An evidence-based examination of whether or not chicken really is the healthy meat like we are told.
- Links and Sources -
https://www.instagram.com/micthevegan - @micthevegan
My Cookbook: https://micthevegan.com/product/mics-whole-vegan-cookbook/
Tiny-it-Yourself, Our Tiny House Channel: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCYhthOBh4_459pAge62at8g
Three of my cholesterol videos:
1. High Cholesterol causes heart disease: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MsFWeC-DeLo
2. HDL: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ykFNZhKvfPA
3. Eating Cholesterol raises it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vBtfzd43t8o
AHA "Eat More Chicken":
59 billion chickens per year: http://www.thepoultrysite.com/articles/3230/global-poultry-trends-2014-poultry-set-to-become-no1-meat-in-asia/
Chicken most popular meat chart:
90 lbs a year:
Chicken and Feminization of Male Genitalia ;) https://nutritionfacts.org/video/chicken-consumption-and-the-feminization-of-male-genitalia/
Chicken main meat source of cholesterol:
Chicken main meat source of saturated fat: https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/top-food-sources-of-saturated-fat-in-the-us/
Cholesterol numbers from Cronometer.com
More cholesterol numbers:
Fat levels in chicken historically study:
Poultry can be a processed meat:
NutritionFacts.org / Dr. Greger on chicken and obesity:
US vegans average normal BMI while meat eaters do not: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4073139/
Vegans higher protein levels: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0065242309470070
1) Saturated fat and muscle are different things: Though meat often has lots of saturated fat in it, so do avocados, nuts, etc.
2) Saturated fat Raises LDL which promotes atherosclerosis and the many diseases that flow from plaque-clogged arteries.
3) Saturated animal fat tends to have pretty high levels of toxins, whether organic or not.
There are more feasible indications that chicken, and animal protein in general, are linked, in direct and indirect ways, to neurological diseases and conditions like Parkinson’s, Autism, Alzheimer’s, Dementia and Multiple Sclerosis.
Chicken is fine...just eat normal amounts....obesity is a modern first world problem as most other people (look back in the past couple of decades) didn't use food as "entertainment" they actually moved around unlike today's people who just sit on their ass staring at their TVs/phones...and those stupid "depressed" people who just shovel food into their mouthes because it makes them "happy"....
Okay, but cholesterol and saturated fat in moderation isn’t bad for you, and actually helps good cholesterol. Avocados and coconuts have saturated fat... and they are considered heart healthy fats. People who eat more chicken and are overweight have to be eating more calories in general than they need, and may be eating more chicken because in general their portions are too big.
This is a discussion board on a vegan website. You made a comment that I responded to. You replied by claiming that maybe I was ignorant about a few things about nutrition, and posted a link to an article that you thought rebutted my points. I noted that your article has numerous really majors flaws, pointed them out, and posted research backing my position. Then you said I don't want to listen even though I responded directly to all the points you made, and then you called me a troll. Really?!?!
Yes, small dense cholesterol is worse than large fluffy, but both are atherogenic if LDL levels are elevated. Yes, oxidized cholesterol is worse than non-oxidized, but if you stop eating dietary cholesterol and get your LDL in the 40-60/65 range via natural means, problem solved. Yes, high LPA is an additional risk factor if you have elevated cholesterol to begin with, but high LPA would be all the more reason to get your LDL down to the levels where atherosclerosis simply doesn't progress, and to eat the kind of VLF WFPB diet that has been shown to stop and reverse heart disease and drop the level of serious cardiac events to zero or near zero. And it's been shown to do that in a study large enough that many of the subjects would have been genetically predisposed to developing higher LPA (links provided above). Still zero heart attacks and only one stroke over an average of 2.5 years of follow-up, in a population having tons of CVD events before starting the study. I understand that you object to a one-size fits all solution, but when that shoe has been shown to actually fit, why not wear it?
You still haven't addressed LP(A), and you love grabbing a 1-size-fits-all-hat and slapping it on everyone as well. You're obviously one of those people who applies the "statistics of a whole = statistics of an individual" principle. At this point, you're barely an average troll. I'll give you a 1/10 for your efforts at yapping, since you obviously don't want to listen to anything anyone else has to say, and you already believe whatever is in your head as etched in stone doctrine.
And I'm betting you don't understand that the physiologically normal level of LDL for humans is more like 35-60, and at those levels, plaque simply doesn't build up in the arteries (thus preventing all the many diseases linked to atherosclerosis). Cholesterol is needed in the body, but our body makes all it needs, and too much of a good thing is still too much--and it causes disease. For example, see...
A recent Spanish study found the same thing--zero arterial plaque with LDL of 40-60, more and more arterial plaque with higher and higher LDL levels:
What this means is that if you don't mind having progressively worsening atherosclerosis and the preventable diseases and events that it's linked to (heart attacks, strokes, ED, dementia, etc.), then issues like particle count and size and VLDL and so on do provide a bit of additional information about how much higher or lower that unhealthy level of risk is. But large fluffy particles are still atherogenic, only slightly less so, and until we have studies showing zero plaque build-up and zero heart attacks at higher LDL levels with better lipid profiles, then all those nuances of lipids can't help you as much as getting LDL very low via natural means. If you want to wipe out heart disease, you eat a VLF WFPB diet and get your LDL very low, and then all those finer points of lipids simply become moot points.
More on this later if I have a chance. Take care.
Yes, you did say "in moderation," you are right about that. However, given what "moderation" means to most Americans ( a diet with 2-7 times the fat of many traditional diets), moderation doesn't mean much and actually points to a diet that is the cause of most cases of major chronic diseases and disability and premature death in the U.S.. That's why Caldwell Esselstyn has a chapter in his book Preventing and reversing Heart Disease titled "Moderation Kills."
