Ep. 172- All About Saturated Fat & Cholesterol

[OUR GUESTS[
Dr. Spencer Nadolsky
drspencer.com/
/ drnadolsky
Alan Flanagan
www.alineanutrition.com/
/ thenutritional_advocate

[@GVS]

Safe to say that this is not just a MONSTER episode but probably a life-saving one as well.

[@Fazlifts]

Tremendously informative and tremendously needed episode. Well done lads.

[@charleswilson4598]

I just stumbled across this amazing podcast. I am a 83 year old overweight diabetic and I sm learning way too late about all the things I should have been focusing on many years ago. But I can't change the last 83 years. I do battle my blood sugars witrh moderate success and I have lost 60 pounds and still going. But I watch a lot of youtue videos and read books and articles about diabetes, health, diet and nutrition. To say I have been confused for some time is an understatement. I tried low carb for a while and it did help my blood sugars, but I felt that there were other risks on that diet. So now I am emphasizing whole food plant based eating, not vegan (but I still watch my carbs). One area of confusion ha been over LDL and statins. I am on a statin but I have questioned their efficacy. There are a lot of gurus on social media that downplay their effectiveness and the importance of LDL. But in the process of looking for information I have started running across real scientist who know what they are talking about, and I am learning that there is not much disagreement among real scientists about the mechanism of LDL. And my cardiologist is adamant that LDL is a risk and statins work. I am so glad I found you guys. As for the social media influencers, you can fool me for while but you can't fool me forever.

[@richardkerr-phillips8288]

Just dropping in to say you guys are awesome, this is such a great podcast. The combination of insight, humour, and relatability is priceless. Most of all, though, thank you for teaching humility to the members of the cult.

[@samoblinger1922]

Will be swapping butter out for extra virgin olive oil. Thanks guys 🙏

[@Yupppi]

Olive oil is so good too when you find the right one to your taste! And goes on salad better than butter too ;P

[@HermieMunster]

Monster podcast, enjoyed this so much going to have to listen again. As Atherosclerosis runs in the family there’s some really useful info in this one.

[@masher1042]

Extremely informative podcast. I have learned a lot of stuff about what the science actually say. Many thanks!

[@mrddcass6540]

Always good to hear bros talking some sense.

[@FitMachina]

Could maybe Alan provide link to the study presented in 22:09 ?

[@shaleel]

Authority nutrition, the website which was purchased healthline, is what sold me that saturated fat didnt matter to heart disease. This was like 2013-2015. They cited a bunch of meta analyses, then add that into like elliot hulse talkin eggs and raw milk, GOMAD, pound of ground beef etc. I never stood a chance lol. I do legitimately believe it matters less for other people, and dose is key for anyone, but I'm an indian male with 140 LDL, 150 before I made a few adjustments, and we'll see how we're doing in the fall

[@Will-Woll]

Looking at some of these comments I can't tell if some are purposeful straw men or actual numpties 🤣

[@HermieMunster]

All the greatest experts live in the KZbin comments section! Fact! 🤪

[@jobrown8146]

Even with a high LDL I will be sticking with my low carb diet and not reducing my fat intake. I've remitted my diabetes and am now metabolically healthy, and no longer a slave to food. It's made a big difference to my life, especially losing more than 20% of my starting weight without trying.

[@jacobr5335]

Awesome pod guys! Will be lowering my saturated fat asap! Still skeptical of highly refined canola/vegetable oil. Will stick to Avacado/olive/peanut

[@AZ89231]

1:12:06 niacin lowers ApoB? What’s the deal with that agent?

[@kulata]

CiCo Bros fight back 😆

[@azulsimmons1040]

I don't know if the trade off is worth it to me. Live a while longer and miss out on all types of tasty foods trying to avoid cholesterol and saturated fat? I don't generally cook with oil. I like my lean beef. I want to enjoy ice cream and butter on occasion. I like vegetables and eat a ton of them. I don't want to worry too much about cholesterol. But good information. I enjoyed the listen. I'll eat a few more avocados now as I do love my avocados with my taco meat. I like to cut them up nice and fresh.

