type of diet involving meat
Someone said it. I hate how everyone always focuses on one aspect. If you take into account every reason to go vegan, it's such an obvious choice
I saw the Netflix documentary and was appalled at the blatant vegan propaganda and, in some cases, direct lies, posing as science. The study itself is interesting. I would argue that any weight loss is not a good thing. If you lose lean mass, that's far worse than losing fat. You need to retain the muscle, especially if you are above 50.
That was not the best show from neither perspective. There was too much topics pulled into one - study, downsides of farming, Micheling vegan restaurant...and plant based meat and cheese alternatives, which is I guess falls to processed food category...
I'd say one should be careful with every single study, and certainly ones making it to popular media, but taken together with the thousands of other studies out there, and health authorities all over the world realising the benifits of plant based diets, it is VERY evident this is the healthiest way to eat. Now couple this with the fact that it is ALSO best for the environment, the climate, the animals, AND it reduces the risk of pandemics, it is pretty clear how one should eat.
We've been eating and thriving on meat since the dawn of time. Meat (especially fatty red meat) is the proper human diet. Nothing will change that simple fact.
@@ACT1ON_JACKSON I hesitate to reply to such a childish comment, where you 'forget' to address the issues of environment, climate, ethics and pandemics, not to mention the health issue, because no, no we haven't. Some people ate meat, and not a lot, and some of them survived a few years _despite_ this, but to say that we "thrived" on meat, when we died in our thirties, is to reflect very little on the myths you spread.
No we haven't. Meat was barely a part of the human diet.
Look at our Body. Where are our meat eating traits? We don't have any
An animal that has eaten meat for millions of years as you claim would have adaptations that reflect that behavior
The human body is a pure herbivore body
you couldn't be more wrong lol 😂
Liked the bird joke!
Totally expected results, so nothing Earth-shattering, but I love how this study gets ripped to shreds by Carnivores like that clown Metabolic Mike, but then they tout the results of the laughable Harvard Carnivore ‘study’, which was just an extremely biased internet poll with no control group.
Questions on the protein and vegan diet: Given that Americans eat much more protein than they need, do we know if the 6-7% reduction still prevented them from having a protein deficit? I heard that the source isn't an issue as long as one gets sufficient protein (particularly sufficient in Lysine) in the diet.
Your body uses macros differently depending on how much and in what way you exercise. Your body can recycle a lot. Nick just made video showing how we recycle lactate, for example, but in general older adults who exercise need more protein bc they can't digest it as well as younger folk.
the idea that "Americans eat much more protein than they need" is based on a 50g/day RDA that is too low for optimal health. I'm guessing Nick would agree with that, maybe he can cover it at some point. There's a good discussion on Simon Hill's podcast (ep. 228), and he's a vegan. He recommends up to a gram per pound of lean body weight.
@@dkeener13 then the statement in the study isn't helpful unless we have a marker on how much is enough protein. If the 6% - 7% less is still more than what they need, then it doesn't matter if they ate less; if they went below what their body needs, then that is a problem even if they lost weight.
Is @Physionic mentioning this as a means to determine what their protein needs were in the study?
Mashed up the food... ROFLOL!!!
As someone who has been vegan since 1999, I can tell you that it is extremely difficult to be vegan in this non-vegan world, so to do it only because you think it might be somewhat healthier than an omnivorous diet, is not the way to go, lol. I believe you won't be able to do it and it won't benefit your health in any meaningful way.
I'd like to see the vagans screaming it's superior IF they even survived two years.
So the plant diet is better. That's the bottom line
I think the reason why it's easier to lose weight on a vegan diet is portion size and filling foods,,, some plant food will give you a bigger portion size for less Calories compared to animal foods, animal foods give you a smaller portion size for more calories (except for nuts seeds). But the problem with the vegan diet is you also get less protein grams per serving size compared to animal foods
Which give you more protein grams per serving size,, you also have to eat more calories from plant proteins to equal the same amount in animal foods,, so the vegan diet is perfect for weight loss IF you don't care about eating high protein unless calories are not an issue and you don't mind going over your daily calories allowance ,, that's why I can't eat fully plant-based because then I would have to take in more calories than what I need and I would just get chubby
There are higher protein plant based foods that you could just eat more of to avoid the problem you presented. Seitan, for example, is even higher in protein density than meat! Legumes are also high in protein and low in calories. There are also plant based protein powders which are low in calories.
@@someguy2135 I really don't think that stuff is healthy to be honest , yes it's a source of protein and nothing else,, I like protein foods that also contain vitamins and minerals and are also good for bone health, because although yes protein is important and yes there is some way of tweaking a plant-based diet to where you could get enough protein without overeating calories, but I also care about quality of protein and I want more than just protein alone , and I don't like mono meals
I like a variety of foods in one meal
That's why I'm not going to eat 450 calories worth of beans just to get 21 grams of protein when I can eat a meatball for 150 calories that will give me the same amount of protein as the beans for less Calories and I can still have enough calories left to spend on other foods
10:19 plant protein is less anabolic than animal protein.
Good point!
Vegan vs Carni/Herbi is the most interesting discussion of our time. All I know is, I developed IBS in about 3 years when my new gf was strong vegan and I followed her lifestyle. I have never solved my IBS / colon permeability, now I'm trying to significantly lower my vegetables intake and see what happens. I think studies like this should have a scope of a much larger timeframe, say, at least 5 years or more.
Yes, then we can see heart explosions in the non-vegan groups too. We can expand it to 10 years and see the cancer differences (higher in more animal products based diets).
I agree with you
Few months is a to short period of research
And must be done using as subjects the average street vegan who have no money for specialized professionals
@@noah5291are you sure about it?