I'm betting you aren't aware of the numerous profound ways that the article you linked me to gets the facts wrong, starting with the fact that a famous study of Masai men found that at the time of death (40s, 50s), they had substantial atherosclerosis--levels more characteristic of much older American men. So they had serious heart disease but were saved by not being killed by heart disease because they died really young and got much more exercise than we did--and thus had larger arteries, and the same amount of plaque doesn't clog larger arteries as much as smaller ones. Like the Inuit, the health status of the Masai is an argument AGAINST eating lots of fat and animal foods. Someone else linked my to that deeply misleading article, and I constructed a longer de-bunking of it. I don't have time to reconstruct it all (including the studies cited in the article that actually contradict their main argument) but when I get another break, I'll try to find what I wrote and re-post it to you.
Great videos! Just found your channel and I really appreciate how you also state your sources from the research that you use. I’m learning a lot. I’m vegan for animal welfare reasons. But your health arguments are really interesting as well. I think they’re easier to listen to for a meat eater than hearing about the cruelty stuff they are trying to ignore. Just like I used to do.
In my country, there are some jocks who would put a whole chicken breast in the blender and drink pulverize chicken breast every day after their work out. I want to puke. I wish they educate themselves, learn English, and watch your vid. Thank you, Mic. I will translate this into my language in the hope to spread the word.
the fact its the main source of cholesterol and saturated fat now in the states, and how marketing tricked people into thinking its the "healthy meat" hahah. my god. Quite astounding how delusional the carnets world is. 10 chicken wings is nothing in a sitting, 12 would be a minimum for someone at buffalo wild wings, and they also have unlimited wing nights and 50 cent wing nights, I've seen friends eat 15 - 30 wings in a sitting... #heartattack #inflammation
Holy crap Mic, you look like you need Vitamin D because your complexion is very pasty and you look too pale and anemic. If you are an example of a healthy vegan, then pass me the lamb chops because your appearance actually looks quite unhealthy and sickly.
It's honestly terrible to see people justifying killing and torturing animals just for our taste buds. You don't need meat to survive nor stay healthy. People are just brainwashed and blinded that eating carcasses purely for pleasure is normal, but torturing and killing animals is also a symptom of a early psychopath. I'm just glad my body isn't a graveyard for animals anymore
I do have a question here I'm curious. A lot of Italian food Italian people do use olive oil for flavoring their pasta sauce if I were to use olives instead of olive oil is that considered the same thing as using olive oil because it just gives me a similar taste extra virgin olive oil.
Science: oxidized and glycated lipoproteins build up in the arteries!
Vegans: cholesterol, let's eat banana.
Science: lipoproteins are made of fatty acids too
Vegans: cholesterol tho animal products tho
Science: PUFA's are unstable and prone to oxidation, Omega 6 produces inflammation and raises low density lipoproteins.
Science: endogenous lipoproteins are made of available fatty acids and synthetized cholesterol.
Vegans: peanut butter is vegan
Me: I eat unhealthy vegan animals and get sick, I eat margarine and get super sick, I eat carbs and sugars along vegetable fats and get fat, tired and sick. I eat fish and get healthy.
Me researching: makes sense
Me watching vegan videos: wut?
Karl Wheatley oh ok, now either oxidized or not HDL, non oxidized LDL and cholesterol itself that magically appears on the bloodstream is atherogenic.
I wrote that Vegans suffer from atherosclerosis due to homocysteine because of defficient to minimum very low levels of B12 (obviously thanks to supplementation) and very low levels of sulfur containing aminoacids (as you claimed) and thus reduced glutathione synthesis. If in addition your pufa intake it's higher in order to achieve at least ridiculously low O3 conversion and sourcing those PUFA's from highly prone to oxidation sources... you may end up with less circulating lipoproteins, yet there's so much more risk for them to oxidize, if we take into account endogenous glycation from high fructose and glucose intake... you can easily avoid exogenous AGE's from animal products by eating them raw wich is something you can't or should do with many plants, or provide an acidic cooking environment my marinating etc... but can't fight endogenous glycation if your essential aminoacid intake it's low and none of already synthesized aminoacid compounds obviously only found in animals.
sure some veggies like spinach and wild blueberries are packed with plenty of antioxidants, although you are ignoring endogenous antioxidants and obviously we can discuss about bioavailability...
Though, vegans rely on legumes and grains to get their aminoacids and some minerals and If I'm not mistaken it takes a huge part of your diet. I've never understand how you guys manage to wolf down (and then excrete) so many volume of undigestible and fiber rich foods, our digestive system isn't meant to continuously process that high amount of low quality food. Anyways, you can get extremely concentrated nutrition from animals and then if you wish could fill up yourself with spinach and blueberries and cocoa beans. obviously if you don't mind antinutrients and sugar, and toilet paper.
wich study are you referring to?
Hi Pol 1) "Please explain me how come animals are devoided of antioxidants"
Animal foods are not devoid of antioxidants, it's simply just that plant foods have, on average, 64x the amount of antioxidants of animal foods. Here's the reference:
Carlsen MH, Halvorsen BL, Holte K, Bøhn SK, Dragland S, Sampson L, Willey C, Senoo H, Umezono Y, Sanada C, Barikmo I, Berhe N, Willett WC, Phillips KM, Jacobs DR Jr, Blomhoff R. The total antioxidant content of more than 3100 foods, beverages, spices, herbs and supplements used worldwide. Nutr J. 2010 Jan 22;9:3.
I have to admit that it's amusing to learn that (thanks to the peanuts) a Snicker's candy bar has 40x the antioxidants of an egg, 20x the antioxidants of milk, 13x the antioxidants of chicken, and 7x the antioxidants of a can of tuna!!! A candy bar is actually better from an antioxidant perspective than are any of these animal foods.
2) "and the assumption that eating animals excludes any vegetable intake it's just ridiculous."
