Stanford Twin Study: Are Vegan Diets Healthier?
Вставка
- Опубліковано 6 чер 2024
- The Stanford Twin Study has made headlines suggesting that vegan diets are healthier than omnivore diets, and we would likely all benefit from a more plant-based diet. The problem is that the conclusions are misleading, and the study doesn't actually show that. The true conclusion from this study is that among high carb diets, after eight weeks, those on a vegan diet ate fewer calories, lost more weight and lowered LDL and insulin more than those following a high carb omnivore diet. The Stanford Twin Study highlights how easy it is to misinterpret and misrepresent the findings from nutrition research.
Link to the study:
Cardiometabolic Effects of Omnivorous vs Vegan Diets in Identical Twins
A Randomized Clinical Trial
jamanetwork.com/journals/jama...
Follow our channel for more information and education from Bret Scher, MD, FACC, including interviews with leading experts in Metabolic Psychiatry.
Learn more about metabolic psychiatry and find helpful resources at metabolicmind.org/
About us:
Metabolic Mind™ is a nonprofit initiative incubated by Baszucki Group. Our mission is to provide education and resources in the emerging field of metabolic psychiatry, including ketogenic interventions for mental disorders.
Our channel is for informational purposes only. We are not providing individual or group medical or healthcare advice nor establishing a provider-patient relationship. Many of the interventions we discuss can have dramatic or potentially dangerous effects if done without proper supervision. Consult your healthcare provider before changing your lifestyle or medications.
Timestamps:
0:00 Introduction
1:08 The study's design
2:49 The study's conclusion
4:35 What should the study's conclusion actually be?
5:19 An opportunity to add an extension to this study
6:02 Conclusion
#MetabolicMind
#KetoForMentalHealth
#MetabolicPsychiatry
#vegan
#omnivore
#DepressionTreatment
#MetabolicNeuroscience
#KetogenicMetabolicTherapy
#NutritionalKetosis
#MentalIllness
#DepressionDiet
#AlternativeTreatment
🙏Thanks, Bret, for shedding light on this. I was involved in the study, and I want to emphasize a point unfortunately omitted from my documentary interview. It's crucial to clarify that these outcomes likely result from the greater weight loss observed among those on a vegan diet (who, as expected, consumed fewer calories)-a known driver of epigenetic changes. However, let's be clear: this doesn't declare a vegan diet, especially the one under examination, universally and perpetually as epigenetically healthy.
In reality, unsupplemented vegan diets can impair epigenetic processes due to the absence of key epinutrients like vitamin B12 and choline. The short-term study's focus on epigenetic benefits might inadvertently lead to the belief that these advantages endure without supplementation. Not so. A critical reminder to all vegans: Incorporate B12 supplements for overall health. As scientists, we bear the responsibility of emphasizing this message, as deficiencies can manifest slowly and result in severe, irreversible brain damage, particularly in children born to vegan mothers.
Now, the lingering question: Might a comparison with other unprocessed omnivore diets like low-carb, paleo, or ketogenic yield different results? We don't know. The complexities inherent in dietary studies warrant continuous exploration.
Great Points Dr. Lucia. Thank you!
Everyone supplements today so it's pointless to emphasize the absence of B12, iodine, omega 3 and other nutrients. Every vegan and omnivore I see out there knows that it is a good idea to supplement all kinds of stuff. We need to focus on promoting measuring and supplementing what is needed, and adjusting accordingly, while taking into account ecological and moral implications of industry meat farming - we can't disregard this last part.
@@spacewandererneveryone? Me and most people I know don’t as omnivores. Never had any concern in that front. I hear this argument of “everyone should supplement” from vegans all the time, but I notice how rare it is for a omnivore with a well balanced diet to need to supplement vitamins, they supplement specific nutrients more for enhancement and optimal results while vegans need supplementation and have to be very diligent with it, since they don’t get some nutrients at all.
@@n0b0dyatall1 that's huge misinformation what you said. In fact, I'd argue the opposite. Vegans don't need to supplement a lot more, they only need to supplement B12 (which you can get everywhere these days) because our soil is depleted. Nothing else. On a whole food nutrient rich plant diet you get everything. Omnivores on the other hand are generally less health conscious, so their eating habits would require more supplementation. But as I said, we need to address the ethical and ecological aspects of eating meat in a world where this is obviously not a necessity anymore. And it's healthier for everyone, so should be a no brainer.
@@mada5326 you misread what I said. I didn't say everyone should supplement, I said everyone today supplements because it became a habit thanks to media and and supplement companies promoting that stuff to masses. I was of course broadly generalizing to establish a point.
Also note that vegans only supplement B12, but omnivores who get B12 from meat is also a B12 supplement that was given to animals before they were killed. So in either case you get B12 from a supplement.
Wherever you got the information that healthy vegans need to supplement a lot more, it's simply not true
Hey there! Just wanted to share some interesting findings about the meals they provided. It turns out that the vegans received only 59 grams of Protein per day, which is about 65% of what the Omnivores got (91.25 Protein). It's not surprising that the vegans experienced muscle loss, right? It seems like the significance of a high protein diet is an aspect where Bro-Science is actually ahead of University Professors.
The outcome measures were also a major problem. LDL is not a reliable marker of susceptibility to cardiovascular disease. This is one of the preconceptions left over from the disastrous effects of Ancel Keyes' 'research.'
I notice that the error bars shown for LDL-C changes overlap for the two diets so it may not even be correct to say the the Vegan diet had improved this metric.
On the WFPB diet I reversed my diabetes, lost 30 lbs, and cleared up many other health conditions. 💚🌱✨
Congrats! That's fantastic that you found a dietary approach that works for you. There's no denying that WFPB can work well for some people. But, as I say in the video, we have to be careful how we over-extrapolate findings from very limited studies like this one. But in no way does that negate your personal experience.
@@user-pq3vd6oc1c The fiber solution is to start low and go slow. I overcame gut dysbiosis incrementally over about 3 months. Now I can eat all the beans and vegetables I want, and since my gut bugs have changed, I want A LOT! 🤣
@@user-pq3vd6oc1c Also, I’m on my 6th year WFPB, and have no deficiency issues. I simply supplement B-12, D3 , and EPA DHA, as we probably all should.
Great idea to extend the study.
The Netflix show started out interesting until you see how biased they are in favor of veganism. They spent 3/4's of the runtime complaining about global warming and cow farts.
Sorry they tossed in some FACTS about other good side effects of a vegan diet while adding evidence that a vegan diet is more healthy. I guess you just didn't like the fact that your dietary choices have consequences that extend beyond the health risks.
@@timothys9288 Sorry they left out the fact that any form of industrialized agriculture is going to kill animals big and small, and also depends upon fertilizers. So is it better for the environment to get fertilizer from cows, which are an active participant in a natural carbon cycle, or get your fertilizer from fossil fuels and pot ash? You either get B12 from meat, or you get it from supplements which are themselves products of industrialization.
@@marshallscot - There is a moral difference between raping, enslaving and murdering animals and inadvertently killing them in food production in the wild. If you accidentally run over someone or kill in self defense that's not a crime but what agriculture does to livestock should be criminal.
@@marshallscot - Also, we don't need fertilizer from cows. Certainly not at the cost of the horror that is the animal agriculture industry.
@@marshallscot The cows are injected with supplemental B12 in the agriculture industry. So, your meat is a supplement.
What I'd like to see is a vegan advocate doing one side of the study and a low carber doing the other, with the subjects randomly assigned. 12 weeks minimum, with dexa scans, 2 week CGM, and full bloods including LDL fractional, and insulin, at both ends. I won't hold my breath.
How do you account for genetic, ethnic, and personal difference?
We would like to see this, too. 12-18 months would be an ideal but expensive study.