[@ElendielPlaysEU]

yeah it will prob be just fine if you mostly eat the good stuff and don't worry too much

[@baccaratfitness2360]

I'm not understanding the point of view here from any of these guys. Alan Flanagan states, seemingly categorically that we've been misled or that these 'extremists' on the higher saturated side of the debate are these radicals who aren't looking at the science (at least that's what I've gathered from what he said here) but he doesn't say how LDL particles or why they're so atherosclerotic. There aren't a bunch of dummies on the ketogenic or carnivore side. Tim Noakes, Amber O'Hearn, Dr. Paul Mason, Dr. Stephen Phinney, Dr. Benjamin Bikman, Dr. Jeff Volek, Dr. Shawn Baker, Gary Taubes, Nina Teicholz etc. Flanagan never brings up Dave Feldman or LDL particle size or oxidation level. If the LDL particles are recycled and are therefore small dense particles, aren't they the more dangerous particles and more likely to be atherosclerotic rather than LDL particles in general?. It's not enough to just say 'the science bears out that all high LDL particles show that they're atherosclerotic. All of these guys seem very smart, probably a lot smarter than I am but. until there's a study showing that people who are on a very low to zero carbohydrate diet and have consumed more saturated fat than recommended over a long period of time and have atherosclerosis caused from that I'm going to keep an open mind around saturated fat. Especially when there are plenty of indegenous people who eat mostly fat along with there animal protein who have no atherosclerosis. When Flanagan to say 'when I look at the low carb movement now I actually just think of them as conspiratorial movment within which there is this constellation of conspiratorial beliefs' he's already put himself out of the science conversation and into his own conspiratorial belief system which is that 'they' are all the same.

[@santyx_eorrr]

bro listed Gary Taubes as a reputable source 😂 im done

[@baccaratfitness2360]

@@santyx_eorrrwtf do you know about who’s reputable when it comes to fat metabolism?

[@santyx_eorrr]

@@baccaratfitness2360 because to this day Gary Taubes champions the carbohydrate/insulin model of obesity despite the fact it has been directly debunked in the scientific literature multiple times (he just wants to keep selling his books at this point)

[@baccaratfitness2360]

@@santyx_eorrr What are you talking about?? You’re disputing the “carbohydrate/insulin” model? What scientific evidence are you referring to? Please post a link to whatever peer reviewed study you’re referring to.

[@StephenMarkTurner]

Just a comment. Thanks.

[@rivenwyrm]

I'd like to note that I appreciate Omar and Eric's moderation and perspective on this in their attempt to bring the conversation back to "Well what should our dear listeners do if they want to make a dietary change?". Honestly Alan got a bit rude there with the "conspiratorial movement" comment although I understand where he's coming from because yeah... When you're pitting your scientific perspective against ideology the debate becomes pretty murky and perhaps entirely useless. It's okay to be a bit rude! But as Eric points out it rarely changes minds. Unfortunately people with his dismissive attitude have deepened the gap between good medicine and the people that medicine needs to reach. When someone is stuck in a cult or ideology, you (the individual) may need to cut them out of your life entirely (as he's saying he does) but this is only a small part of the process that brings the person out of that pit they fell into.

[@Bromidias]

So i always have trouble hitting my fat goals (60gr/day) im eating 4 eggs a day to help me hit that goal. The only days i do hit it is when i eat crap, any tips that are not avocados to easily add some fats?

[@MonkeyBarsEveryday]

Nuts brah. Pecans, almonds, cashews, peanuts, peanut butter, whole milk

[@jmca_power]

Nuts, dark chocolate, seeds, olives...

[@shaleel]

Oatmeal with flaxseeds, walnuts, nut butter.

[@Will-Woll]

If you can find somewhere to get cheap milled seeds, they mix in well with cereal/yogurt and even stuff like curry/stew where you don't really notice it.

