Over the past week we've been discussing scientific accuracy, and while their is no doubt that sick people get healthy when they change their diet in any positive way. Its how we deduce what the positive changes were that comes under scrutiny.
Everyone has a story to tell when they finally ditch their fast-food lifestyle.  

Over the past week we've come up against the statement " animal fat kills" which can't be backed up with any statistically significant evidence. The whole plant based diet vs. animal food diet is more often than not based on a faulty argument. Their is no doubt that a diet of whole, unprocessed plant foods (natural foods) are far more nutritious than the typical a low-nutrient standard UK or American diet (SAD). The argument that animal fat (or even meat) kills wilts (plant based pun) when you consider that they usually base their argument on a SAD diet and not an unprocessed diet of natural animal products mixed with plant based foods.

Testing plant diet” against the “Standard American diet” and coming to the conclusion "animal fat kills" isn't really fair is it? Is it fair to consider steak in the same class as cake? So it seems that a great deal of the research out their that is used to demonize  animal fat is actually refering to the SAD. Kind of SAD that they interchange things to suit the research. Our industrialised nation does consume meat, but we also eat a lot of toast, teacakes and hoover down crisps like they are some sort of legal high. Non industrialised nations such as the Masai, traditional Inuit (not the ones who have adopted western diets), and many others, are free from disease despite consuming animal products. Seems to me that the smoking gun is more likely to be held by the SAD.

Another popular vegan source of evidence is Dr Caldwell Esselstyn and his heart-disease-reversal diet. However, he recommends a massive reduction in all fat, not just animal fat. Wow, that means eliminating nuts, seeds, avocado, olives, and many other plant fats. Wow, he thinks that any dietary fat damages the endothelial cells and promotes heart disease so its an ultra low fat diet. Holy cow, what can a vegan eat then? Surely a tomato is ok???

Esselstyn advocates a diet that eliminates:

• Anything with a “mother or a face,” including meat, fish, and poultry 
• All dairy
• All nuts and avocados
• All oils, such as soybean oil, olive oil, corn oil, cottonseed oil, canola oil, and anything else with “oil” in the name
• All solid fats like margarine and butter
• All foods—whether pre-made or prepared at home—that contain even a drop of added fat
• Any grains that aren’t 100% whole. According to Esselstyn, this includes eliminating “multigrain, cracked wheat, seven-grain, stone-ground, 100 percent wheat, enriched flour, or degerminated cornmeal”

Is the modern processed diet that is low in nutrients but high in calories (the fabled empty calories), really the thing that vegan's escape from when they change their diet? Or in fact is this the trap that we all escape from when we change our diets, no matter in which direction we turn? I really think it is, if we follow Gillian McKeith our bodies will breath a huge sigh of relief when it finally gets a break from the SAD. Does this mean animal fat was a killer? No it doesn't, it means the diet you've swapped to is ultimately healthier than the junk laden diet you formally consumed. Would you get the same results swapping to eating a mixed diet that contained naturally raised meat. Well considering the thousands of Paelo types that testify that they feel good, we'll have to assume they do get the same results. 

The "C" word is a popular swear word with plant food fans...I've been called it this week so I should know, damn me and my inability to fall in line. Luckily their is another "C" word that we can discuss.

Yep Cholesterol, nasty nasty natural cholesterol the natural and essential substance that is essential for human survival (oh yes it is) due to its important biological functions.

In the 80's we were told that dietary cholesterol from animal foods such as meat, eggs, and dairy products, tended to stay in the bloodstream and collect as plaque on the inside of our blood vessels to cause of coronary artery disease. That was the 80's though so research has moved on and so have we, oh wait some people are still stuck in the 80's.

Cholesterol in our body is regulated in relation to what we ingest from food. If we ingest too much (pretty hard to do) then our body slows down its cholesterol production, equally if we don't consume enough the body will manufacture more. Yes you read that right, our bodies naturally produce this so called "toxic" substance. Weird how our own body would try and poison us!! Unless its all a myth and cholesterol is actually essential to life. Check out this paper if you still believe dietary cholesterol is harmful.

I saw a great quote earlier in the week, sorry I can't reference it (I just can't remember whose blog I saw it on. It went something like this;

"A vegan lifestyle involves continuous animal abuse and cruelty. One has to ignore and override the 911 calls from the animal most intimate to us, our own body. Eating the nutrient dense red meat of ruminants is what made us large brained humans. Eating a diet that is contrary to our biochemistry and evolutionary history, is loaded with toxins anti nutrients for some generally abstract concepts leads me to regard the vegan lifestlye as a mental illness."