@@NeseretBemientdo it with twins again. I was so intrigued at the beginning on the documentary until i realised it was vegan propaganda
@@MsMyraEmilyI wondered if they thought the propaganda message was so subtle no one would notice.
@@MsMyraEmilypropaganda, yes. Because it challenges your views, and you're not able to reconcile your biases with evidence.
Nice thought, but highly doubtful they will ever do a study comparing a vegan diet to a true low carb, animal-based diet.
We can try to share the video.
Yep. They don't want to know the results of that study. If the population started eating a healthy low carb diet it would cut the profits of everyone from Drs, Big Food, Big Pharma, Insurance companies, etc.
You won't see studied any plant-based diet compared against a healthy low-carb, animal-based diet that is also whole foods and eliminates seed oils.
Why do you think that is?
Why is the omnivore community not doing a study?
All these doctors promoting keto/ omnivore diet can easily run these studies.They won't, because their existence depends on selling supplements and protein powders. Show me one of these doctors who is not selling something.
The twin study is perfectly fine because 8 weeks is enough time to see meaningful changes in biometrics.
As a researcher, I totally agree with your review
Great work,
The omnivores had increases in HDL and lower Trigs ie a better HDL:TG ratio which some would argue is a much better predictor of CVD risk than LDL.
HDL is not a predictor of CVD and according to the author, the TG change is not statistically significant. The primary outcome of the study is LDL cholesterol, while HDL and trigs are secondary outcomes that are reported only because they are going to be obtained anyway alongside LDL so it doesn't make any sense not to report them.
@@GabrielCazorlaPersson1 The HDL:TG ratio is considered a much better metric the LDL or TC for CVS risk. Picking LDL as the primary metric indicates to me that he researcher had a predetermined outcome when designing the study.
@@michaeltrumper I am looking at the table of the study right now and:
1. The vegan group ended with a lower triglyceride level and a lower HDL as well. Therefore, as you say, that ratio is better for omnivores. But the baseline levels of HDL and triglycerides are different from both groups. Actually, the ratio you mention was better at baseline for the omnivore group. I just did the math and both groups improved. It's just wrong to cherry pick one outcome and not compare it to baseline. Further, if the secondary outcomes are non significant and you are dividing them, how do you even compare the difference between two groups? HDL alone is also not a very good predictor of CVD in any case.
2. You say that the omnivores had increases in HDL. Wrong, you cannot be looking at the table to say that. They went from 63.9 to 63.7. The change in the ratio you mention comes from changes in triglycerides alone.
3. I am not going to enter into the debate of whether one metric is better than the other as a predictor of CVD, let's just say that they are independent factors. The omnivore group had non-significant changes in LDL whereas the vegan group had quite drastic decreases in LDL.
4. They also saw reductions in TMAO in the vegan group. Again, you are just fixating on one metric while ignoring everything else.
Disclaimer: I am not vegan, nor vegetarian. I am an omnivore.
@@GabrielCazorlaPersson1 Actually, it has been such a long time that I cant' remember. However, HDL:Trig ratio not the level of just on or the other is the most important..
Given that looking at all cause mortality in relation to LDL, there is a J curve and the lowest mortality is higher than current recommendations..
You failing to mention that vegan group lost more relative lean mass than the omnivore group which long term could lead to sarcopenia which a major risk factor for older people.
My point being is focusing only on the metrics that favor Garndners' diet is also misleading.
@@michaeltrumper They lost more lean mass because they lost more body mass. But the decreases in LDL were bigger than expected by weight loss alone.
Good video. Thank you!
They micronutrient ratio in the studies did not match. Why not?
In an 8 week study, when they consume on average fewer calories, and lose weight, I would expect improved metrics. We also have too be cautious about drawing conclusions about diet satisfaction and whether they would continue. Any change in habits/ behaviors take a tremendous toll. I went vegan almost 3 years ago. There is a component of health, but mostly for spiritual reasons. I chose it and still it is difficult to maintain at times. I'm glad they did it though. There are some good take always and questions raised that can help inform future research.
I suddenly fell ill several yrs back and started getting high fever on and off for 3months. I was told I may be developing some autoimmune condition. I even suddenly developed a peanut allergy which I never had all my life. Then I met a Doctor, originally a diabetes soecialist, who put me on a vegan-ish diet for only 3 months and by the end of it my bloodwork was clear, the fever had gone as well as the peanut allergy. My weak immunity bounced back easily. After I got my results I went back to my usual diet but veganism completely healed me.
Thank you
Typical for a carnivore to say “not what it seems “ when the science are taken down
Yep!
Why do you think there was a 200 calorie difference? That was a rhetorical question.
Sugar.
Vegan diets are unsustainable
The vegan group was tired of chewing all the fibers, so they ate less !!!!
Also vegan foods are low in nutrition and you have to eat alot more in weight and volume so they reached a point where they said enough
@@prunelle19 200kcal energy expenditure is exactly the difference which sugar in the diet does.
it is also the difference between low-carb and low-fat in some studies (low-carb having 200kcal MORE energy expenditure).
this is not a random number...
I’ve been on all types of diets over the last fifty years. While I was losing weight, my metrics were all good. No matter which diet I was on.
Doesn't surprise me. Getting away from the typical American diet with all the seed oils and sugars is probably the biggest thing. Keep it up!
Brett the main thing that concerns me about this study and its reporting is the ASSUMPTION that low LDL is better for your health. There are no rigorous studies proving that high LDL is bad for you. In fact the large population data that's been collected over the years seems to indicate that people with higher LDL live longer. Therefore there's no validity to the claim that a diet which lowers your LDL will give better health than one that doesn't. The latest findings in the rigorous study by Matthew Budoff give a strong indication that LDL does not cause coronary artery damage, as is blithely assumed by much of the medical community on the weak basis of association only.
You are being far to nice and generous. To compare vegan to omnivore diets they need to control calories, keep the macro nutrients constant, and the sugar constant. 12 weeks at a minimum would give a better result than 8.
Why not go for 6 months to 1 year. Might as well. lol
They kept the macros pretty close (judging from the video). But keeping the macro nutrients & calories constant in a low-carbohydrate setting is the real nail in the coffin for veganism. Almost impossible to accomplish. Vegan basically entails high carb. And high carb basically entails metabolic dysfunction & poor health. So Brett offers them the most reasonable fig leaf imo, they can keep their high carb and compare it to low carb. But they'll still get demolished. Long term would be even worse. This is all obvious to anyone paying attention to diet space for the last 10 years. Of course, 50,000 diet "science" papers per year funded by lucky charms is still trying to figure it out.
@@NeseretBemientBecause the costs would be immense..
@@chancelacina - Not only did they keep the macros close, they gave room for the people in the study to reach a point of satiation and not eat more than they need. The plant based food satiated their appetites better and in most cases in our 1st world civilization, lower calories are better because people in the 1st world consume too many calories with those calories containing few micronutritents. In other words, junk food. Animal products are junk food and bad calories. Sure you can survive eating the dead bodies of animals, but it's not the ideal food for the human body. Humans evolved to eat plants and our bodies reap the benefits of micronutrients and thrive on them. Raw fruits and vegetables should be the largest portion of our diets and meals and we feel better eating largely those foods with a light mix of nuts, seeds and beans sprinkled in. People that follow this kind of eating habit live long and healthy lives in the aggregate.
I've tried the vegan diet and the standard American diet for 55 years and was sick and tired and not healthy. In the past 4 years I've been eating only meat and I feel the best and look the best I've ever felt. No more inflamation, my natural weight went to my high school weight effortlessly, and my skin is beautiful. A lot of other positive changes happened to me as well. This lifestyle isn't for the weak. This way of life is only for the people that want to be strong and healthy.
There is no vegan diet
I love the meat diet. I take a little bit of fermented veggies but otherwise lots of meat and it is the best I've ever felt.