[@shaleel]

@@Will-Woll ye - I got a bunch of ground up flax seeds on amazon - that's what I'm tossing into the oats. I wouldn't put it into a shaker bottle with protein powder tho lol that sucked

[@ricklee1756]

Missed opportunity to refer to the macho steak zealots as "meatheads". 4/5

[@AZ89231]

37:04 it’s not just related to aesthetic fatness, you can be TOFI, still have metabolic syndrome and/or insulin resistance and not be visually fat, there are plenty of patients with type II diabetes who have BMIs

[@Solidfreeman01]

34:32 "Increasing LDL all things being equal....." Hypothetically relevant. But not in real life. Noone out there says: " I will eat the same, but i will sprinkle this amount of LDL cholesterol on top." No. People replace their foods. People in our circles count their calories and replace carbs by fat. Other people just change their foods. Which often leads to them being full of the same amount of calories from different types of food. So, if you change your foods from carbs to fats different other metabolic factors change by doing that. You might even get into ketosis, you have less insulin, different amounts of anti inflammatory or inflammatory components in your blood, different brain chemistry and so on, if you eat more fats compared to carbs, than you did yesterday.

[@ernahrungeinfachgemacht3016]

Evidence of causal Risik factors in cvd improving by eating food that contain SFA wich dont improve by incoperating PUFA food sources?

[@Solidfreeman01]

14:40 "Ancel Keys topic" Wait, wait.... what does it change, that the graphs wit 22 points and 7 points are about 4 years apart? Still he obviously "refined", "corrected" his data over time. Clearly he "forgot" france which was eating TONS of saturated fat in croissants, brioche you name it. So how exactly is it ok, to cherrypick 7 points of 22 which make a straight line and neglecting the others? Just because some time has passed? I don´t understand.

[@ucchi9829]

Do you even know what a regression is?

[@Solidfreeman01]

@@ucchi9829 A little. Still "funny" that the regression delivered those 7 points, which fit the straight line so well. Most certainly only the points which did not fit this scenario were excluded because of bad, bad, evil data. If you look at the 22 points and the result of the seven points afterwards, knowing, that the author determies the circumstances how to judge if data is valuable or flawed and therefore which points to erase from the graph, it just looks like absolutely correct science. Not like modelling on purpose at all. And we all know about "scientific models" since the plandemic. We all have seen, how humans can "model" things. Drawing exponential curves which disappear into nirvana for a virus, that can only infest so much people. Yeah.... it is most certainly great science. Everything speaks for it to be correct. ( Not )

[@ucchi9829]

@@Solidfreeman01 what is a little? Because I have a feeling you don’t. Why? Because it looks like a lot of your comments are from a book that I can recall. The authors of that book don’t understand regression. Also, the way you just described the regression tells me you don’t. Like how does a regression deliver data points? I don’t know what that means. So maybe learn about the most basic type of regression, linear regression, then come back here.

[@Solidfreeman01]

@@ucchi9829 Their regression obviously incorporated confounders in a way which made them let certain data points disappear. Or where are they? Do you understand, that there were over 20 points and only seven afterwards? I think this is the relevant factor here. Or do you want to talk about something else? Because i don´t get into other details, no matter if they were a part of regression or not. So the real question here is of course "Why did they choose the linear regression?" And no actually i do not need to understand your regression at all, i only need to understand the reasons why they chose a certain strategy. This is what it is all about. So stop bothering me with details of scientific processes, which are not relevant to the topic. If you think i will fall for this strategy to defame someone as "not even having a clue what is going on" you are wrong. Stop hyperdifferentiating and stick to the topic. Noone cares about your precise understanding of regressions, if the true topic is about the reasons for choosing it in the first place, although it means to make a ton of data from your study disappear, while leaving a straight line. It is not about if i understand the static principles of equilibrium of forces relevant to how to build a bridge. It is all about what made me want to build the bridge in the first place. Learn a little about how to choose the right scientific procedure to solve a problem in the best way, instead of details of scientific procedures themselves, then come back.

[@ucchi9829]

@@Solidfreeman01 wow that first paragraph didn’t make any sense. What do you mean the regression incorporated confounders? Do you even know what you just said? I’m going to assume you’ve never done a regression or statistical adjustments for a regression.

[@rivenwyrm]

I will admit that as someone who did keto and then low carb for almost a decade, this is pretty hard to hear. OOooffff... Admittedly it even worked quite well for me insofar as bodyweight control but that's obviously not the whole health picture.

[@jmca_power]

You can keep doing low carb if it works for you, just prioritise lower saturated fat, fat sources

[@rivenwyrm]

@@jmca_power Yeah I mean overall I still eat low carb compared to the average, I think? But definitely shifting away from as much meat-derived saturated fat and trying to get more lentils & beans into the diet for the fiber.