I never said I assumed that, but the more animal foods you fill up on, the less room in your diet/belly for plant foods, so your consumption of antioxidants goes down proportionally. This is especially problematic because eating animal foods makes you need more antioxidants.
3) "you take for valid bioaccumulation but unable to understand that tocopherols, and carotenoids such as lutein, zeaxanthin and astaxanthin are present in animals."
OK, let's look at the first two. Perhaps because they want to change the subject away from the health harms from eggs, the egg industry likes to make a big deal of the idea that you can help save your eyesight by eating eggs, because they have lutein and zeaxanthin. But HOW MUCH lutein and zeaxanthin do eggs have? Not much--a max of about 250 mcg. I eat a bowl of kale each morning, and that has 100x as much as an egg does. Put another way, one spoonful of spinach has as much lutein and zeaxanthin as 9 eggs. All the foods with the most lutein and zeaxanthin are plant foods, and to get your RDA of lutein and zeaxanthin, you could either eat 1/3rd cup of spinach or 40 eggs!!!! With my morning bowl of kale, I'm getting ~2.5 my RDA of lutein and zeaxanthin before I'm even really awake.
4) "we're going to agree that LDL oxidation it's not great, so, why the hell would you not want to fight it and instead aim for abnormaly low total lipoprotein level regardless their type and function?"
a) The best way to fight oxidized cholesterol is to NOT EAT cholesterol containing animal foods and processed foods. There, now I'm eating zero cholesterol--oxidized or otherwise.
b) When LDL levels are elevated, small dense particles are atherogenic, but so are large fluffy, and oxidized cholesterol is atherogenic, but so is non-oxidized cholesterol.
c) The physiologically normal level of LDL looks like it's around 35-60/65. That's hard for us to wrap our heads around because our diet is so unhealthy most Americans have levels that are double or triple that.
5) Actually, vegans eating an unhealthy diet get atherosclerosis by eating too much junk, including oils. That's irrelevant to anyone touting a WFPB diet, as I am.
6) A modest consumption of whole food polyunsaturated fats is very healthy--I think you're again confusing very healthy whole food fats (walnuts, flax seed) with unhealthy processed fats such as oils.
7) Regarding your iron comment, I already posted a study showing it's better overall in terms of oxidative stress to go the plant-based route.
Karl Wheatley So, like I said, high levels of circulating LDL are associated with atherosclerosis that it's actually a build up of those oxidized lipoproteins. Even if whe don't know or take into account the mechanisms of atherosclerosis, cus it's "complexity"we're going to agree that LDL oxidation it's not great, so, why the hell would you not want to fight it and instead aim for abnormaly low total lipoprotein level regardless their type and function? Why the heck would you the same with methionine and leucine, instead of finding a true solution?!( In fact deficient pathways of homocysteine conversion, either back to methionine with folate and B12 or to cysteine by B6 and serine, it's the cause of vegan suffering atherosclerosis, among the other stuff)
Please explain me how come animals are devoided of antioxidants, you take for valid bioaccumulation but unable to understand that tocopherols, and carotenoids such as lutein, zeaxanthin and astaxanthin are present in animals. Also ignoring that sulfur containing aminoacids are essential in glutathione synthesis, ignoring plenty of enzymes and the anti-glycating aminoacid compounds I already mentioned and the assumption that eating animals excludes any vegetable intake it's just ridiculous.
That Dr.Fuhrman seemed to ignore former toxins and antinutrients on those vegetables at the head of the list as well as plenty of essential nutrients and fatty acids.
Starting from the base that iron itself provokes lipid peroxidation and other oxidative stress, wouldn't be better to consume less and more available iron, like heme iron, and try to avoid getting it along with unstable lipids like polyunsaturated ones? I assure you that SFA are more stable and less prone to oxidation.
I've addressed and de-bunked many of your points, but it was a crazy week for me (just turned in grades for two classes), so let's address a couple more of your points:
1. and 11.
"Atherosclerosis is not even caused by high levels of blood cholesterol."
One can play games regarding what is causal in complex situations. If one person pushes another person off a tall building, is death caused by the push, the impact with the ground, or by the organ damage and internal bleeding? In reality, all three are part of a causal chain. Atherosclerosis does not progress when LDL is around 35-60, the physiologically normal level, and plaque builds up increasingly when LDL levels are higher, so elevated LDL is definitely part of the causal chain of atherosclerosis and all the disease and nasty events that flow from it:
To be sure, slightly different levels of inflammation or oxidized cholesterol or slightly different cholesterol patterns may adjust slightly upward or downward the exact level at which an individual will develop arterial plaques, but elevated LDL is a precondition for developing atherosclerosis. And numerous clinical trials have shown the ability to stop and reverse serious heart disease using VLF WFPB diets. Given that beef and cheese are more popular and profitable than broccoli, one would think that if there was a way to reverse heart disease while eating a significant amount of animal foods, it would have made front-page news worldwide decades ago. Even the Masai, despite consuming well sourced animal foods and being very active, had extensive atherosclerosis at young ages.
4. But... Guess what, non-heme iron is already pro-oxidant.
Food is a package deal, so when I eat non-heme iron, I'm getting it in a package of whole plant foods that have 60x the antioxidants of animal foods.
"The highest intake of dietary non-heme iron, vegetables and vitamin C intake exerts a protective effect against oxidation while the highest intake of dietary heme iron from meat and fish and saturated fatty acids are associated with increased oxidative stress."
Nutr J. 2013; 12: 102.
Published online 2013 Jul 16. doi: 10.1186/1475-2891-12-102
Diet, iron biomarkers and oxidative stress in a representative sample of Mediterranean population
Marta Romeu,#1 Nuria Aranda,#2,3 Montserrat Giralt,1 Blanca Ribot,2,3 Maria Rosa Nogues,1 and Victoria Arija
14. 15. 19. 20.