@@NeseretBemient most people love the meat diet just like alcoholics love alcohol
@@doddsalfa Would that make them a meataholic? lol
@@NeseretBemient no question about it ☺️
Brilliant offer of funding to Stanford to team up and address the question of how their hi-carb versions of these two diets would compare to low-carb versions... hopefully their commitment to science will motivate them to accept the offer!
I went vegan and have experienced a 2 lb. weight loss. My LDL cholesterol has dropped from 134 to 102. Would my weight and cholesterol have dropped on a low carb, paleo, or keto diet? I'm not going to find out. Yes, I am supplementing b12 and Omega-3s.
"I'm not going to find out": Your choice for going vegan of course but not always a beneficial mindset in my opinion given that you did try something new with veganism. There is no unbiased "science" on the planet so far that can unequivocally demonstrate that a vegan diet is "superior" to a well balanced omnivore or even carnivore diet for instance. You so happened to have tried one thing that seems to be giving you positive results for now. The question is for how long and are those results actually demonstrating long term metabolic health benefits? . There is a lot to say about the drop of LDL that plant-based advocates observe over time when they make the change. If you did try "other diets" that did not work then how informed were you about how to go about them? LDL alone is certainly not necessarily a marker of better health outcomes. Your results have to be interpreted within the right context with regards to your metabolic health.
"Yes, I am supplementing b12 and Omega-3s": The deficiencies and issues on a vegan diet go far beyond just B12 and DHA/EPA. I suggest you document yourself more about other factors such as the following:
(1) Insulin sensitivity (relating to the impact of a plant-based diet with the complete absence of animal-based food on the development of insulin resistance and mitochondrial dysfunction over time), insulin/glucose spikes, lack of metabolic flexibility (the ability to use both glucose and fatty acids as a source of energy as and when required e.g. natural ketosis during sleep), the consequence of a lack of natural ketone production under chronic carbs intake such as reduced beneficial effect of short chain fatty acids with regards to tissue repair such as the endothelial lining of the gut or repair/maintenance of brain cells (e.g. low ketones such as butyric acid/Beta hydroxybutyrate as is often the case on a vegan diet. Note that ketones also provides a metabolic advantage as an energy source for the mitochondria particularly in the brain as it is independent on insulin and provides energy even in people who are insulin resistant, hence improving brain health). The benefits of natural ketone production or nutritional ketosis are numerous and beyond the scope of that quick comment. I'd suggest you look into it. Also look into the impact of chronic high carbohydrate diets on cancer/mitochondrial dysfunction. Remember that cancer cells feed on glucose and glutamine. We can't do much about the glutamine (that's where medication comes into play) but we certainly can do something about the glucose through our diet.
(2) The long term impact of anti nutrients such as oxalates, lectins, phytates just to name the common ones among many others.
(3) The long term impact of phytosterols on health (as present in much higher concentration in seed oils, margarines and plant-based food) including, competition for cholesterol in cell membrane, effect on atherosclerosis, inflammation, formation of oxidised LDL among other issues.
(4) Deficiencies in other nutrients such as choline (also a methyl group donor like B12 essential for biochemical reactions and cell/DNA integrity), taurine, methionine, leucine, isoleucine, lysine (can be rate limiting, particularly leucine, in the mTOR activation and protein synthesis). Also learn about bioavailability of nutrients and the importance of having all the essential amino acids in the right concentration from food intake.
There is so much more to say about all of this but I can't be long right now. I am just sharing this as a clinical/research scientist myself so I would advise that you do further research on your own. It is critical to keep an open mindset about clinical/nutritional science rather than "settling" for something that "seems" to work as that is usually the hallmark of an inherent bias. Science is never settled. You can't know what's better out there unless you keep an unbiased mindset that can allow you to learn something new and explore more beneficial avenues.
Misleading and, therefore, harmful interpretation.
They're both plant based.
Staying meaty is the way, for me.
I like your handle - low carb low drama. lol It's very true. Mood stability is something I've experienced on keto, as well as hormonal balance. My cycles use to be awful but having a high fat diet helped tremendously.
Now compare this with the recently released LMHR study. Further cementing that lower LDL is a fallacy.
ua-cam.com/video/k9fBSHflDVk/v-deo.html
Indeed. The only real result of the study seems to be that people found vegan diets less satisfying, this was mentioned in the study, which lead them to eat less and lose more weight. Lesser satisfaction indicates that they will not be sticking to the diet (edit: not even the single person who claimed to be sticking to it).
Yes, finally, I was waiting for someone to tear this apart!😂
You cant tear it apart its a control trial that y'all be yelling for then when you get it now its a problem
@@donewittit6607I agree that he didn't tear it apart, but that's only because he is very cautious in his wording at all times. He didn't even point out that the lead guy had served on the board of two corrupt organizations.
@@SamShank175 Christopher Gardner if you're talking about him is a reputable scientists
@@donewittit6607 who's served on the board of the AHA and ADA, which are both corrupt organizations. Just go look at where they get their funding. He's pushing an agenda and he's probably going to come up with answers that he wants to.
Did he lol. He made zero critiques of the paper
Why they are not honest and say that the problem is sugars and carbohydrates? Why is so difficult to know the true?
very simple, because a vegan diet is mainly based in sugar ( carbs, starches ), and say, sugar is actually bad, what it is, will end the vegan- fairy tail ( propaganda ).
I am not sure if the willingness to stay on the diet is that relevant to health studies. As a doctor it also sounds weird to not be interested in the best/optimal just because it is challenging for some. Working with your patients to make changes towards the optimal is on you and your patients but the studies and the science should not be limited by this. Find what is optimal and then you/we can adjust for individuals, communities, and society.
That's an interesting perspective; thank you for the comment. Unfortunately, I think "we" as a society know that it is better to not overeat, to avoid ultraprocessed foods, and to stick to whole foods. But despite the knowledge, "we" have failed miserably. That highlights how "knowing" isn't enough. Food is emotional, with hunger and cravings and so much more. The practical application of what someone will eat long term is crucial to long term health.
@metabolicmind I would have to strongly disagree - In my opinion, as a nation, we are more confused than ever about what foods make up a healthy diet. As consumers, we are constantly being slammed with propaganda from all angles. ie: Low carb? High carb? Vegan? Carnivore? Keto?
The average consumer has no idea what to believe anymore. Therefore, studies like there comparing two types of healthy diets are very helpful.
Just curious. Do you think there is confusion about eating whole foods and avoiding ultra-processed food products?
@@metabolicmind I am not sure what @lindseytrebilcock3302 response would be to this but I will touch on it in response to your original response to me as I think they are related. I think there is significant confusion around health. There is a general understanding of whole foods being better than ultra-processed food products but the details when it comes to making actual choices reveals the confusion. I constantly hear people avoiding fruit because of the sugar despite most studies demonstrating people that consume fruit regularly have better health outcomes and less diabetes. People will avoid a banana or an apple as a snack but yet will buy some weird keto parmesans fried crackers because they are low carb. They will avoid things like tofu for being processed, which it is, but again the data seems to support positive health outcomes across the board with the consumption of tofu but will buy grocery store meat which may have dyes, antibiotics, and other things preserve and make it more appealing. Which is more processed? I've made tofu at home it really isn't anything that complicate or overall processed. It is blended soy beans and you can use lemon juice as a coagulant to isolate the proteins. When it comes to affirming your health bias things like whole foods vs ultra-processed becomes unclear.
