Hi Andy ... an over simplification as there is plenty of evidence to show that the Sugar and Chemical industry has biased the science and media reporting ... removal of fats from the diet - Big Mistake - as you know there is No Known Carbohydrate Deficiency Disease - hence no reason to eat carbs, whereas this is not true of Proteins or Fats ... Modern Carbs ... have very low nutrients ... i.e. Hyper-Palatable Foods ... = Addiction, ref Dr. Pamela Peeke ... Mark Sisson ... "The Apple is a Bag of Sugar" ... and his site as with Dr. Axe , Dr. Mercola ... have 10,000 links to real science ... 70 Going On 128 ... the Hayflick Limit ... and the Centenarian Diet

Sounds way too convenient. TJ could never have foreseen the size of government now, whether you approve or disapprove.

A great statement of why Government should not be involved in nutrition or science generally.

Andy Spark yet it was corporate lobbying and industry funded "science" that created this mess

Yup, my BS senses were tingling when I read that Thomas Jefferson quote....and yep, complete and utter BS! www.snopes.com/fact-check/soul-voice-of-reason/

Just research any main stream science its nearly all bullshit a phd means you parrot the narrative of the main stream .

Smoke crack, you can lose weight and feel good too!

I lost 40 lbs and got my health back! That is science. It’s called an N of 1. Not very generalizable but it sure as hell taught me something!

Cocaine feels great and it makes you lose weight too.

An interesting thought. Speaking of Egyptians, have you heard Dr. Michael Eades talk here on KZfaq: 'Paleopathology and the Origins of the Paleo Diet'? Among other ancient human remains, the use of technology to examine Egyptian mummies to see how their diet affected their development and health. They ate essentially what the dieticians of today tell us to eat - whole stone ground grain, vegetables, with some poultry and fish, and red meat only occasionally. And they had what we call 'modern diseases' - cardiovascular disease and heart attacks, arthritis, bad teeth, diabetes... Maybe we should call these 'diseases of civilization'. The studies also reveal that ancient Egyptians at all levels of society ate the same diet.

Humm.. sarcasm?

Those Trudeau Liberals! :-)

Donald Reitsma because of the just a true judeau...peoplekindgirl

They're now talking about taxing meat to the max under the guise of saving the planet.

Actually, the reported 'feels like' temperature is calculated from both temperature and humidity. The more humid the air, the hotter a person will feel. This is because sweat becomes more ineffective in cooling the body the higher the humidity is - because if the air is already saturated with moisture as it is when humidity is high, the sweat will not evaporate from our skin. The problem of staying cool when both temperatures and humidity is high is not limited to humans. Farmers know that heat stress on livestock soars when this occurs. If you ever travel to the parts of the USA or elsewhere where the air is very dry, you will notice that you don't feel as hot, even when temperatures are as high or even a bit higher than you are used to back home. This is mostly because sweat evaporates almost as soon as it forms, cooling you off.

In the old days, they would report the temperature and the humidity, and people figured out the effect for themselves.

The difference is that there are no vested corporate interests promoting the concept of global warming. In fact, it's quite the opposite. Think Koch brothers and the whole hydrocarbon addicted Big Energy. BTW, it's that nasty Big Gummint that has let you look at almost any food and find out what the nutrition is. And that you get full measure, no thumbs on the scales. (State scale and gas pump inspections.)

Lord Midas "we have a trillion dollar industry that profits when people are sick. What could possibly go wrong" Monty Cantsin

gwynedd1 She's really that old? Wow! I thought she was at least a decade younger.

She’s very attractive and sweet.

@@bigbenhebdomadarius6252 she is hot!!!!

90€ for a book??

WOOO YAKISOBA!!!! XD

Alvaro: Most refined oils are high in Omega-6 (inflammatory) and very unstable. This video (go to 9m50s) may give you some insight: kzfaq.info/get/bejne/rcqqocmavNyroWQ.html

That's the main problem I have with the low-carb people myself. People might be eating less roast beef and butter, but they're sure as hell eating more fried chicken and burgers! Most people are not on a high carb, low fat diet....they're on a high everything diet. I really wish people would stop nitpicking about high carb or high fat and just accept that as long as you're on a mostly whole foods diet it doesn't really matter so long as you're happy with what you're eating and don't have overt health issues.

@@findingfrugal2093 Good advice for Vegans as well, right?

Ha. You're right. I couldn't help but go all Helicart on Helicart. I enjoyed your post, and thanks for sharing your personal insight.

If you're insulin sensitive then sure. If you're insulin resistant or diabetic, then no, we do not agree. LCHF provides much better results in those cases.

Yeah, I'm thinking in terms of a standard diet, not a therapeutic diet.

90%+ of the people out there don't even know what 40/40/20 means. They are sitting at their local drive through waiting on their order for fries and shakes.