"animals are extremely nutritious, some nutrients are absent in plants and many others that are scarce in plants are abundant and plenty in animals. like you said, by bioaccumulation animals end up being more nutrient dense."
All the foods highest on the ANDI nutrient density scale are plant foods.
Although I avoid rice most of the time since those fields have been contaminated with decades of lead-arsenate insecticides, agricultural and industrial toxins naturally aggregate at very high levels in animal fat (there's no biomagnification process in apples as there is with salmon or tuna).
And we can debate precise mechanisms until doomsday, but the best health results have been obtained with diets with little or no animal foods.
Karl Wheatley taking a long hard look at vegan studies you end up tired of missing explanations, lack of variable control, misuse of polls and surveys, useless statistic data and obsolete assumptions.
Yourself, failed or forgot to explain the points made on your second reply, and won't discuss the points I exposed myself.
Mic could you make a video response to this TEDx talk? Is a woman saying that diabetes T2 can be reversed with a low carb diet. That video is a lot used by paleos to defend their diet. And it has already 3,5 million views.
Mike, I have a question about the Vegetarian Dietary Patterns study which suggests the best diet for men is vegan, but for women pescatarian (both much better than omnivore). Could it be that vegan women can become iron deficient without a small amount of meat due to the menstrual cycle? Love your videos.
Ok meat, dairy, oil, think we are all there with you on that.....but what's the deal with salt, if you don't over do it, and you don't have high blood pressure then Why why salt :'( haven't I given up enough does my garlic salt really have to go :'(. ;-)
Not super related but I can't find this information anywhere so I thought you might be a good person to ask: as far as plant-based milks, which are the most and least sustainable? Almonds seem water intensive and can have high mileage, and then soy is monocultured, maybe pea milk? But that's highly processed. Let me know if you have any idea! Thanks!
I understand where you are coming from but I eat chicken as my protein source I dont eat red meat or dairy and I had my cholesterol tested and total was 103 and a LDL of 42, which according to another one of your videos is "Heart Attack Proof". Why isn't exercise accounted in your video?
I'm trying to be vegan so hard but I live in a small town and most of our stores here don't even offer some of those special vegan products like vegan cheese or vegan cold cuts...and if they do its just so expensive...slowly I'm thinking this saying "You actually spent LESS on a vegan diet" is a lie...I'm losing motivation😧
The dose makes the poison. Eating 4-6 ounces of chicken or beef, 2-3 times a week will impart no harmful effects from the additional cholesterol or saturated fat as long as the meat is whole meat and the rest of the diet is mainly whole plant foods. This is regardless of whether the meat is factory farmed, natural, grass fed, or organic. Having said that, most omnivores don't realize that a healthy omnivorous diet is still one that is 80-90% whole plant foods.
Maybe yes, but maybe no. Even if the sourcing is more natural, all major chronic disease increase in stepwise fashion with stepwise increases in the consumption of animal foods. Here are 274 short videos summarizing (at the rate of about 3-15 studies per video) the research on the links between animal foods and human health. The actual research papers--charts, graphs, quotes--show right on the screen. Let's just say that this research isn't at all encouraging regarding the idea that the healthiest diet could be 10-20% animal foods:
And we know from research a great many mechanisms why animal food consumption ramps up disease rates (compared to WFPB). In one study of very health conscious Buddhists with very low meat intake (e.g., zero soda consumption), dropping meat consumption from a couple of times a week to zero (vegan) was associated with a drop in diabetes rates from 25% to ZERO participants with diabetes (and other research has identified why meat is a risk factor for diabetes).
Also, the truly healthy LDL range appears to be something like 35-60, and under LDL=67, most people won't see progression of arterial plaque.
But to get that low, most people will probably find they need to ditch animal foods.
Also, toxins naturally accumulate at higher levels in animal fat, so eating more animal foods means eating more toxins. And calling into question that reassuring phrase that the dose makes the poison, researchers are increasingly finding that for some types of toxins (e.g., endocrine disruptors), clinically relevant negative effects are observable at concentrations of the toxin at parts per billion. So, to re-word that old phrase, "For some toxins, virtually any dose makes it poison."
Love your delivery-fun and factual. The humor but yet the seriousness of your information. However, it would help me So I can share with more people, if you could avoid the rare curse words, so I don’t offend some of The folks I’d like to forward this to because I desperately want this information out😊
It's a good thing then that dietary cholesterol isn't statistically significantly associated with any coronary artery disease.
"Dietary cholesterol was not statistically significantly associated with any coronary artery disease (4 cohorts; no summary RR), ischemic stroke (4 cohorts; summary RR: 1.13; 95% CI: 0.99, 1.28), or hemorrhagic stroke (3 cohorts; summary RR: 1.09; 95% CI: 0.79, 1.50). "
No, I understand where you are coming from as far as LDL ranges and wishing to adopt a plant-based diet to achieve this.
However, it is all still completely irrelevant as to whether dietary cholesterol increases cardiovascular disease risk or not or whether dietary cholesterol is significantly associated with coronary artery disease, of which it isn't at present according to the literature.
These experimental studies don't establish a clear causal relationship that is the problem with just assuming and guessing when it comes to science. Many of these were weak out-dated animal studies where cholesterol was fed in amounts far exceeding normal intakes.
Vegans see a study where excessive large amounts of dietary cholesterol mildly raise total/ldl levels, but fail to take on board that HDL is also increased at the same time, maintaining LDL/HDL ratio, hence why no increase in cardiovascular disease risk in these "hyper-responders".
I'll take the latest systematic review/meta-analysis with 40 studies and over 300,000+ participants any day over some vegan youtuber with a handful of extremely weak studies that would never be eligible for a systematic review in the first place because they are of so poor quality.