As to my original comment I think there is a vast majority of individuals that do not wish to change their diet but rather affirm their dietary choices for the reasons you outlined like emotional or social. This is true for most beliefs held by people. The approach seems to be to appeal to this segment of the population by watering down studies and data in the hope they will change. This causes more confusion. For example, the desire to do a longer study to assess outcomes based on ease of sticking to a diet or consistency may seem helpful but I would argue it is not. You are only making it easier for people to justify their choices. You ask people in a society that is not vegan and has no knowledge around vegan eating to try it and want to compare how likely someone new to the diet will stick with it in comparison to a slightly modified omnivore diet? Are we really going to be shocked by the results? I wasn't shocked by the results of this twin study around this element. Will these extended version tell us about optimal diets or what is easier for people to do given a specific background and relationship to food they have had their entire life? The conclusion will likely be seen by people that omnivorous diet is healthier. Based on this study that could be the case not because the diet is healthier but because one group didn't know what they were doing. Again, this leads to confusion on what is healthier not clarity.
Why not just tell us how this study fits into the overall consensus when it comes to diet research? Is this an outlier or does it fall in line with the majority of research on this topic when it comes to overall health outcomes? I would argue this supports the majority of research which indicates the closer to a full plant based diet the better the outcomes on a wide range of health markers. Now, eating fully plant based might be more challenging and requires a learning curve for many but we shouldn't avoid the findings to make people feel better about their choices. Getting in the weeds of individual studies also makes it easer for people to walk away affirming their beliefs rather than seeing the overall picture.
Thoughts on the COMT gene and keto?
Worth pointing out that a handful of Brazil nuts has a significant impact on LDL - there is a study on pubmed. If the vegans ate Brazil nuts and the control didn’t than that would explain the difference.
Didnt the vegans also lose muscle (except for 1 guy but his brother gained 7 pounds of muscle while he gained 3), have HDL go down and trigs go up?
Yes.
You need to add a carnivore diet as part of it as well to eliminate plants completely and see how it compares as well. Maybe half the twins vegan/omnivore and half carnivore/omnivore. Also, the results of trigs:HDL was incredibly telling but way too downplayed, same with body composition. Looking at body fat, lean muscle, bone density before, during and after for each participant. More lean muscle is imperative (of which the vegans appeared to lose lean muscle mass in this study).
I was vegan, wfpb for almost 5 years. I was good until I wasn’t. I slowly developed a long list of problems that I am still recovering from. My issues only flare up when I incorporate more variety of plants.
why not be more specific? sounds very dramatic
Have you looked at potential allergies? My wife and I are vegan, but she started having all kinds of problems. It was very confusing until she got tested for allergies and found out she had a carrot/celery/cumin allergy! And as vegans we were eating those multiple times a day. Once we cut out all the foods she was allergic to she started doing so much better. 👍
The trig increase and hdl fall is likely more concerning than the ldl increase. Increased trig is well accepted as an independent risk factor/correlation. The seemingly deliberate failure to capture body composition delta (did they lose muscle or fat) is also a little self serving for the beyond meat sponsored lead of that study.
Perfect approach, and I sincerely hope Stanford goes for FairPlay and proper research!
That study was put together well
How is this study not a “proper study”. It is not possible to conduct a perfect study right away and the limitations mentioned in this video are also discussed in the paper itself
@@yasweeter it would have been better that I’ve stopped my sentence after FairPlay, point taken. I sincerely hope these party’s will work together in a new study, as intended in this post.
Just follow the money. Sponsored research for sure
@@donewittit6607If you were to set aside your personal views and look to identify weaknesses in the study, just as a thought exercise, what would your top three be?
The omnivore arm ate more sugar .... LOL, that explains a lot....
Wait, isn't sugar plant-based/vegan? 🤣
Also known as set up to fail.
That study was a quality well put together study you people are sick in the mind you scream and yell about oh that's epidemiology then when you finally get a well put together randomized control trial now it's a problem make up your mind
Thank you, Ranjul. I would be pleased to discuss further after you have read the literature. I provided some sources for you to begin with. Your comment is not borne out by the science. It is important our ideas are informed by science rather than king-held cultural beliefs.
That was the most gently dropped gauntlet I've ever witnessed 😂 ❤
I eat wholesome food with high fiber, minimum of processed food and no sugary drink. I follow these simple rules: 14gr fiber per 1000 cal, 1x culture food, 2x fruits, 40gr protein daily and 20 hours of physical activities weekly. These rules keep my BMI at 20 for years eventhough I eat A LOT.
Sorry, 40gr protein per day ?!
@@Boolama27I believe the lead author of this study says 35g of protein a day is all you need, so it’s less surprising to hear this than you might think. Sadly BMI does not distinguish bone mass, muscle mass and fat mass. Someone could lose the first two and gain the third and have a steady BMI.
It's intresrting that you didnt mention about chromosomal effects (age) and gut bacteria effects from the study. Is it your observation bias?
I noticed that as well.
I see a ton of people 'weigh in' on the all-animal diet and from everything I continue to hear, while that is not easy per se, it seems to get overwhelming extremely positive results.
Just watched the series and the amount of muscle loss in the Vegans was massive for just 8 weeks. Now imagine what that loss is after a year! Love how they tried to cover up that muscle loss and blame it on the behavior of the one eating the Vegan diet. Protein is extremely important for muscle rentention at least and especially for women in peri or post-menopause.
Chris Gardener wouldnt touch your proposed study if his life depended on it
Agree, he always designs his studies to get the results he wants as in this study of lowfat vs lowcarb where people were put on a strict diet for 8 weeks, then after that they were told that they could add "healthy" carbs or fat if they wanted. Well after a year both group ended up eating about the same amounts of carb and fat, so he could claim that both diets had the same results. It was reported as lowcarb diet is not better than lowfat. No wonder!
He justified this by saying that his study is reflecting "real life" because the diet is too restrictive. Biased???
@@prunelle19 "Biased???"
Ridiculous....
Are you guys part of the flat earth community?
So true. Great summary.
The real problem IS the power of themeat, dairy, egg industry and their attacks on whatever stands to negatively impact their profits.
The adherence in keto diet studies are known for being super low in adherence. And once one comes out, keto people usually say "not low carb enough"
That's a great point about study design. Many studies, like Chris Gardner's DIETFITS study, start as keto for the first few weeks, and then let people liberalize their carbs. So the DIETFIRTS study was promoted as a keto study, but the "keto" group was eating 130 grams of carbs per days, which is nowhere near a keto diet. So studies like that are not "low carb enough." The beauty of a ketogenic diet is there is a clear marker of whether or not someone is in ketosis. That's one thing that is beneficial about the Virta Health studies. They measured ketones and documented it was a ketogenic diet.
Chris Gardner and Stanford already did a comparison of a low carb to vegan diet a number of years ago called the A-Z diet study….Gardner stated that to his surprise, the low carb diet did better. It’s here on UA-cam
If the study was vegan Vs carnivore, then it would be interesting
First author is funded by beyond meat.
Interesting
And is a card carrying vegan
Nina Teicholz has done a VERY good run down of him and his organisation in her Unsettled Science newsletter/blog. VERY worth reading!
Yea... keep eating medicine for Dibeties and blood pressure 😂😂
@geek5075 who? Gardner's followers or detractors?
I'm really pleased you made this video. Chris Palmer states that ketosis is extremely important tool for managing mental health issues such as depression, bipolar, schizophrenia alongside psychological support. Dale Bredesen says being in ketosis is preferable for people with dementia (and work out and eliminate what is assaulting the brain). The problem with animal products and high glycemic carbs is that they make us produce insulin and insulin like growth factor at the same time. So yes I would like an extended version of the study with one year with each diet with vegan diet (including mushrooms), Bredesen protocol diet (that eliminates wheat and minimises dairy), Valter Longo Longevity diet that is Mediterranean vegetarian with fish, and another year with a choice of either eat how you like diet or a meat, mushroom and green vegetable diet. I'd like the calories to be strictly controlled with all diets. I'd like the twins to do the diet order differently from eachother and that the people collecting the data do not know which diet the person is on until the very end of the study. I'd also like to know how often the person broke the diet, for what reason and how much of a difference it made and for how long.