Depends on state of metabolism and sensitivity. I can be more or less craving free on up to 140g net carbs if they're from veg, a little fruit and maybe some denser starch from time to time... That's what.. up to 28%.. I can maintain on 40% carb but I come to struggle with cravings when I do that regularly. I find I feel better when I cycle some carbs but mostly do keto or time restricted feeding.. I consider 140g a high carb day.

How are going to keep doing that when meat is heavily taxed or outright banned you smart-ass?

Actually... at least one of the physicians (I think it was Dr. Westerman) working with obese and/or diabetic patients in a clinical setting has seen some of his patients loose massive amounts of weight and their blood sugar drop while eating most of their food from McDonald's. They just ate the burgers, without the sauce or bun. No soda, fries, or desserts either, of course. Are there better and healthier ways to do this? Absolutely! However, this physician using a low carb healthy fat diet to help his patients understands that it is difficult to get people to change a lifetime of habits all at once. So, he focuses on the macronutrients to help the people lose the weight and control their blood sugar, the things that are threatening their lives - and leaves the refinements until later. By the way, are you aware that unprocessed milk is available in vending machines in parts of Europe? 'Fast food' could be made much healthier - Chipolte is doing a pretty good job. There is more profit in selling sugar water (sodas), potatoes fried in processed oils, foam-like buns, etc than there is in selling healthy food, though. Even McDonald's food was not nearly as bad when they started as it is now.

Notmi Relnam Chickens, Rabbits, Goats, Fish, Fowl are all highly sustainable.

But so are cows... on a sane scale. If we maintained as much meat poundage in those meats as we do in cows/pigs, we'd see similar ecologically harmful effects, things like suppressed insect populations, fish... problems i dunno.

yeah, ever hear of things like chickens , eggs , sardines, dry pasture, and fodder only edible by ruminants? Energy conversion arguments always work very well on a fertile flood plain now don't they? Let me know how that works in the ocean or the taiga.

I'm sorry, doesn't your point about fertile flood plains lend weight to my argument? It's easy to rely on meat when in the midst of abundance, but bring life to the desert and one must turn to chickens, fish, etc. That's the basic point I'm making; we have to curb consumption to some sane rate, by focusing on less costly meats, etc.

We just have to bring back variety

Keep your head in the sand. The establishment does.

vegan diets require supplementation from what a vegan told me in defense of a vegan mother who lost her newborn to malnourishment from exclusively breast feeding. She told me if they supplemented right it wouldn't have happened, from what I've seen vegan diets require supplements, I've only recently started taking a multivitamin on a keto diet and not because I have to but because i felt like it. I could easily go back to not taking it and still be perfectly fine.

And ketone bodies have recently been shown to mimic the increased longevity of a low calorie diet. If this was bad for you long term they wouldn't use it to treat epilepsy long term.

I've tried it all, keto works best for me, treats my epilepsy and no negative side effects. Even went vegan at one point and nothing improved. Find something that works for you. With all the studies coming out on keto for treating diabetes, starving cancer, alzheimer's etc. It's a grasp to say that it's bad for you.

Why do the Inuit not require supplementation of their diet if it requires supplements. No one diet is perfect for everyone, but I believe that the Keto diet is good for the majority and better than the current guidelines. I've dropped my heart disease markers on it without the need for meds. Before I started my doctor wanted to put me on medication, instead i went keto and fixed the problems within a few months.

Nothing you wrote made sense. The point is obviously to increase caloric intake from natural fats, not to force everybody to eat more dairy. Why does that bother you? You're extolling the grains for fueling the population growth while at the same time criticizing a meat-based diet of being unsustainable due to population size. You're basically celebrating the fact that grains have inflated the head count to such a degree that healthy eating (as evidenced by all the science) may have become impractical. Hooray? Also grains don't get populations through famine, drought or floods, they amplify their effects. Drought and floods destroy crops and cause famine in agrarian populations, because they are fixed in place and rely mostly on their crops. Hunter-gatherers and pastoralists simply move to greener pastures. Famines occurred in agrarian societies all the way up to modern times. And then you even resorted to the kinds of personal insults that were mentioned in the talk. In fact your whole shtick was covered: Environmentalist concerns and personal insults.