"Clinical studies have shown that even if DC may increase plasma low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol in certain individuals (hyper-responders), this is always accompanied by increases in high-density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol, so the LDL/HDL cholesterol ratio is maintained. More importantly, DC reduces circulating levels of small, dense LDL particles, a well-defined risk factor for CHD.
This article presents recent evidence from human studies documenting the lack of effect of DC on CHD risk, suggesting that guidelines for DC should be revisited. 
Another study from 2005 on the relationship between dietary cholesterol, atherosclerosis and coronary heart disease stated:
The association between dietary cholesterol and CHD risk is, if anything, minor in nature. This is consistent with the finding that an increase in dietary cholesterol intake results in only a minimal increase in the total/high-density lipoprotein cholesterol ratio.
Taken together these studies suggest that the association between dietary cholesterol and CHD is small, as most subjects can effectively adapt to higher levels of cholesterol intake"
"In summary, the earlier purported adverse relationship between dietary cholesterol and heart disease risk was likely largely over-exaggerated. "
I probably didn't make myself clear enough. Why that range matters is that in order to get into that healthy range , most people will have to cut fat consumption dramatically and cut dietary cholesterol to zero or near zero.
And perhaps I didn't explain clearly enough why lack of statistical correlation is a meaningless finding in any cross-sectional study of cholesterol and what there can be "no statistical correlation" in a study flawed by bad restriction of range problems even when there's a proven causal relationship between dietary cholesterol and serum cholesterol (a relationship identified through hundreds of EXPERIMENTAL studies, not these weak correlational studies).
No, those 300,000 aren't lucky at all: They are very unlucky. The reason why they are unlucky is that the overwhelming majority of them have worsening heart disease caused by the foods they eat, including saturated animal fat and cholesterol. And they have very high risk rates for diseases and events caused by that steadily worsening cardiovascular disease, including, erectile dysfunction (50% of men over 50), angina, reduced energy and vigor, heart attacks, strokes, and dementia.
"Either dietary cholesterol is significantly statistically associated with coronary artery disease or it isn't, it's that simple." I'm not sure you understand what that finding means and doesn't mean. Here's a more accurate re-wording:
"Dietary cholesterol has been proven through hundreds of studies to raise serum cholesterol levels, but in a curvilinear relationship, with added cholesterol have very little or no impact on LDL levels among people whose LDL is abnormally elevated and who already eat a lot of dietary cholesterol (like adding water to an already overflowing bucket). Among a population of people with LDL levels that are a great deal higher than normal and are quite unhealthy, and who thus have a dramatically elevated rates of atherosclerosis and all the diseases and events that cardiovascular disease gives rise to, modest variations in dietary cholesterol intake don't have much impact in raising or lowering these very high rates of disease. However, if people would dramatically reduce their saturated animal fat and cholesterol intake (or stop eating it altogether), and switch to a VLF WFPB diet, they can reverse their atherosclerosis and drop their risk of major CVD events to near zero."
"Pseudo-science?" Which is more pseudoscience--hundreds of experimental studies that establish a clear causal relationship, or correlational studies that find no statistical relationship long after it was known that cross-sectional findings would fine that due to the many factors that influence LDL? The rigged Egg Board studies have fooled a lot of people, haven't they?
The LDL study you provided said the range was 50-70 or something along those lines.
Either way the optimal LDL range is completely irrelevant as to whether dietary cholesterol is statistically significantly associated with coronary artery disease and ischemic stroke or not, of which currently according to the latest systematic review/meta-analysis it isn't significantly statistically associated with any of these diseases.
Dietary cholesterol doesn't appear to be a huge problem from the current research though, so thats the point.
Either dietary cholesterol is significantly statistically associated with coronary artery disease or it isn't, it's that simple. All these excuses about optimal LDL ranges etc are just that, excuses for why the research isn't painting dietary cholesterol in the same terrifying villainizing light that these vegan pseudo-science youtubers have been doing for years using poor science and weird random over-feeding 900 calorie processed mcdonalds studies lol, ignoring actual higher quality research such as the systematic reviews on this very topic and so on.
I mean if you listened to this sort of video you'd be under the impression that a single chicken breast was going to give you heart disease because of the dreaded cholesterol content. Yet the systematic review can't find a significant statistical CVD risk assocation in 300,000+ cholesterol eaters lol. They must be really lucky according to vegans...
Do we keep buying into non-evidence based out-dated vegan myths and pseudo-science ?
Maybe I didn't make it clear: The healthy range for LDL is 35-60 and by and large, unless you are exercising a ton your whole life, you get your LDL down that low by eating a VERY low fat whole food plant-based diet that is very low in fat (especially saturated fat) and has zero or almost zero dietary cholesterol. We're talking eating 10% calories from fat and only 3% from saturated fat and 0 dietary cholesterol not 35% fat calories and 11% from saturated fat and 400-800 mg cholesterol daily. Eat that VLF WFPB way and achieve those LDL numbers, and atherosclerosis and heart disease essentially disappear. But there are multiple factors that can raise serum cholesterol, so even if you don't eat much dietary cholesterol, you can raise your LDL through other means (eating a lot of saturated animal fat, being obese). So dietary cholesterol is a villain, but other villains can get you in trouble too.
But when studies draw from a pool in which virtually everyone eats vastly more fat, saturated fat, and cholesterol (and junk) than they should and when they virtually all of them have LDL levels that are 80% higher to 3x higher than they should be, it's almost impossible to run studies that tell you what's going on and how to get truly healthy. The range of subjects is too restricted, so it doesn't matter if a study had 30,000,000 participants. Furthermore, serum cholesterol is multiply determined, so you generally can't identify the role of dietary cholesterol in raising serum cholesterol through cross-sectional (correlational) studies like the one you just cited. In fact, researchers have known since the 1980s that although experimental studies clearly showed that dietary cholesterol raises LDL, you can't see that in cross-sectional studies because of all the statistical noise, so food manufacturers have started funding and running lots of these cross-sectional studies, basically to confuse the public (plus well-intentioned researchers run such studies because they are easier to do).