[@KenanTurkiye]

Low carb does not equal high amounts of saturated fats, to equate the two is oversimplification.

[@rivenwyrm]

@@KenanTurkiye Sure and I read several books on low carb way back when with a bunch of pretty low saturated fat low carb recipes but the reality seems to be that most low carb eaters are eating high(er) saturated fat, for whatever reason: economic, convenience, preference. I know I have and did. I think a low carb low saturated fat diet is probably very healthy! But not everyone can or wants to eat lean chicken breast and low fat fish for every meal.

[@KenanTurkiye]

@@rivenwyrm Your assumptions may be correct, but from what I know saturated fat is not recommended in low carb circles, as the ambition already is to lose fat. And saturated fat can further increase insuline resistance and leptin resistance in those already suffering from this. To equate low carb with saturated fat consumption to me means someone merely ''swam around the peripheraly'' of low carb knowledge. I have been on low carb for maybe 2 years now and out of let's say (throwing a number out) 100 sources I investigated maybe ten percent has propogated the consumption of high saturated fat and usually you find these are sources who are on the incline to gather following and/or sell something (not that I'm against that).

[@benjamins2458]

Alan's argument about the conspiracy thinking is extremely stupid. You could just as well say that the biggest predictor of being open-minded enough to consider one heterodox opinion is to have considered others as well.

[@marcjacobson757]

This episode felt like an echo chamber. Dissenting views would have been helpful. I think it's important to note that not all people who disagree with you regarding saturated fat and LDL are lay people or fringe social media kooks. Some of them are MDs and PhDs with many years more experience than any of the 4 of you, and who are actively involved in clarifying and questioning the science. For example, they don't say LDL is not causal of ASCVD, but they do question the primacy of its role and they recognize that it is not necessarily the only cause, that its role might be modified by other factors, and they're investigating further. Picking a side and demonizing "them" and "they" is one of the reasons social media posts and videos on science often do more harm than good. Consensus is easily come about by putting like-minded people in a room. Engagement across communities is the way to a common consensus and the common goal of health, not just for those that agree with you, but for everyone.

[@tanyasydney2235]

If you want "dissenting" voices just go listen to some of the carnivore gurus. No need for debates and arguments.

[@KenanTurkiye]

Why does this discussion omit the dynamics of carbs and fat consumed together? That is the missing keypoint, when this is omitted, you can talk about ''Them'' until you have any one of or a combiantion of many artery diseases, but you still wouldn't be doing justice to science as we know. 44:51 clustering a whole differing groups of people under a blanket statement it self may be a cognitive ''trick'' to cement ones own perspective as scientific for those who ''have difficulty cognitively grasping complex issues'' as you put it 46:39.

[@KenanTurkiye]

As a final note, please get to better understand what low carb is, it DOES NOT necessarily equal to the consumpltion of high saturated fat. There seems to be a great misconception and arguments based on this misconception present in this 'chat'.

[@KenanTurkiye]

...and another omited aspect is that when one is fat adapted, for those living a healthy active lifestyle, the consumption of some healthy fat does not pose a risk rather fuels the body. Many people are not aware of what FAT ADAPTION is even while attempting to try 'low carb' how long it takes and the associated dynamics of the process. I weightlift and sprint train while on low carb and fasted, but I am fat adapted, I do not get a 'shut down' from energy as I still have a small amount of fat on my that I use as fuel as I am fat adapted and my metabolism is not searching for consumed carbs to burn so to speak. To omit what fat adaption does to ones ability to burn fat is also omitted in this ''chat''. People who are not fat adapted and who consume 'enough' carbs even it may be a loweish amount can have risky conditions due to the dietary saturated fat they consume, this was omitted in the ''chat''. The gentelmen in the chat did omit a lot of aspects of the issue, rather clustered all and anything opposing the ''establishment'' under ''one huge group of narcissism''. Yeah, a very scientific argument gentelmen, well done!.

