Відео

Thanks so much for the feedback! I'll definitely post some more nature vids!

Yes, the dropout rate of many restrictive diets is high. That is what makes it difficult to recommend a strict animal diet or a strict plant based diet. Unfortunately, there is not enough evidence to suggest that plants are not healthy.

@@KickbackScienceWithDrLuke All you need to do is look at the toxins in plants. All plants have them. Oxalates, phytotoxin, lectins, fiber, carbohydrates. All toxins.

Strict animal based is easy and sustainable bc it's our proper human diet. I've been carnivore for 2 years and I've never felt better. I'm always satiated and have no problems sticking with it.

@@jayhoggard92 Nearly seven years for me. Its never been difficult. Fixes hormones too. If i’m not hungry I don’t eat. Unless I’m on a long trip. Then I will stuff myself in advance and not worry about getting food again until I return. No problem, easy peasy.

It makes sense that a plant would want to defend itself! It doesn't seem to be, based on the available evidence, that this has any negative impact on our health. And in fact, there are studies showing positive impacts of various phytochemicals (see links to the research provide in the video). My point is that it is a bit premature to say that plants are not healthy, and that we should be eating strictly animal based.

Thank you for explaining your rational, albeit still no evidence, which is frustrating considering it's "not that hard to find"...Yep. Cows are ruminant upcyclers. And I assume you mean "particle number" aka ApoB, not size... Cancer does not strictly use oxygen and glucose, that's a misinterpretation of the Warburg Theory... Yes your body can create glucose on its own but that doesn't mean carbs are somehow bad for you (excess carbs is different, just like excess fat)... Lastly, we are referring to the strict carnivore population that avoids plants within their diet

@@KickbackScienceWithDrLuke I have not got the time to explain all this. You need to do it for yourself. Yes, there is research out there. I know exactly what you are talking about - but you need to know more about carnivores before you dump on it and give bad information. I am talking about particle SIZE not numbers. Guess you need to hit the books and learn more. Thankfully I have a great, open-minded Doctor who continues to educate himself.

@@kimmeee1and there it is. It always come back to “ I don’t have the time to provide you this research, do it yourself” or… maybe… you don’t have the proper research to provide support for the stance you are taking. If you are reading this research that is changing your perspective on all of this… than provide that research. Or provide the research that the people you are following are providing you. You’re apparently a pro at this and looking at all the research… you know it’s not hard to hit that “share article” button or copy a URL.

@@tylerschuelke7769 Don't be an arse. 5 yrs ago I spent months down a number of rabbit holes as I tried to change my health. I watch a lot of podcasts as I love to learn a variety of things - but most of them do their own research. If this podcast had a Joe Public talking I would have listened to the opinions and moved on. I take issue with a Doctor giving bad advise.

I completely agree! The point I try to make is that it seems pretty clear based on the evidence that we have a problem with overconsumption of non-nutrient dense highly palatable foods. So it would benefit people to limit them. I also agree that everyone is metabolically different, so they will respond differently to any given diet. So to say a plant based diet is the correct way to eat is just as foolish as saying a meat only diet is the right way to eat. It may work for some (for a variety of reasons), but it absolutely won't work for all.

No he won't. Beta!!

Because they are cowards, that do not understand science. Or course I mean these podcast guys.

Hmm.. not seeing any research included in that video. I wonder why?

​@@KickbackScienceWithDrLuke Obviously didn't watch it. His resources are in the video.

@@82KW82 I did not see any links to the research. Did you review any of the "studies" he is referring to? Would love if you could provide them!

Needing to deny the existence of scurvy to keep your argument from falling apart is hilarious

@@MattLouw, read what 82kw82 said. They never denied scurvy. They said that carnivores don’t tend to get scurvy. If they are eating quality meat (especially grass fed beef) and some organs, they will get what they need.

@cmtsailor W cope bro

Are you here to tell us the "truth" about the diet?! Would love to see the supporting research!

​​@@KickbackScienceWithDrLukewhere was all the supporting research in this podcast? All I heard was talking points and opinions based off BS Epidemiological "studies". Why not interview actual PHDs who have been carnivor and use carnivor for their patients. But you won't.

Why the only guy you talk about is Paul Saladino? How about debate Dr.Chaffee or Dr. Ken Berry. You won't.

@@82KW82 He literally linked all the studies in the description bro, go read them

Thanks for the video! In the episode we talk about how LDL concentration is not a useful metric when assessing CVD risk.

please enlighten us with these studies!

That's awesome, nice job! You must not have been in a true energy deficit if your weight was not changing prior to your diet change. And I totally agree, the field of nutrition research is messy.

@@KickbackScienceWithDrLuke clearly my calorie restriction was insufficient to lower insulin enough to shed fat, but that’s the problem with indiscriminate calorie restriction.

wow.. we've finally discovered "The proper human diet"! There must be some evidence you can provide if you are THAT confident.