So there's no apparent "correlation" only because all the other factors that influence LDL fog up the picture, but take someone with LDL of 125 eating lots of saturated fat and cholesterol, and replace that with whole plant foods with little saturated fat and no dietary cholesterol, and their LDL will drop rapidly and dramatically. Better EXPERIMENTAL studies clearly show this, but there's a whole industry dedicated to keeping people in the dark about this, plus lots of people who for their own understandable personal reasons just want to believe dietary cholesterol isn't a problem for health, although it is.
The study contained over 300,000 people of which it found no significant statistical association between dietary cholesterol and any coronary artery disease, ischemic stroke etc.
This is the latest systematic review/meta-analysis I can find on the very topic of whether dietary cholesterol actually increases CVD risk or not and from that data and much of the newer clinical research it appears the dietary cholesterol vegan myth has been severely exaggerated.
Vegans have been playing the dietary cholesterol causes heart disease myth card for years now, yet the latest evidence doesn't even support these claims at this point.
If the latest research doesn't actually find any significant statistical assocation, then what scientific evidence are vegans actually using to villainize dietary cholesterol and often claim that dietary cholesterol is the only heart disease risk factor anyone needs to worry about lol.
A bunch of out-dated weak case studies where they feed people 900 calorie mcdonalds meals like Vogels study lol. Terrible research like that.
The posts hardly ever make it through on these vegan videos unfortunately.
Please!! ..make a video about your thoughts on OAT milk. Been told it has more protein than nut milks and more fiber than all. I use it when I purchase my latte. It's way creamer than other non milk options.
You really are dumber than dirt.
Only by using your own ludicrous argument is it okay to eat children. In complete contrast to you, as a vegan, I'm opposed to killing any and all sentient individuals needlessly regardless of whether the individual is a human child or a dog or a cow or salmon.
Carnists are not reasonable at all in the context of this issue because they have been brainwashed into their Cult of Carnism, never questioning their cultural inculcation of needless violence and might-makes-right lunatic hypocrisy.
Now shoo, Rory, your juvenile remarks are old, stale, predictable, and absurd. I've seen some 10-14 year olds rely on the same nonsensical drivel as you to try to rationalize the shit they do.
Have a nice day.
Louis Gedo ??? Children as food? I'm not sure how you got that fron what i said. There's lots of reasonable people who would agree with me, people who haven't been brainwashed by propaganda. The truth is out there mate
Rory Lee , your position also unequivocally reduces human children as food for anyone who wants to eat them....your bedfellows like Dahmer would be proud that you are advocating their ways.
Good luck trying to find anyone but unreasonable people to buy the moral insanity you peddle.
Have a nice day.
Louis Gedo i don't see how you could think I'm conflating heterotroph with carnivore. Mycelium are heterotrophs, and they're not carnivores. I think that "obligate omnivore" is a misnomer, it doesn't make sense. Plants are sentient, do some research champ. Monica Gagliano. That doesn't meant it's not ok to eat them, im just saying there's no moral high ground to veganism. Veganism actually works against healing the planet
Rory Lee , I see no moral dilemma in killing plants since they are not sentient.
Besides, you seem to be conflating heterotroph with carnivore.....which would be asinine of you if you are.
Humans are neither obligate omnivores nor obligate carnivores.
Since there's no biological requirement in the human body for animal products, any reasonable person can understand that consuming animal products because you like to makes you complicit in preventable needless violence perpetrated upon innocent sentient individuals.
Complicity in needless violence perpetrated upon sentient individuals is never morally responsible behavior.
Morality matters....GO VEGAN !
I'm not a vegan , but I've been following your channel for a while and you make very convincing points as to why veganism is the better choice. I'm seriously considering trying out the vegan lifestyle for a few months minimum. Good video.
Rory Lee As healthy as veganism sounds , I've seen some very compelling arguments against it by highly educated people who study diets and health. I'm leaning more towards a similar diet to what you described. Thanks for your suggestions.
J V dude seriously reconsider, do some of your own research. Watch this guys vids on Allan Savory and research the truth on holistic management and permaculture. Factory farming is toxic for sure, but veganism isn't the answer. Eat well, eat LOCAL, be sustainable.
hey Rory no worries
yeah I just think we need to always take an approach its all opionion first
I myself use to get offended easy now I dont (not saying you have) just think most people do very easily in our society. Never seen Cowspiracy (dont feel a need) that is the thing with anything it becomes charged because of the reaction especially if it challenges peoples ego and Belief Systems
and that is all what it comes down to
too many times a divide gets created
look at vaccines good or bad? I aint a parent but you will see there is a clear camp most people belong
to. The Flat Earth Theory debates or Religion vs Science. Most activists probably dont notice they might be influencing some people but generally the crowd that agrees is on their side preaching to the converted already in a sense.
When you have a conversation were nobody isnt trying to make the other wrong that is a good one
Nice to talk to you
Dr Grey yeah sorry that was a bit of a non sequitur comment. I just mean the mic the vegan talks alot of bs, he's not presenting arguments in good faith. I saw his videos on Allan Savory and they were terrible, also he did a hack job on cowspiracy. There's misinformation everywhere but this guy is really bad.
I dont quite understand your point?
science backed facts about Calcium consumption and absorption with
comparisons between plants and milk from farmed animals
there are tones of resources about this
IF ANYONE RIGHT NOW HAS HEART DISEASE , ANY KIND OF CANCER , PLEASE CONTACT ME , I BELIEVE THAT I CAN HELP YOU ,HOW EVER I WILL NEVER RECOMMEND CHICKEN, MEAT ,CIGARETTES ,SORRY.IF YOUR SERIOUS ABOUT REVERSING DIABETES ,OR JUST DIAGNOSED WITH CANCER ,CONSIDER TALKING TO ME , BEFORE CHEMOTHERAPY OR RADIATION.