Dr. Palmer is an amazing human being. I just recently ordered his book Brain Energy and couldn't put it down. And yes I can attest to the fact that ketosis is a fantastic tool to manage mental health issues. I was able to reverse an antidepressant induced bipolar disorder into remission using the ketogenic diet and other holistic lifestyle interventions.
I agree with your point also that it would be important to monitor how consistent the people are with their diet. Because even if I veer off one meal from my diet, I can feel the effects of it. It's usually not pleasant, and for some people who have sensitivities it can spell disaster.
Thank you for taking the time to share your thoughts here.
Kind regards,
Neseret
All good points. Unfortunately, when studies are funded by interest groups and conducted by people with personal values that align with a particular outcome, a fair comparison will never happen. This needs funding at government level, and even then lobbying groups would try influence the results.
Thank you! We can do better than this Stanford Twin Study!
How do they account for these twins who do not eat together every meal, they don’t work together, they have their own food preferences, hopefully have separate sexual practices… or are they just assuming that they are the same because the dna is as close as can be?
I’m a twin and I’m 145 lbs and my brother is over 200 lbs at 5’4” and 5’5”
Identical twins are a great way to match a control group and a treatment group. They are still environmentally different, but their DNA is almost identical (still with very slight variations). In an experiment, you should also disclude outliers (like if one twin is obese and one isn't).
👍
The most shocking scene is when the two African-American ladies got their results in the distribution of lean and fat mass. Both had lost muscle mass and even increased their fat mass during the 8 weeks, while they actually complained about the meals being to "carbi". Then the "dietician" then explained that it is because they did not eat enough!!!!!🤦♂🤦♂🤦♂. Is this dietician never heard of Insulin Resistance??? That insulin is actually a storage hormone (for the excess)???
Very scary advise, whatever the diet, vegan or omnivore
Humanity should raise money and offer to compensate twins very well to do these studies of different diets. The results would likely greatly benefit humanity. It would be a study that would rule above all the advertising of the diet business industry.
Fantastic review; thank you!
Bret, I'm mostly plant plant myself, but agree that those behind this experiment should do something similar with low carb. I'm interested in the science, not activism!
That's very refreshing to hear! Thanks for your comment
@@metabolicmind No worries.
That Netflix series was definitely geared towards the activism.
The science would be interesting, but honestly I think reputable nutritionists would find it unethical. The low carb group's numbers are more likely to go up than down... 😬
The focus on weight loss and higher cholesterol should be ignored.
Vegans lost more weight but also lost more muscle! Which is shitty!
If you lose weight then you do not need the muscle to support that excess weight. The body adjusts to have the optimum amount of muscle for the weight and for the type and level of activity. Why would a leaner body maintain muscle it doesn't need ? Look at it as a car analogy. You don't need a Ferrari engine if all you do is drive on city streets
@@david7780 Makes sense. Although the omnivore group lost fat and gained muscle with a net weight change close to 0. I think that's better! Nature adjusting in a more desirable way! 😜
I was a vegan for 8 years back in the 90’s, and stopped due to developing food sensitivities, severe anemia and hair loss. I know many people who are currently long term vegans exceeding 30 years. None of them are aging well. They are exceeding frail and unhealthy…osteoporosis in men, on statins, autoimmune diseases, memory impairment, depression, etc. An 8 week study is only a blip in time with such a small N…the conclusions are dangerous.
Yes, you definitely want to look at the cumulative effects of a certain diet. Our bodies are pretty resilient and can adjust to pretty much a lot of different diets. However, if you're going to experience issues, those don't usually show up immediately. Similarly the formation of an illness that is based on improper diet.
Like any diet, you have to be mindful of what nutrients you are eating. There are quite a few vegan doctors and athletes on youtube. They don't look weak or unhealthy to me
Donuts and French fries don't count as "vegan," and neither does chomping only on carrots. You were obviously unable to figure out how to eat healthy as a vegan, and it seems like you are still incapable of figuring out what a healthy diet looks like.
This can happen on any diet, if you are deficient in certain vitamins and nutrients… And while interesting, anecdotal evidence isn’t really helpful, when there is clear research showing that one can be healthy on a thought out vegan diet
Yes. I see pro-vegan advocates blaming you instead of acknowledging that a WFPB diet may not suit everyone. If you tried it and it caused a health deterioration, you were right to stop. At least you tried it. That doesn’t mean it won’t help others. The trick is not to get caught up in ideology when personal health is concerned.
Chris Gardner is very careful designing studies and choosing pet markers such that low carb/ketogenic food does not get the over hand. Focus on LDL saying this is. wonderful marker of metabolic health, and like in the A-Z study, allowing the groups carb intake to shrink over time, reducing the probability of getting a significant difference. It kinda makes me sad seeing that type of playing.
@prieten49 "I'm not going to find out": Your choice for going vegan of course but not always a beneficial mindset in my opinion given that you did try something new with veganism. There is no unbiased "science" on the planet so far that can unequivocally demonstrate that a vegan diet is "superior" to a well balanced omnivore or even carnivore diet for instance. You so happened to have tried one thing that seems to be giving you positive results for now. The question is for how long and are those results actually demonstrating long term metabolic health benefits? . There is a lot to say about the drop of LDL that plant-based advocates observe over time when they make the change. If you did try "other diets" that did not work then how informed were you about how to go about them? LDL alone is certainly not necessarily a marker of better health outcomes. Your results have to be interpreted within the right context with regards to your metabolic health.
"Yes, I am supplementing b12 and Omega-3s": The deficiencies and issues on a vegan diet go far beyond just B12 and DHA/EPA. I suggest you document yourself more about other factors such as the following:
(1) Insulin sensitivity (relating to the impact of a plant-based diet with the complete absence of animal-based food on the development of insulin resistance and mitochondrial dysfunction over time), insulin/glucose spikes, lack of metabolic flexibility (the ability to use both glucose and fatty acids as a source of energy as and when required e.g. natural ketosis during sleep), the consequence of a lack of natural ketone production under chronic carbs intake such as reduced beneficial effect of short chain fatty acids with regards to tissue repair such as the endothelial lining of the gut or repair/maintenance of brain cells (e.g. low ketones such as butyric acid/Beta hydroxybutyrate as is often the case on a vegan diet. Note that ketones also provides a metabolic advantage as an energy source for the mitochondria particularly in the brain as it is independent on insulin and provides energy even in people who are insulin resistant, hence improving brain health). The benefits of natural ketone production or nutritional ketosis are numerous and beyond the scope of that quick comment. I'd suggest you look into it. Also look into the impact of chronic high carbohydrate diets on cancer/mitochondrial dysfunction. Remember that cancer cells feed on glucose and glutamine. We can't do much about the glutamine (that's where medication comes into play) but we certainly can do something about the glucose through our diet.
(2) The long term impact of anti nutrients such as oxalates, lectins, phytates just to name the common ones among many others.
(3) The long term impact of phytosterols on health (as present in much higher concentration in seed oils, margarines and plant-based food) including, competition for cholesterol in cell membrane, effect on atherosclerosis, inflammation, formation of oxidised LDL among other issues.
(4) Deficiencies in other nutrients such as choline (also a methyl group donor like B12 essential for biochemical reactions and cell/DNA integrity), taurine, methionine, leucine, isoleucine, lysine (can be rate limiting, particularly leucine, in the mTOR activation and protein synthesis). Also learn about bioavailability of nutrients and the importance of having all the essential amino acids in the right concentration from food intake.
There is so much more to say about all of this but I can't be long right now. I am just sharing this as a clinical/research scientist myself so I would advise that you do further research on your own. It is critical to keep an open mindset about clinical/nutritional science rather than "settling" for something that "seems" to work as that is usually the hallmark of an inherent bias. Science is never settled. You can't know what's better out there unless you keep an unbiased mindset that can allow you to learn something new and explore more beneficial avenues.