[@KenanTurkiye]

49:08 the reason why in very low carb LDL rises is because of the greatly increased fat loss that occurs, majority of LDL present in this time is due to this reason, of fat molecules been discharged from the body, from stored fat both in the kidneys and subcutaneous and visceral fat. Not due to consumed fat (which many low carbs recommend poly and mono fats anyways). This state continues until the person gets rid of the extra stored fat that may be causing reasons of morbidity. Hence why low carb/no carb requires the consumption of a lot of vegetables per day for nutrients for the kidney to ''lubricate''. The aim is to lose body fat fast, improve the health of the kidneys and metabolism, and stabilize HDL and LDL balance after some time, rather than live with damaging body fat that may be fatal. This chat just oversimplified so many issues.

[@KenanTurkiye]

18:49 you just shot us Eric, ghee!!! Yes eat GHEE (in moderation with the proper conditions of activity, low carb etc) : )

[@KenanTurkiye]

Many studies pushed forward by some Drs and influencers do not show importance to whether the ''studies'' they base their arguments draw distinctions on whether the people in those studies were on lowish carbs or whether they were fat adapted or not. Which is a big error against science. Been fat adapted or carb dependent are two different things.

[@abisheks2418]

I wish they spoke about trans fat too

[@yidavv]

pretty sure you should just avoid that shit as much as possible

[@tanyasydney2235]

Why? There's nothing much to say about trans fat as pretty much everyone agrees that it's not healthy.

[@whatsyourmax223]

Hit that like button 👍👋👍

[@Solidfreeman01]

15:41 " We went on a low fat diet and things did not improve.... we actually never were on a low fat diet." As far as i know the argument is " We went on a diet consisting of much less fat and much more carbs and things did not only not improve but also became much worse". So how is this possible, if animal saturated fat clearly raises cholesterol and cholesterol is responsible for MORE deaths summarized? If you leave it out to a high degree, which we did, there should have been huge improvement, right? Does not make sense to me.

[@ernahrungeinfachgemacht3016]

The percentage of SFA of Total calories is less but the Total amount of SFA is the same. On top of that came bigger caloric consumpion and lots of other stuff. Also we went never low fat. Where is the Data showing that

[@Solidfreeman01]

@@ernahrungeinfachgemacht3016 Actually i was not talking about data. You can look the data up yourself. I was talking about the type of argument low carbers put on the table. I was not planning to get into the data. And i still am not. So why do you not ask Eric about data? He did not deliver it too. Actually here in this podcast people talk about data without citing and showing evidence. You will have to learn to deal with that. Sometimes people just have conversations about data without showing proof. It is ABSOLUTELY normal as you see. So no. I will not give you data, just because you want to see proof for what i say in general. Just because i don´t feel like it and it was not my plan. But lets make an exception. DATA: More kcal. More carbs. Less fat. Equal protein. 1970 until 2000. www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5304a3.htm

[@ernahrungeinfachgemacht3016]

@@Solidfreeman01 They mention a lot of Papers in the Podcast. And you need evidence to Proof a point. Also the Data you providet is just ecological association Data. On top of that it is proofing what i have said. The percentage of fat intake of Total calories changed but the Total amount of fat didnt change. Also you said it: More calories. We also have lots of other things that were going one. So how in the hell are the carbs or the pufa the issue I really dont have any clue what you think this proofes There are also a lot of RCTs by Gardner and Hall wich show that carbs dont lead to more weight gain than fat. This is proofen without any doubt. Its clear that high calorie, easy platable procceds foods are the issue.

[@Solidfreeman01]

@@ernahrungeinfachgemacht3016 Yes, yes. They mention. Sometimes they mention, sometimes they don´t, sometimes they cite, sometimes they don´t, sometimes they speak in general. Yes i need evidence to prove a point. So who exactly told you, that i was proving a point? If you read carefully you will notice that my statements were written as description of information i came across and which some low carbers claim. Also sometimes i say, that there are studies out there on certain topics. Without citing them. As a result i just wanted to give some counter- information to the statements of the podcasters and question if the situation might be different, than they think. That is all. Never planned a "study- battle". Still not planning it.