I BELIEVE IF CERTAIN DIET CAN CREATE DISEASE , IT CAN ALSO CHANGE ,REVERSE IT !
And you body makes all the cholesterol you need and eating any added cholesterol generally raises LDL out of the healthy range.
1) The healthy range for LDL is ~35-60
2) Virtually ALL Americans have progressively worsening heart disease in that they have steadily progressing atherosclerosis throughout their coronary arteries and vascular tree. Even if they never have a heart attack or stroke, this progressively worsening disease raises blood pressure (which harms organs) reduces the distribution of oxygen and nutrients to the body, creates erectile dysfunction in a huge percentage of men, saps people of energy and vitality, and appears to be a leading cause of dementia. This process is totally unnatural in mammals eating the healthy diet they were intended to eat, and generally does not progress when LDL cholesterol is <67, but progresses more rapidly when LDL>67
3) To study LDL--Major CVD incidents intelligently, you'd need a large pool of participants with an LDL in the physiologically-normal/healthy range (35-60) and who got it there in a healthy way (via diet, sleep, and exercise, not via aging and disease: Otherwise you get the reverse causality problem that confuses so many of the "cholesterol deniers" When older people get serious diseases that turn out to be fatal, the disease lowers their LDL and then kills them, and so people confused about this causal pattern then jump up and down and mistakenly conclude "Lower cholesterol leads to more mortality." But I digress.)
4) Multiple clinical trials have demonstrated that even people for a REALLY serious history of heart disease and major CVD events, you can lower their risk of a future CVD event to zero or near zero (over multiple years) with a VERY low fat (~10% of calories) whole food plant-based diet that is vegan or nearly vegan and has zero dietary cholesterol. And what is one of the prime missions of this diet--to lower serum cholesterol, which it does VERY effectively. As you'll see in the link above, excluding the Inuit (who had serious heart disease), the hunting-gathering tribes who are virtually free of heart disease have TOTAL cholesterol levels under 130, and LDL levels more like 45-50.
So, studies that find "no relationship" but are restricted to a pool of subjects virtually all of whom have very unhealthy diets and LDL levels that are often double or triple (or quadruple) the healthy and normal LDL level can be expected to mislead us pretty badly about nutrition. Such studies are fatally flawed by "restriction of range" issues, and if studies have bad restriction of range issues, I could also seemingly "prove" that women don't get pregnant more than men and that being taller doesn't make you any more likely to be able to dunk a basketball. Moral of the story: Beware cholesterol deniers carrying studies whose significance they don't understand, especially if those studies have fatal restriction of range flaws. People like that will get a lot of other people killed by reassuring them its safe to eat a lot of foods that really aren't safe.
Your body DOES need fat, as he regularly states, and those fats should be healthy fats. However, your body doesn't need any animal fat (and is healthier without it), and your body needs very little fat (one study of Chinese centenarians found they ate only 6% calories from fat, and the post-WWI Okinawans [the second longest-lived formally-studied population] found they only ate 6% calories from fat (and 85% calories from carbs. The clinical studies that have yielded the best effects for heart disease were diets with around 10% calories from fat:
hello! this petition is trying to help Californian farm animals so if you have a sec, please consider signing! https://www.change.org/p/jerry-brown-tell-governor-jerry-brown-of-california-to-monitor-california-farms-for-animal-abuse?recruiter=538312916&utm_source=share_petition&utm_medium=copylink&utm_campaign=share_petition
Karl Wheatley It's all good, just felt I clarified in my second post but no worries. Anyways, all of these studies and concepts you are claiming are based off of dead food products, (ice cream meat cheese eggs). Raw milk is the least inflammatory substance out there and I think if people tried it they would understand. I've been vegan for a year and decided to try adding raw milk into my diet from a farm no more than 10miles away from my home. Once adding that raw milk I felt increasingly better Day by day on this "diet". It's important to keep an open mind and not label yourself thereby restricting what you can experience and how you can feel based on some "scientific studies", which as you and everyone here knows can be completely bogus haha.
Sorry if I misunderstood what you wrote, but you wrote a generic comment about saturated fats, and for most people in these discussions, that means saturated animal fat, which is not usually consumed in blocks of raw animal fat, but is eaten through foods that contain it. And those foods, whether we are talking meat or eggs or cheese, generally promote inflammation. As you eat more saturated fat, your fat cells get bigger, and release pro-inflammatory agents. Furthermore, even if we aren't discussing any meat, there are endotoxins in dairy too (e.g., ice cream).
I was kind of guessing you weren't talking about avocados, and meat has those inflammatory endotoxins whether you cook it or not. Food is a package deal, and endotoxins from tons of dead bacteria are just a natural part of the package deal where meat is concerned.
I am against factory-farming, but even if we didn't need livestock for food, we can't sustain agriculture without livestock. That is because of fertilizer. To grow crops you have to fertilize them in order to give them the nutrients they need. The most important ways to fertilize is to use animal manure or artificial fertilizer. Without livestock we will only have artificial fertilizer to use for large scale farming, but this is not a renewable scource of fertilizer. This is because one of the most important plant nutrients, which is phosphorus is dug up from mines, and these will be empty within the next century. Manure on the other hand, contains all the nutrients which the plants need and is completely renewable. So from a completely agronomic viewpoint, an all-vegan world would not be sustainable.
Karl Wheatley for small scale farming, yes, but I can not see this work for a world wide production. I can start by saying that different climates, topography and growing conditions around the world does not allow such production. Take it from me, I am from Norway, "the capital of Sweden".