Additionally, the vegan twins were healither in ALL metrics from the beginning. Look at the table that lists all the twins' metrics grouped by diet group and it's obvious that it wasn't randomized.. such a cheeky try to manipulate the perception of the results
Those insulin levels are crap in both cohorts…
I can feel the Carb coma coming on lol
It just so happens that science supports and it's been true for a long time that a whole foods plant based diet (or largely excluding animal products as much as possible) makes you a great deal healthier the older you get. The guy in this video is clearly defending the practice of harming animals for food when all the science shows animal products are completely unnecessary for excellent health. I've been vegan for 8 years and all of my blood tests since are better from 43-50 years old than they were in my 20's and 30's. The difference in my cholesterol tests (both for myself and my younger brother) has been the animal products. My younger brother is also vegan and his blood cholesterol is lower than it ever was before he was vegan. Doctors have used a whole foods plant based diet to treat patients with high cholesterol for decades with excellent results and very few people don't respond to it (usually due to a genetic issue with their bodies creating too much cholesterol and only statins can help them). This video is falsely criticizing this study's outcome.
This study's outcome is nothing new and this has been known for decades that plant based diets when properly followed, treat high cholesterol and heart conditions. Plant based diets work to improve health outcomes and lower someone's odds of many age-related diseases. This is not debatable. This is scientific fact. Doctors like the guy in this video are the ones who end up steering patients away from improving their health and their lives and also, as a side effect, continue to feed the brutal and horrific animal agriculture industry and its barbaric, outdated continued existence. There is clearly no need to still treat animals like our modern civilization does and the byproduct of these immoral industries are the bad health outcomes of people who still consume those products.
They have no phytosterol values.
High phytosterol is bad too😊
One of the main things to understand about these heavily propagandised videos is there is an element that leans towards Veganism to support net zero policies. I’m afraid science is in a very poor place at present when it should be a beacon of truth and honesty.
I would say pesco-vegetarian diets are healthier. Among the seventh day adventists of the loma linda blue zone (the only real blue zone that's plant based), the pesvo-vegetarians out live both vegans and meat eaters, they are the longest living of the sda's.
It is worth nothing that the vegans and vegetarians also out lived the meat eaters and semi-vegetarians (people who eat veg but still eat some meat).
All the holes in the vegan diet can easily be filled in with a little salmon such as dha/epa omega 3, b12, choline etc.... Just make sure and eat plenty beans like tofu, black beans, kidney beans etc... to get the rest of your protein and minerals.
If you are worried about the environment eat invasive species such as asian carp.
Asian carp are primarily vegetarians, they eat algae, so there is little to no bioaccumulation of mercury, they have the highest omega 3 out of any freshwater fish, and eating them actually helps to protect other wild life.
The monks of Mt. Athos have been pesco-veg for well over 1000 years, and have a life expectancy of 94 according to some sources.
Would be amazing to get a keto crossover! Data not religion!!
In his recent interview on Rich Roll, he is asked about doing a trial between vegan and low carb, he rolled his eyes and said in his best Southern California accent that the literature is so "settled" about how unethical a low carb regimen would be to "inflict" that on test subjects, and not worth doing! How convenient. Take a wild guess from where their funding comes ! The biggest tell about Gardener is that he didn't do enough due diligence to research, or even ask a low carb expert, what low carb is actually! You see this all thru vegan sites, low carb is any increment of TEN carbs less than guides! Gardener is too cowardly to attempt an equally , much less collaborative, study with you or any other recognized expert.!
In the same video ,he makes a BIG deal about how the study tried to " guess" how low you can go with a low carb diet," oh my gosh, can we go lower, can we go EVEN LOWER?" Obviously, he is too educated to figure out that he could ask any low carb, accredited expert to get that info, I mean, WHAT IF IT TURNS OUT THAT LOW CARB MIGHT ACTUALLY WORK?
Can you post a link to that video?
Before I posted the first comment above, I went back to the Rich Roll video to confirm that I heard him correctly. So, I know that the quote is correct, but, now I cannot find that video even in my browser history, so, I am sort of hamstrung here! I did find one Rich Roll video with Gardner. " Food is Medicine, How your diet can prevent disease", At 1:47:25 he is saying the first quote, but this video does not have my second post about "how low can we go?,". Maybe other readers can help me out here. Also, watched video on Nutrition made Simple, " What's the best diet for humans". Caught him at 3:29 admitting that dietary cholesterol makes little difference , but, could not find video with his" how low " quote. Sorry, I did confirm it before posting ,but, don't know if they took it down, or what happened.
Thanks for looking!
You are welcome. I noticed you last name on post, thank you for supporting this channel and others!
Often illness that is nutritionally based is a cumulative effect of improper diet over a long period of time. Although, some foods could cause an immediate or short term reaction. Yet, 8 weeks does seem like inadequate amount of time to monitor the effects of attempting a new diet.
When I started the ketogenic diet, the first few weeks to a month, my body was just adjusting to the diet. I started to see noticeable difference in important markers well in to my 2nd and 3rd month. As well, I'm still seeing interesting and positive results to this day.
I would like to see a longer term study and yes comparing ketogenic diet with other types of diets. Thank you for sharing.
I'm agnostic as far as diet, not vegan, not vegetarian, not anything, I do find vegan channels out there, but it seems to me that this channel is leaning toward animal products consumption. So you're better than the other guys because?????
I'm not sure the video says anything about being "better." The point was to call attention to how study results are often overplayed in the media, which can lead to false beliefs. Sorry if that point didn't come across.
This channel is about improving your mind with metabolic therapies. You can stricly do that with a vegan, omnivore or carnivore diet. You can do it by not eating anything for a shorter period. BUT - besides the metabolic effect - animal foods are far superior than plant foods because the former contain everything the brain/mind thrives on and lacks everything hurtful.
@@metabolicmind - Notice that the MetabolicMind comment here didn't deny that they lean toward animal product consumption as what they stand behind and recommend. A diet that is both proven to be unhealthy and clearly is unethical and causes massive pain and suffering to animals that are put through the enslavement, torture and killing for what ends up on people's plates. It boggles my mind how people defend animal products when every evidence is they are unhealthy and unethical.
sounds like a study designed for vegan propagranda :)
yes. what would you expect else from christopher gardiner?
Would you rather meat industry propaganda?
False. The weight loss among vegans was entirely in the second half, when they had to provide their own food. If you think that the lower LDL for vegans could simply be a result of the additional weight loss, that completely ignores the fact that LDL for vegans was even LOWER at the 4 week mark - when they hadn't lost any weight at all. Their LDL actually went UP between 4 & 8 weeks, which is when they lost those extra 3 lbs. So clearly the improvement in LDL in this particular study cannot simply be attributed to weight loss.
We already know that health gains on Keto are reasonable in the short term, but lousy in the long term. Only high whole carb eaters become centenarians. Low carbers have much shorter lifespans.
Like I said here before. I’ve thrived on vegan for my first year. Than my health started to decline. Unfortunately illumination of animal products is not good in my biological case. It’s strictly individual!
Same thing happened to me. Felt like I was dying. Went to a naturopath who ran countless tests and most of my important markers went to shit including testosterone. And no, i wasn't eating garbage.
Indeed, the reflections you make about the methodology of the study ‘in isolation’ may have some credibility. What you have failed to consider however is the sheer ‘weight of the evidence’ supporting healthy whole-food, plant-based nutrition, in fact, vegan nutrition. Despite the limitations of the twin study (which all studies have incidentally) it ‘adds’ yet further support to the unequivocal evidence supporting plant-based nutrition for maximal health of individuals as well as the planet. Evidence that has accumulated for at least 35 years since Dean Ornish’s seminal work. There is more than sufficient data to support whole food, vegan nutrition being the healthiest for humans. Let’s not let our preferences, biases and beliefs including ‘analysis paralysis’, get in the way of translating this established body of knowledge to the public. If a drug had half the benefit of whole food, vegan nutrition, physicians would have their licenses revoked for not prescribing it.