​@@KickbackScienceWithDrLukeit's called 100k year of human evolution. And now the thousands if not millions who have completely reversed type2 diabetes and every other autoimmune issues.

@@KickbackScienceWithDrLuke consider a world without agriculture, canning, preservatives, shipping and refrigeration. It is obvious that humans could not rely on plant foods that would only be available 3-6 months of the year.

Never said anything about meat being bad. IN FACT, we mention that meat is NOT the issue in most of the studies I assume you are referring to. Eat all the meat you want! ALSO, we discuss how LDL concentration is not a beneficial metric to assess CVD risk (LDL particle number is a different story). I would love to see the research suggesting that saturated fat is not associated with CVD, if you could provide it!

Would love to see the studies you're referring to! Take a peek at research we provided on how fiber is beneficial for a variety of health outcomes.

@KickbackScienceWithDrLuke fibre os acknowledged as a facilitator for moving product thru the colon etc. When we don't eat fibre, and mostly eat beef, we have little left over and therefore little to remove. I have cancer (stage 4) that began in my colon. 60% of my colon was removed. My Bristol chart is usually a 4, and it is not everyday. I have no fibre to remove. I only achieved this with my carnivore diet. 10 months now. We can't digest fibre, and it is not necessary and often leads to bloating and gas.

@@mikerudd4943 very sorry to hear about what you are going through. Glad to hear you have improved your bowel movements! There is actually some interesting research on the impact that dietary fiber has on colon cancer (www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/09637486.2018.1446917) And you are correct in that insoluble fiber aids in the passage of nutrients along the digestive tract (which promotes regular bowel movements). Fiber (both soluble and insoluble) ALSO has been shown to influence the microbiome, reduce intestinal inflammation, improve metabolic health (insulin sensitivity), and PLENTY MORE. Here are a few studies for reference. And again we provided even more research in the video description. (www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7589116/#B79-nutrients-12-03209), (www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7589116/)

Thanks for the feedback! The unfortunate part about the carnivore diet is that a large majority of the data are anecdotal, leaving limited research to interpret. So although there are plenty of subjective opinions discusses, that is what is available surrounding this diet. We feel, however, that there is sufficient evidence supporting plant consumption for overall health, which warrants the discussion! I'd love to hear the contradicting statements so that I can clear that up for anyone listening!

​@@KickbackScienceWithDrLukeMaybe talk to Br. KEN BERRY or Dr. CHAFFEE and educate yourself. And also learn about these ridiculous studies and why they can't be trusted.

@@82KW82 I educate myself by interpreting data within the available research, rather than simply following someone else's theory because they are convincing. A useful tool that is achieved from a PhD.

​@@KickbackScienceWithDrLukeYou still didn't resond to any of my points. Try it for 3 months and see how you feel. Once you do you'll be asking yourself the same questions that everyone that trys it does too. You don't think everyone doing it didn't think it was nuts at first? Anecdotal evidence is still evidence. In fact if enough anecdotal evidence is corroborated then doesn't that also warrant discussion as well? If you look at all the studies you mentioned you'd find that because of the nature of them that they only informs on the ASSOCIATION of risk. That means, as someone with a PHD, you should not be saying words like cause. That implies that it has been proven. You should only say words like "seems to be associated with...." You yourself straight up said that nutritional science is heavily flawed which kind of dismisses all of your studies. Just one small point about fiber. There has only been 1 RCT on fiber and it indeed found the opposite result of what you've have said in this podcast. In the future it would be good if you could tag who you respond too so that they can see your part of the discussion as well. Looking forward to your response.

@@jeremywagley8514 Sorry if I did not address the points you made. I don't doubt that people respond well to the diet. That seems to be true accross the board with any diet (vegan, keto, low fat, fasting, etc.), which makes the anecdotal data difficult to interpret. I understand that the nutritional research is messy, and that's the entire point of our discussion. We just don't have the evidence to suggest that a strict carnivore diet is superior to a diet that includes plants. As far as the word "cause" and "association" goes.. I did not infer causality, especially when I was talking about meat. In fact, we spent time making fun of the media for saying stuff like "meat causes cancer, etc.". I hope that message did not get interpreted incorrectly.. And about the fiber research, there does seem to be ample evidence to suggest a benefit, with more than 1 RCT. Here is an interesting recent review that included (1) meta-analysis of RCTs that explored the effects of dietary fiber intake on cardiovascular risk factors (blood glucose/lipids, blood pressure, and inflammatory factors) and (2) RCTs comparing any proper control groups (placebo, control group, or diet with low dietary fiber) www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9511151/ Thanks again for the feedback! It helps to know how our message is being interpreted!