Everyone would like to see this, but it almost never happens because it is cost prohibive. The only studies we see that long are epidemiological survey studies. I've only seen 2 or 3 that actually run tests over years, and that is not on a managed diet.
@@Santa-ny1yp about the vegan group probably would not be needed a diet management due to their high level of commitment
About the omnivorous, it's possible to develop apps to take pictures of their meals and infere how was the diet
There's a researcher who developed an app like this, but I don't remember his name now
I can tell from your jokes you'd be a great dad.
You are certainly brilliant in your analysis, but you missed the major win which you only talked around: the fact that the vegans naturally wanted to eat less calories is the win for longevity!!! Their last muscle loss?,when you have less weight to carry you need less muscle to support that weight.
Want to keep the muscle but not the fat? Eat vegan and periodically wear a weighted vest with the poundage of the fat lost. Herodotus recorded that the ancient Spartans ran,yes ran a mile into battle wearing 60 pounds of armour in a winning battle against the Persians!!! What did these Spartans eat? A broth without the meat (which they fed their growing children), vegetables and heavy dark brown fermented bread without the germ removed like in today's white flour. Being a low meat hop lite, training in heavy armour produced the beautiful muscled bodies which Athenian artists captured in Greek sculptures.
And, of course, if caloric restriction is part of the effect - a very likely hypothesis, or, at the least, a highly confounding variable - then simply doing time restricted eating and/or intermittent fasting achieves this no matter the diet....for despite exhortations to 'eat the same amount' while fasting or doing only two meals a day, one almost never does (plus there are all the other benefits of these TR and IF regimes, e.g., insulin leveling etc.).
The commentator talking about HDL and Triglyceride being a better marker for heart disease and diabetes is correct because the ratio is a measure of insulin resistance which is the key factor. A significantly lowered LDL is linked to an increase in heart disease as per the Minnesota Study.
Did the explanation of statistical significance fly over your head?
The Minnesota Study? Oh my, we have a lot to learn, don't we? 😢
And as Mike mentioned before he has worked with former women who was vegan and vegetarians like me and have insulin resistance and on their way to heart disease! Unfortunately I think the body stress more without the meat! And the animal fat we need it
I'd also like to see what they were in fact eating. Just how sencible was it? I've never seen a vegan diet survivable without a fistful of additives that don't come from nature.
Interesting. We can all agree that u need more work on vegan jokes... 😂
I would point out that there seems to be a wealthy of data from epidemilogical studies on vegans having the lowest BMI for any group group. Weight loss is a feature of vegan diets... healthy whole food vegans are better... we would assume. 😊
Hey now 😜
@@Physionic but as we all know its dificult to joke about vegans bc they aren t funny 🤣
Ah, i recognize Dr Axe hete.
Thanks I guess I just watch who lives longest and, surprise, it is non-meat eaters. It won't hurt not to eat meat, and might kill you early if you do, so just eat plants and Gardein products. Simple, simple concept with too much babble about it.
I am a male statistician, and the evidence for vegetarian diet was absolutely conclusive 35 years ago, I became a vegetarian 33 years ago when I came across this information in college. The nurse's health study, the Seventh-Day Adventist study, hundreds of studies. There is a point where we simply have enough evidence, but most people are not willing to change, and on the research side, careers must continue, so conclusions are understated or purposely made fuzzy or tepid to avoid stirring up the anger of ideologues or lobbies for these industries.
In the United States, men are fatter than women in every state, statistically. My friend tried dating vegetarians and vegans, and they were all neurotic and corpulent females, but this was before the days when it became fashionable.
A great diet of any type doesn't have to be lower in protein or fat. The quality of the calorie in question is also relevant. Fat from avocado and fat from cheap potato chips are at opposite ends of the spectrum. If you eat low quality food or too much food then you are almost guaranteed to have a problem eventually.
In the next few days I'm probably going to have 4-5 soursop, and a quart of turmeric juice among other healthy foods, and I bet there are not 1000 people in the world receiving the quality of nutrition that I will be consuming.
I don't preach and it's not an ideology. All ideologies are evil, and preaching doesn't work. I became a vegetarian for reasons personal health, and environmental stability, and even saving money. There is also antibiotic and pesticide and herbicide overuse that is poisoning the planet, meaningfully centered around a meat-based diet.
Most people don't have a full life, they just waste their life working and breeding and chasing status. Most health problems come late in life when people are rigid and lazy and largely useless to the human population. The result was usually determined (the die was cast) decades ago, based on inaction, indolence or ideology.
If you want to have a good life before you retire then just do simple things:
1) Be thin, don't eat too much.
2) Avoid fried food and processed foods with lots of sugar and salt, and/or cheap low quality oils.
3) Do not be a fanatic. People with ideologies about ANYTHING.... meat or not meat, or gender equality, or wealth inequality, or intelligence equality based on geographic origin of their heritage are generally delusional and not happy. There are differences in people, and these are very real. You can't unbake the cookie.
I didn't mention smoking or drinking or drug use because these are typically genetic tendencies. IQ is genetic, most of obesity is genetic (and I'm talking mostly about the mindset here)
People (with ideologies, and weak inferior people) who make poor choices will obfuscate true progress at every turn, or simply engage in reality denial.
Interesting. My children worked at a Veganic farm (Seventh-Day Adventist). They were in good cardio shape, but not very "extra" muscular. You make a good point though. For those without a sense of self-control a vegetarian diet is better. It keeps the variables more in check. I see omnivores going over the deep end more than plant-based dieters. Although I live in a land where obese vegans graze (yet omnivores outnumber the rotund herd).
Mike is a bias hack.