You have attempted to offer ways to advance the field, yet they only serve to take us backwards. The alternative diets you propose that the vegan diet should be compared with, would be viewed by myself and others to be unethical given they are not natural or normal for human health, and associated with adverse health outcomes.
Given the Mediterranean diet has been a gold standard for decades for human health (which can be adapted to various culinary cuisines), and that more recently this diet has been superseded in terms of benefits to several cardiometabolic markers, by the healthy low-fat vegan diet based on a sophisticated cross-over design study (see Barnard et al, 2022, as I recall), then the latter warrants being at least considered as a new gold standard. Those people living in the Blue Zones live long healthful often disease-free lives, living often to 100 y plus. Indeed, one can argue they have strong social connections and active lives etc, but when you connect the dots ‘association can infer causation’ (see the Austen Bradford Hill criteria). The weight of the evidence supporting humans are ‘vegan-by-design’ cannot be refuted, even though historically we have fancied ourselves as opportunistic omnivores. There are several historical and ‘economic’ factors that explain this phenomenon which I will not take the time to describe now, but you can easily search this out (non profit sites Dr. Michael Greger (nutritionfacts.org and his evidence syntheses (‘How Not to Die’, ‘How Not to Diet’, and recently ‘The Scientific Approach to Getting Healthier as you Get Older. How Not to Age’ with over 13,000 reference citations); and Dr. Neal Barnard, founder of the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine 40 years ago (pcrm.org).
You appear as a conscientious scientist-clinician who cares about human health. I hope this information is useful to you and that you will consider the ideas in your future work to ‘advance’ the field. As scientist clinicians, we are trained to have healthy skepticism and base our conclusions on well constructed scientific methods. I would urge you to build on our existing knowledge base, including partnering and collaborating with the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine. Even though plant-based nutrition, particularly vegan nutrition is not what people including scientists want to hear, given we have been socially conditioned to believe that consuming animals and their secretions is ‘natural, normal, and necessary’, yet when you look closely, (not even that closely), it is none of those things, in fact, there is substantial evidence to support they harm health. Let’s not shoot the messenger but be empowered to share the truth and translate the science for the health of people and the planet.
Professor-Elizabeth
elizabeth.dean@ubc.ca
Thank you for your message. Unfortunately, there is far too much to address in this forum! But we caution about using "totality of evidence" when that evidence is such low quality as is nutrition epidemiology. We feel it is misguided to believe there is one diet that is best for all humans. Rather, it is in all our best interests to explore many nutritional patterns that can lead to health. The health benefits from nutritional ketosis are now well established in interventional, not observational, studies. But even that doesn't mean it is the best diet for everyone. Instead, it means we should be open to using it as a tool to help the right people for whom it is a fit. And unfortunately, with the many weaknesses of the twin study, it adds very little if anything useful to clinical practice, so would caution thinking it contributes to supporting veganism. We hope that perspective helps.
The very asumption of vegan diet being "natural" is highly questionable.
Here, even so called herbivores aint vegans, how can we expect and evolutionary hypercarnivore as human to have this diet as a natural norm?
Idk.
@@metabolicmind Thank you, I agree there is rather too much to exchange within this forum. We do need scholarly exchange. ‘Evidence-based population-based nutrition counselling’ proposes nutritional regimen that work generally better than others for most people within the general population, including NCD reversal. This does not preclude extremes as we know that there are individuals who surpass expectation with what would be considered to be unhealthy lifestyle practices.
My only hope is that the scientific community gives due consideration to the ‘totality of literature’ that has accumulated over the past 30 years or more. I believe these contributions should be integrated into proposals for further study in which we build on this knowledge rather than too easily dismiss the general superiority of whole-food low-fat vegan nutrition as an ‘assumption’. If you are a researcher, I would urge you and your team to consider the plethora of existing knowledge. Dr. Michael Greger’s existing evidence syntheses provide (see my original post) a solid base on which new studies can be constructed, in turn, advancing our knowledge base. In addition, plant-based nutrition is optimal for human and planetary health (the EAT Lancet Report, 2019, a commission chaired by Willetts et al), and factory farming is not sustainable. So another plus.
Finally, given animal-sourced foods are not necessary for human health (as agreed upon by at least three leading nutrition associations in western countries, but rather a choice, we as a society, who profess to value kindness and compassion, need to consider the abuse and suffering inherent within factory farming. Is this a practice we truly wish to support when we do not need to?
Good luck. Professor-Elizabeth
Vegans also lost more lean body mass
Considering how there's plenty of studies showing how different races process foods differently, I would like to see the study replicated multiple times with no racial diversity.
Maybe they should give people a fish based keto diet. Lots of sardines and salmon and occasional beef and chicken. But, no, Netflix and Stanford what to preach the latest vegan propaganda.
The weight loss was mostly muscle hence they only focused on the word "weight"
We already know you’re riddled with biases. Quick look at your previous work points in a strong direction towards a clear bias I’m not sure your point anyway, this isn’t the only study indicating vegan being healthier. What about all the other thousands of studies all compiled together when there’s that much smoke there’s likely a fire.
You, of course, are bias free. Lol
@@Tyrannocaster We all have biases, the difference is that here we have some evidences
@@gabeugenio - I'm biased now because the evidence shows a vegan diet done properly benefits health more than even the best constructed omnivore diet. That's what this study shows and it's backed by mountains of multi-decade evidence from other studies and observations. People who want to cling to the cruel animal agriculture products try to justify their cruel choices by following these pro-animal agriculture social media influencers. They want to "feel better" and "feel justified" in continuing to eat the suffering of dead animal bodies and their secretions rather than think about the entire chain of evidence from the poor health outcomes and the cruelty and the environmental damage.
Thank you for this. I got pretty excited watching the netflix series first episode or 2. When they said 4 weeks they would supply the food and then 4 weeks on there own I got a little suspect on what the results would be. When they really pushed how good being a vegan is for the planet and how you can get all your fav foods including pizza and deli sandwiches I felt like the vegan diet was going to come back win for sure and that study might have been skewed to make sure they get those results. You can not have so much pro vegan info in there just to have the other dominate in the end. Plus I would agree I rather see a low carb diet vs vegan diet. A true plants vs meat eaters. Most people forget that even a good Keto diet is not against eating veggies. They are just against high carb ones.
Great video and here is another worthwhile response to the same study:
ua-cam.com/video/0rUk3iw_RfU/v-deo.html
Also wanted to say that their starting point of using LDL as a marker for cardiovascular, or overall health, is flawed. There are other markers that would have been better, eg weight or triglycerides, but LDL is likely not one of the better markers. Thanks again!
yes and you actually want HIGHER LDL - most centenarians have very high LDL.
I loved the series on Netflix that also chronicled the environmental and social justice issues involved in a meat-based diet, particularly if the animals are raised in factory farms. No one can deny that adding more fruits and vegetables to your diet is better for the planet. Livestock production-primarily cows-produce 14.5 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions. I recommend you watch the series to get more depth to to the argument for eating a plant-based diet. It is not all about lowering LDL or insulin (which might be achieved by other forms of weight loss). The twins are also engaging and entertaining. I agree that we always need more well-designed diet studies and that twins are a great way to do it since everybody's body is different and twins are as close as we can come to having a control group and an experimental group that are the same at the beginning of the experiment.