[@ernahrungeinfachgemacht3016]

@@Solidfreeman01 You made comments like: Why are there studys wich show..... And in Reality they dont show it. If you just heard things from low carb channels and never read it yourselfe i wonder why you are defending the points of the low carbers so much even if people tell you why they are clearly wrong. For example like with the SCS. I can show you if you want MR Data why they are wrong about particle size too. Or MR and RCT Data about cholesterol and mortality. But i doesnt look like you are Interested. You just want to Spam the low carb stuff under this Video

[@quadrram3945]

Phirsht

[@gregmau7557]

Still not gonna eat seed oils 👍

[@Mylada]

Why not? They are super healthy and easy to use

[@jmca_power]

Your choice...not a smart choice, but certainly a choice

[@gregmau7557]

@@Mylada I just prefer the taste of butter!

[@Mylada]

@@gregmau7557 Thats an answer I can respect instead of some seed oil conspiracy

[@destro1989]

Cool story bro.

[@Solidfreeman01]

23:36 " It is layers of denial." Sure? Why do i know that there are studies which show, that it is not just about LDL cholesterol, but the type of LDL cholesterol? There is a difference between high density LDL cholesterol and low density LDL cholesterol. The high density one is able to easily get into the arterial wall, while the low density one can not. At the same time it seems, that low carb diets actually lead to very low levels of high density LDL, because high density LDL forms under circumstances like glycation, which is being benefitted by higher blood sugar levels. But i do not know, if this point has been shown by studies actually. Why are there studies out there, which show, that LDL cholesterol becomes dangerous, when your arterial wall has been damaged? So it is actually not only about LDL cholesterol but your arterial walls getting hurt in the first place. Which depends on inflammation markers for example. So there is science out there, not only denial, which states, that it is more about the combination of risk factors, like having high inflammation markers and high LDL cholesterol at the same time. Has there not even been change to dietary guidelines because of that? As far as i know it is proven quite well, that the combination of risk factors counts. Not just LDL cholesterol. So even official guidelines of countries on fat have changed. Cholesterol and saturated fat are not seen as evil per se anymore, because of the recognition, that it is all about the combination of risk factors being dangerous. On which side is the denial here?

[@ernahrungeinfachgemacht3016]

No this is proven to be false. Mendelian randomization showed that all particles are equaly atherogenic. Different particle size just correlates with other risk factors in Observational Research. 2. Also false. LDL oxidizes and causes inflammation as a Response to the retention. And for the retention a demaged arterial wall isnt needet. We have MR Data and RCT Data wich shows that inflammation makers are nearly irrelevant. I have 2 questions for you: 1) Why do treatments that lower LDL (and not change inflammation as measured by hsCRP) reduce risk of CVD even in low inflammation contexts? 2) Why is the post randomization data consistent with LDL causing CVD even when hsCRP is low?

[@HWCWTD]

It hasn't been determined yet how important the distinction of small and dense or large and fluffy - they both get into the arterial wall as you say. Small and dense particles do so with greater frequency but deliver lower amount of cholesterol "load", large and fluffy enter less frequently but deliver a larger load. They both matter, they both contribute.

[@benjamins2458]

The evidence for reducing saturated fat is piss-poor, coming largely from multifactorial trials like STARS or others - and this is what has people running to come up with rescue hypotheses like the idea of a threshold above which it makes no difference.

[@tanyasydney2235]

"Piss-poor"? LOL, well then I guess your own body will have to give you a tough lesson someday.

[@Solidfreeman01]

13:30 " The level of evidence for blood lipids stuck up. The more animal saturated fat the higher the cholesterol." All right. Let´s assume that is correct. Still there are also studies that show, that cholesterol has no effect on overall mortality. Still there are studies that show, that cholesterol lower the risk for suicide to a high degree. So maybe it is about dying from artery problems while living a happy life versus dying from suicide because of depression that you had to fight with for 50 years, because your cholesterol was at "healthy" levels. Body makes hormones from cholesterol of course.

[@ucchi9829]

Probably not no effect actually.

[@ernahrungeinfachgemacht3016]

Lower Cholesterol levels doesnt cause any side effects. We know this from studys of people with gene mutations and crazy low Cholesterol levels. They lived longer and had less CVD. Also the mortality studys you are talking about are confoundet by reverse causation. If you look at MR or RCT Data you see lower Cholesterol = less mortality

[@thehylander266]

The cholesterol the body naturally produces is already enough. No one needs extra cholesterol via the diet. This has been well studied.