Au Contraire ... we have a live one here.... who hasn't studied! So give it your best shot laddy. - come back at me with a 2500 Calorie diet comprising the fat percentage recommended by Madame above. with the breakdown of fat sources including dairy, and historical precedents. As for why it bothers me I stated why, though maybe I was too subtle for you. - There's no hypocrisy in my recognition of grains fueling population growth. The growth is what it is, and it wouldn't have happened without grains. You are getting all labile of affect in suggesting I celebrate anything. Whether popn growth is for better or worse, time will tell. At least the West has decreased its natural birth rate. But paradoxically, ideological progressives think the West should bend over backwards to accept migrants from the more virile (or sexually unrestrained) developing world. But the same chardonnay class think we produce too much CO2 and should decrease the population. Funny breed of cattle these progressives. - As for what constitutes healthy eating, you obviously are not schooled in stats or the health sciences. If you were, you'd realize reductionist studies don't match the power of longitudinal observationals...and you'd weight the latter appropriately. I'd encourage you to research which populations have the highest rate of centenarians and make an un-emotive study of their diets.......particularly the fat % and starch %. Low carb crow-ers cannot produce one example of a population with a longevity advantage across multiple generations. - Grains do and did get populations through famine you woefully unread person. You think cows survive famines better than a silo of grains? You really do need to read. You could do worse than the Upanishads, the Vedas, Mahabharata, Bhagavad Gita, Torah, Midrash, Talmud, Quran, Pyramid texts, the Coffin Texts of the Middlle Kingdom, Book of the Dead, Litany of Ra, Amduat, and a stack of stuff by the Ancient Greeks. - How many hunter gatherers have 12 years of education and use the internet? As for pastoralists moving away from drought, hehehe, come on, you are making it up as you go. If either of those two things provided a survival advantage, those who chose grains didn't know about it. - There was no personal insult. The insult was delivered via the profundity of ignorance of history and dietary science by the low carb 'community'. Incidentally, insulin sensitivity is just as possible on a diet that does not preferentially demonize starch. The low carbers make a mash of the science on this subject because they so often confound a history of overeating rubbish with eating unprocessed starch. When you can show me a culture with a superior longevity advantage across multiple generations that eats low carb, I will extract my head from the volumes of scientific papers in my study and eat humble pie.

helicart Do yourself a favour and read The Vegetarian Myth. I was a vegan for 17 years and know very well how they regurgitate their mantras with religious fanaticism. If they're so sure they're right why they keep trolling youtube.

+aniccadance13 a touch of fanaticism there yourself my dear. what makes you think I push a vegetarian barrow? as I overtly wrote above, I place more weight on observed levels of longevity advantage, neither of which vegan or Paleo ideologies can back their stances with. There's never been a Paleo or vegan group that has shown a multigenerational longevity advantage. All the advantage rests with groups that eat a diet with very low levels of animal flesh intake by Paleo or conventional standards, added to a plant based diet. Even the Seventh Day Adventist Study II shows the lowest morbidity/mortality hazard ratio for a diet that adds fish a couple of times a week to a vegan diet. But to do as Nina suggests and smash the meat and dairy, which is what she is espousing by turning the food pyramid upside down, has no longevity science to back it. Promoters of Paleo and low carb are obsessed with restoring insulin sensitivity in people who have eaten excessive crap and animal produce for years. People who feel more sated on the high levels of animal produce and fat that Nina espouses have dysregulated endocrine function and a neurochemical addiction to such foods. The people who live longest and healthiest in the world don't eat the way Nina thinks is superior. If you want some reading, go research Neu5gc, advanced glycation end products, arachidonic acid, TMAO, IGF-1, carnitine, methionine, advanced glycation end products, endothelial function via flow mediated dilation percentage, endotoxemia, heterocyclic amines, putrescine, saturated fat and breast cancer, high levels of animal protein and gout and osteoporosis, etc. My final advice. Look at longitudinal studies of diet and pay more attention to who has the survival advantage, rather than who has the most agreeable reductionist studies.

+Siegfried Yes, at 5:25, Nina backs her claim that Americans have done a great job of following the dietary guidelines since 1970, with a per capita graph of the volumes of food groups consumed. This confounds the picture due to people on average growing taller and heavier in that time. She should be savvy enough to recognize such artifacts, but they nicely fit her narrative. The correct data to use is the percentage each food group contributes to their diet, and the surplus Calories taken then compared to now. Further, the chart shows Americans were eating just over 300 lbs of fresh vegetables in 1970 compared to about 410 lbs in 2014. This deviates inordinately from other data which says only 9% of Americans consume the recommended 2-3 cups of vegetables per day. Doing the math, a cup of vegetables weighs 70 grams, so 9% of Americans get only 140 grams of vege a day. Now looking at Nina's data, to eat 410 lbs of vegetables a year, that's 410 lbs / 2.2 lbs/kg /365 days/year * 1000g/kg = 510 grams/day. hmmmmm..... 510g/day PER CAPITA versus 140 g/day by 9% of the population (the rest eating less!) Nina is using very very wrong figures. This point alone erodes any confidence I have in her objectivity.

Veganism is retarded. Vegans do not get the proper nutrition they need from just eating plants. This has been proven time and time again. And it IS backed by science. Instead of shouting your opinion, perhaps you should take the time to break out of your shell and gain the courage to learn that you may actually be wrong about your flawed opinion.