For a different perspective on the environmental issue, it may be worth learning from Dr. Frank Mitloehner ua-cam.com/video/gXFAFIEUwHc/v-deo.html and dietician Diana Rogers ua-cam.com/video/gXFAFIEUwHc/v-deo.html. There is definitely a need for nuance in the discussion, which documentaries frequently overlook.
I love that people are doing this kind of work. I have no doubt that this could be done very differently: meat could be healthier, animals could be raised ethically, and fewer greenhouse gasses could be generated. Not sure if this is scalable, but it ia lofty goal and we'd need much more energy to be put into this as well as many subsidies. Right now, this country is rife with processed foods and food desserts and that to me is one of the first things we have to focus on as a country.
Whole food plant based for the environment and health; vegan for the victims!
Can't wait for lab meat, then everyone can be happy
I feel like that's 3 hours of my life I'll never get back. The only value in it was highlighting the poor farming practices. Everything else was bought and paid for propaganda.
Poor farming practices, the environment, and the lobbying of the meat and dairy industry are huge!
@@mariamead firstly, ALL lobbying is huge and that is a problem until itself. Secondly, industrialised ANY kind of farming isn't good for the environment. But plant based is infinitely worse because of what it does to the soil - stripping nutrients without replenishing. Sustainable meat farming naturally refeeds the soil with the necessary nutrients to keep it furtile. The agricultural revolution only began 10k-11k years ago and it set us back with our health dramatically. You only have to look at anthropological records that show this very clearly.
Definitely both points are right but VEGAN safe my life Thank you 🙏
I think that the presenter is being too kind to the author. This was a classic example of their being more than 1 difference between the groups, and when this leads to a difference in results, claiming that their and only their element, namely veganism, was responsible. This paper should have been thrown out on design grounds, and it calls into question the ethics of the authors. Science should be about finding the truth, not winning at any cost.
The study really only confirms what has been shown scientifically about diet for decades. Getting rid of animal products and eating a whole foods plant based diet improves metabolic panel markers on middle-aged patients (and even most young patients). My blood tests are better as a vegan from 43-50 years old than they were in my 20's & 30's. And I always was a health nut and ate a decent diet, especially in my 30's. Animal products made my LDL go really high and when removing animal products my LDL on the edge of being green. My family has a history of heart disease, so my LDL is very sensitive to cholesterol and saturated fat. Even plant based saturated fat has to be controlled. When I adhere to very low saturated fat my LDL cholesterol is in the green. Animal products made my LDL go sky high (180-200) in my 30's.
@@timothys9288PUFAs have been known for decades to reduce ldl cholesterol by competing at the gut level for cholesterol receptors, and effectively replacing animal cholesterol with plant sterols, which don’t show up in the assay. What they DONT do however is reduce cardiac risk - see the MINNESOTA heart study and the SIDNEY heart study, and also the ‘paradoxical’ high amount of CHD in Isreal, the country with the highest PUFA intake in the world.
it would be better with a vegan diet with no supplements or fortified foods, and a hypercarnivare low carb diet without supplements and fortified food for half a year.
Neither of those diets are based on nutritional science. A vegan diet still needs marginal amounts of Vitamin B12. If done properly, only B12 supplementation is required for 'some' people. There are vegans who are multi-decade who have never taken any supplement, including b12, and that just means their B12 is being synthesized in the gut and intrinsically absorbed. Not every person has a gut microbiome and instrinsic factor that will create its own B12, so that's why supplementation is recommended on a vegan diet. All other nutrients are obtainable within plant foods when the diet is properly planned.
@@timothys9288 what about Vitamin D and saturated fat?
@@GarudaLegends - There is saturated fat in plant foods and saturated fat should be kept as low as possible to prevent high LDL cholesterol. Vitamin-D can be obtained through 12 minutes of sun exposure daily. Deficiency of Vitamin D is not deadly but if you are in the winter time in the far northern or southern hemispheres you can either eat mushrooms that are exposed to ultraviolet light which form Vitamin D2 or take a supplement to raise levels that support top immune function.
This study was setup to prove a certain narrative. The lead scientist biased is one. But even interpretation is one sided. What's withe hdl and triglycerides seems to be in the wrong direction. They get scans for muscle mass, body fat ratio distribution in the beginning. But not at the end. No waist circumference measurements at the end. Two indicators that would give more reliable data than the blood work in 8 weeks. A other factor less 200 calories per day in the vegan diet, just happen or by design? More questions than answers. But every vegan fanatic use this study as proof they are right
It is complete Plant based propaganda
UA-cam is a wonderful resource regarding healthy nutrition, but the downside is the huge, almost tribal divisions of thought that it has encouraged. This double-edged sword applies to scientific studies / results. The vast array of today’s UA-cam influencer-“stars” from both sides of this “healthy nutrition divide” will cherry-pick all they can from scientific study results to support their own particular (often lucrative!) nutrition opinions. And there appear to be many supposedly “top academics” leading and conducting these studies who are already highly biased toward these personal beliefs. eg : Professor Christopher Gardner being very pro-plant-biased and Dave Feldman (of the just-released LDL cholesterol study) being pro-animal-biased. It’s all very confusing for Joe Public!
Dave Feldman follows a diet, he is not advocating "animal based" or going around promoting his diet.
He only asked why some people have very high ldl on keto. The research was not done by him, he just inspired others to look for answers and found a way to finance that study.
I meaned "follows a ketogenic diet"
I agree. It was just to highlight what I personally find confusing & occasionally frustrating regarding these divisions..especially here on UA-cam.@@prunelle19
Completely agree. The public is thoroughly confused about our nutrition. But also how do you account in differences in genetics, ethnicity, age, and the countless other factors that influence nutrition?
I personally tried carnivore diet and could not tolerate it. I kept having reactive hypoglycemia. Very bad ones. But as soon as I went keto and added a few foods, my blood sugar stabilized.
I still eat a lot of meat but I know I can't stay on that for too long. Everyone is different and what works for one person might not work for another. I'm not sure there is an optimal diet for everyone.
Our bodies will give us feedback on what's right for us and that maybe different for everyone.
@@NeseretBemient
At the end, you have to find what works for you, depending of your health issues.
Diabetics are doing best on a ketogenic diet, so that would be the first to try for at least 3 months.
In my case I'm doing best with a heavy meat keto (ketovore).
When it comes to studies it's important to identify the ones motivated by ideology which are mostly the vegetarian/vegan ones based on epidemiology.
Keto and carnivore are based on results not on ideologies or epidemiologies.
It's your choice !
Eight weeks? 😂
The culture of instant gratification and little patience. It's a drive through study. lol
@@NeseretBemient More like drive by! 😂
@@TerriblePerfection At least at a drive through you get a meal of sorts - might not be nutritional but something! Just kidding.
Bought and paid for vegan study. Follow the money. It’s all BS.
Plant-based diets produce more heat-trapping gasses and water pollution and are not sustainable for the planet the way they are currently being practiced. The meat and dairy lobbies have had an outsized impact on the media and government. Happy to have some focus (finally) on plant-based alternatives. I am more concerned about the environment, social justice, and humane practices than I am in my LDL, which is fine!
Vegan is a lot less about food and much more on ethical and environmental side. Healthier diet is just a bonus that hours only with whole food plant based diet.
climate thing is pure politics and not liked by most in the world. 2. many vegans are not fully health, because much sugar ( carbs, starches ) is not handled well. so yes, i see why many not like the vegan-ism thing. ethical as, not kill, stands over, be healthy, has never a change to get through, most will react if governments are pushing too much. and i just not like war or any smaller thing in this direction.
It doesn't matter if it's healthier. The thing is to not kill animals.
not kill over health, is 1 of the most wrong things in life. 1. countless people can not handle sugar ( carbs, starches ) well,
what is the main part of vegan / plant diet. 2. for decades governments say, eat but little and less meat. ( most in world, not like them ).