VERY interesting and useful conversation. Thank you both.

I love this conversation

6:27 are you even listening to yourself anymore, or are you just madlibbing from an ideological playbook? On what planet is broccoli, _covered in olive oil,_ LOW FAT vegan? 10:12 the studies didn't turn out _the way you wanted?_ sounds like you shouldn't be the one conducting them then. 11:45 well since we now know saturated (i.e. stable, less prone to oxidation, and a prefect substrate for healthy ketone bodies) fat is healthy (especially compared with synthetic, readily oxidizable, pro-inflammatory plant oils), and fiber is a known non essential nutrient that, _per your own Stanford study,_ can actually increase inflammation depending on the microbiome, we should probably flip the recommendations, agreed? 12:25 you're on record saying the glycemic index of whole grain vs. white bread is essentially the same, i.e. both cause large, harmful glucose spikes. Coupled with the very high starch (glucose) content of legumes, you are just asking for trouble if you are having any sort of prediabetic blood sugar issues. 15:25 I'm sorry, podcast host guy, but did you just say that keto is 'ridiculously impossible'? What kind of statement is that? On a supposed nutrition podcast, no less. 28:32 I'd seriously stop telling this story if I were you, as you still seem unaware how much it hurts your credibility. You state that you started out in philosophy (hey who'd've thunk, something we have in common), then moved into nutrition as a career _only after_ deciding to look upon the world through vegetarian/vegan/WFPB philosophical lens. Reducing/eliminating animal products as a food source, by definition, is your _goal._ See the problem here? Because you put the ideological cart before the scientific horse, you are effectively telling the audience that you've _already decided_ the direction you think human nutrition should go before ever taking a course on the subject, and every since you've been attempting square-hole-round-peg your philosophical worldview into public guidelines, regardless of the damage it is doing to the planet or the human genome, with disastrous results on a global scale. It is staggering how much power you and your ilk have acquired over public perception and policy, all for this dogma. It is stunning that one can get the kind of results you did from the A TO Z Study, over fifteen years ago at this point, and STILL essentially recommend the opposite of what that study showed to people suffering from Metabolic Syndrome. Stunning 31:35 what would it take to change people's behavior? You not lying about the nutritional aspects of food on order to get people to consume less animal products. It's gone on for too long in the face of contrary evidence that even the average consumer is starting to see how blatant it has become. 41:32 that was extremely awkward. I don't think podcast host guy realizes the level of anti-animal product zealotry his interviewee possess. A actual scientist would have explained that absolutely, the quality of protein matters and the health of the thing you are, plant or animal, matters as well. But Chris here just wants to pretend that these incomplete proteins (that's literally what they are called) are somehow equivalent to the amino acid profiles of complete (aka animal sourced) proteins.

what a propagandist.