[@Solidfreeman01]

@@ucchi9829 Probably? Maybe. Maybe not. The people i heard it from were claiming there was none. But yeah... i do not know the exact details of scientific proof regarding that.

[@ucchi9829]

@@Solidfreeman01 saying no effect is a typical fallacy. So probably not. Also, when you get a result of a hypothesis test, it isn’t proof of the hypothesis being true.

[@mrbigsdaddy]

Please guys are pushing back so hard against the truth. Pointing at everybody else saying they’re in denial while these guys are literally in denial

[@mrbigsdaddy]

Name those studies you are lying about.

[@Solidfreeman01]

45:40 "I think of the low carb movement as a conspiratorial movement. Narcissism and low cognitive complexity are important to be a conspiracy theorist. " Says the one who just shitted all over the whole low carb community and the community of people, who believe, that there are conspiracies out there. ( To do that is not a sign of narcissism at all.) Says the one who just simplified the characteristics and the diversity of those groups of people to fit them all into a simple little box. Which is not a sign of low cognitive complexity at all. Welcome Mr. Dunning- Kruger. 😉 Conspiracy theorists are much more often capable of far higher cognitive complexity, than non- conspiracy theorists. That much the covid- plandemic has shown. Who believes the official bullshit- scenario and is NOT a conspiracy theorist? Mostly people who just simply watch the news, do not think and believe anything they are told. Conspiracy theorists are to a much higher percentage people who are capable of much higher levels of pattern recognition and at the same time are not narcisstic enough to put their status in society above their search for the truth. They are not ready to act in immoral ways just to enjoy a higher status in society, which is of course easier for people who follow the official covid narrative. So much to narcissism and simple mindedness and this GREAT study which described how conspiracy theorists are supposed to be. What a nonsense. 🤦‍♂

[@destro1989]

TLDR version: I'm a low carb zealot and I don't like the fact the science doesn't fit my narrative so I will try to justify the behaviour and beliefs of conspiracy theorists as a way to somehow justify low carb theories. Lol

[@ernahrungeinfachgemacht3016]

Conspiracy Theorists are mostly simply out of Lunch and anti science. Just point out what of the things said there about saturated fat is wrong and point out/provide evidence why that is the case

[@ernahrungeinfachgemacht3016]

@@destro1989 Also those people never can point out why the arguments made are wrong or show evidence by themselfe

[@Solidfreeman01]

@@destro1989 1. I am not a low carb zealot. I hit my 150g of carbs today. 2. I do not need to justify the behaviour of conpiracy theorists, since it is a simple fact, that conspiracies have been a part of humanity quite forever. This did not change since the term "conspiracy theorists" tries to defame people who like to think in complex ways about things instead of just believing the news, without any second thoughts. To be a conspiracy theorist is the most normal human behaviour one can imagine. It just means, that you think there is at least one conspiracy in the world, which has not been clearly proven yet. 3. I do not need to justify low carb theories. There are not only low carb theories, but also low carb science. There is science, which actually speaks for all of the low carb arguments, which were presented here. What i am not sure about is the quality of the science in specific cases. Is the science for low carb stronger than the science against it? This is what its all about. And i lack that knowledge. Still there is so called low carb - science. It has nothing to do with layers of denial, when someone brings up the typical points of low carbers. There is science behind this. Which makes it harder to evaluate what is right. The position of the low carbers or that of the high carb- proponents. Thanks for delivering an example for how to prejudge people without any reason given.

[@doryfishie2]

Armchair psychologist + covid denier apparently is "much more often capable of far higher cognitive complexity". Once you get off your masturbatory soapbox, maybe you can spot the real Dunning-Kruger.

[@TheHaiku2]

Get LIVER KING on the show. He'll shut these quacks down! People need to understand that LIVER KING wouldn't be more jacked than these guys if they knew more than him!

[@Skars911]

Not really relevant as that guy is on steroids

[@ericrhelms]

Speaking truth! lol

[@aufhebenx3662]

You can literally do everything wrong on tren and look insane I.e. liver king

[@geneharrogate6911]

Tren ace was the 10th ancestral tenet apparently.

[@koffski93]

@@geneharrogate6911 it was actually trenet in ancient times, not tenet