I saw his video, and it doesn't cover phosphorus. He only talked about nitrogen, and as a newly examinated agronomist, I already knew everything he said about it. Nitrogen is not the hard part to cover when it comes to nutrients. Like he said, pulses can fix nitrogen from the air, and we can fix it artificially for fertilizer production (artificial fertilizer). Phosphorus on the other hand, is much harder to cover in the long run. So I stand by my point. His video does not prove me wrong.
Not true. There's such a thing as "veganic farming": No animal inputs, except whatever the passing snakes and birds and mice drop on the fields. Mic has a video on it, and it's been done with all types of crops, and some folks have done it form decades. Think "green manure."
Erlend Økland no vegans will respond to that, you're totally correct though. We need to work with nature and imitate natural cycles, holistic management and permaculture et cetera. Stay safe and god bless.
Yes it does, as hundreds of experimental studies demonstrated, but it's a curvilinear relationship in which if you start with very healthy LDL (35-60) and zero cholesterol intake, adding two eggs a day will jump your LDL up a lot and in a hurry. Take someone with an unhealthy LDL of 110 and eating 400-600 mg of cholesterol a day, and add an egg a day, and little or no observable difference (the bucket already runneth over). But at that LDL level, that person will have steadily worsening atherosclerosis and be way up in the danger zone for ED, heart attacks and strokes--plus dementia. And for most people, the only natural way to get LDL into the healthy range involved cutting saturated fat dramatically and cutting out dietary cholesterol.
(Of course, the Egg Board has now spent decades trying to fool people about all this with rigged studies, but even in some of their studies, if you replace eggs with oatmeal, oops! LDL goes down 10 points)
I used to think my diet was so healthy, eating chicken breasts, low-fat yoghurt, and salads. Until I found out my cholesterol was 198! Shocker! Switched to a WFPB diet, dropped 25lbs, cholesterol is down to 168, as of 6 months ago. It might be even lower now.
Abel Abel you can believe everything mic says if you want. But ill stick with people with credentials who know what they're talking about.
I can't understand why vegans reject science on plant intelligence, it's fascinating. Stefano Mancuso does good stuff.
And i live in Australia, we don't feed our cows they just graze in the bush. Feeding cows isn't practiced in most countries. I don't eat much beef anyway, roo is better.
He did not make any point about "ideology" in this video. So refute what he is saying.
The blog you sent has only 1 peer-reviewed publication as reference, and it is one that does not really corroborate the point of the author...the rest are books, other blogs, and news portals posts...wtf.
And really? Again this non-sense on plants? Yes, they do respond to stimuli, but that does not make them sentient. I recommend Mic's video on plants, actually. Plants cannot feel pain or suffer. What would be the evolutionary reason for that? Animals feel it to attempt to escape, which increases their chances of survival...plants cannot move... Even if you believe (it is nothing but a belief) that plants are able to feel and you care about it, then you should also have a plant-based diet, as the total amount of plants is lower. Remember...you feed plants to the animals you eat.
Abel Abel it's hard to make an empirical argument against an idiology. If you feel that eating an animal is bad then no amount of facts or logic will change your mind. But this guys 'facts' are nothing but cherry picked misrepresentations of real science. The truth is out there, god bless and stay safe.
*Carnists eat dead animals because they are addicted to doing that and use "protein" as one of the excuses. They were eating dead animals before they even knew what protein was, before they even knew they were eating a dead animal! Carnists do not think about what they are doing, unlike someone who ate animals and then decided to stop eating animals after learning and thinking about it.*
Another misleading video. The primarily concern here is the saturated fat content and chicken has lower saturated fat than beef. You ignore this fact by referring to a statistic about sources of saturated fat but that is irrelevant, what matters is the amount of saturated fat per serving of the specific food. A serving of chicken breast only has 1 gram of saturated fat. Even dark meat with skin has less saturated than similarly fatty beef.
You said the only way to reverse heart disease was with a low-fat whole food VEGAN diet based on Caldwell Esselstyn's work.
I was just showing you that Caldwell Esselstyn's study you are talking about, was not vegan. Yes his recommendations are vegan these days, but it doesn't mean his 12 year study was a vegan diet, it was a vegetarian diet.
Quote taken from his 12 year update on his official website:
"They agreed to follow a plant-based diet with 10% of calories derived from fat. They were asked to eliminate oil, dairy products (except skim milk and no-fat yogurt), fish, fowl, and meat. They were encouraged to eat grains, legumes, lentils, vegetables, and fruit. Cholesterol-lowering medication was individualized."
Never seen any skim milk or yogurt included in Cadwell Esselstyn's diet. He is pretty clear about not eating anything coming from an animal and I have listened to him many times. http://www.choose-healthy-eating-for-life.com/heart-healthy-diet.html#.WzAuyraZOu4
And even if he was, where is the chicken in all this? Nowhere.
According to the 12 year update on his official website, Caldwell Esslstyn's diet included skim milk and no-fat yogurt so was more of a lacto-vegetarian low-fat plant-based diet than it ever was vegan.
Same goes for Ornish's studies which included egg whites too.
yes when compared to red meat, but definitely not compared to no meat in a whole food vegan diet.The only way to reverse heart disease is through a low fat whole food vegan diet. See the work of Cadwell Esselstyn.
How about never getting heart disease by going directly into plant foods? Conclusion: skip the chicken and let it run free outside.
Erectile Dysfunction, or ED, is a condition of a male’s penis that prevents it from getting an erection from sexual intercourse. However, many male patients get this condition from many pre existing health problems. The National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine, or the NCCAM, released that ED affects nearly 30 million males in the United States alone. In most patients, certain drugs can single handedly treat the condition. Below, is a list of different antibiotics used to treat ED and what side effects you may get, as well as what other treatments your doctor might prescribe you. Comprehensive List of Erectile Dysfunction Drugs Viagra, Cialis, Levitra