While the quote is very strongly worded from the opposite camp, (team paelo) it does have a point. Even a tomato eats bugs which means to be truly vegan you need to avoid tomatoes as well as a host of other plants that need some protein. With no evidence to back up the "meat is bad" argument it seems that they only case for veganism is personal choice (which we all should have), and because we don't like cruelty to animals. I hate animal cruelty but I'd like to point out a few factors;

Vegan's that buy vegan dog and cat food are being cruel to animals that need their natural diet.
If your deliberatly cutting something from your diet on a belief basis, surely that may count as cruelty, especially if you push it on others such as the case of this little ex vegan, or these shocking cases.

We have the freedom to follow whatever diet or beliefs we want, (and so we should) however, the moment we start preaching (and for my old mate Gazza, preaching doesn't just have religious meaning) we either need to back it up with "statistically significant" data or get the best indemnity insurance you can.

To conclude, eat whatever you want, its your choice. Just don't push your views on others without being asked. I'm sure most of you would be disgusted if I tried to push my views on the benefits of Hagen Daz Vanilla Ice Cream onto you wouldn't you?? 

Almost a week ago we heard from a vegan with the outlandish claim that "animal fat kills." Not context was added to the statement such as "if a ton of lard falls on top of you then it (animal fat) will kill you", or people eat too much factory farmed dirty grain fed meat and it contributes to disease amongst many other factors", or even "animal fat may be a factor in disease alongside such things as sugar, processed foods, sedentary lifestyles etc etc." Nope we got a point blank statement of "animal fat kills", which I find pretty offensive to say the least.

We've been all round the houses, changing the subject and so forth. Anything to hide the fact that the statement is nothing without proof. And as we've discussed before, correlation does not equals causation.

Anyway, while we wait for the data to show up lets look at some more nazivegan propaganda. Remember, 95% of vegan's are nice people, its just the ones on a crusade that you have to watch, their a probably just as many paelo (I was accused of being paelo yesterday) types that preach about eating meat, but for the most of it these two camps just live their lives doing what they believe in.

The lipid hypothesis 
Their is plenty of controversy about the lipid hypothesis; low fat diets, low carb-high protein diets, the government approved food pyramid, vegan, veggie, weight watchers, breathatariens, and anything else that you can think of in the food and nutrition field. The similarity is they all claim to be the answer but its not that easy to just uncover the truth.

As my site always states, do not make medical decisions or changes (i.e., in your meds or diet) without consulting your a professional, at the same time never trust anyones word and always read things for yourself. As you may not be adept (or even interested hey Jane haha) in reviewing papers I like to do a little for you.


Where shall we start? With paleolithic man and the diet we think he ate. Or shall we start with the agriculture revolution about 10,000 years ago. The point where grain became popular and more available. Remember that 10,000 years is a blink of an eye in evolutionary terms when you consider that we evolve 1/10th of a % every 100,000 year. Between now and 100,000 years ago not a lot happened...until very recently. We can assume that we existed on whatever we could get. Fruits, seeds, berries, plants, meats (raw or cooked when fire became available) and so forth. 

Then came processed foods with lots of nutrient deficient sugar added. Hmmm, we need to evolve quickly!!

Then when sugar became too expensive we turned to corn. Heck its natural so people will believe its good for them if we make high fructose corn syrup. We also started feeding corn (and lots of other weird things) to millions of cows in order to mass produce cattle.

So, how did we get where we are today? Its hard to pin it down to 100% undeniable evidence but it seems that government policy on diet, the food pyramid, grains, carbohydrates, dietary fats, may play a part in it.

So to the hypothesis Batman. Sadly a hypothesis isn't something a super hero would use.  Its more of an observation or problem that can be tested by further investigation. Interesting stuff (well it is if your into nutrition research...)

Hypothesis are unproven, its a question and it needs an answer which is where the experiments or trials come in. They attempt to show whether or not the hypothesis holds true under the scrutiny of the science. Its simply not enough for anyone to stand up and say "animal fat kill", without data to prove it, it means as much as my statement Mmmm, meat tastes good. Unless I can prove it then its just my personal (or mine and some friends) thoughts.

Most hypothesis are tested to prove or disprove its validity. Sadly bias inadvertently or purposefully often occurs as most people want to be right no matter what.

In the 1950s a researcher named Ancel Keys conducted the "Seven Countries Study" which became the basis for the contention that cardiovascular disease was largely the result of high serum cholesterol levels brought on by a diet high in saturated fat. Now Ancel had done some great work before (see my posts on his work) which meant he was respected. He spent a fortune on the study (funded) so he kind of needed to be right to save face. 

I have 1385 pages of Ancel Keys Biology of Human Starvation sat in my library here so I love the guy. However, his "lipid hypothesis" is a perfect example of how bias affected the research results. Keys was, prove his hypothesis, even selecting only data that supported it just like Campbell in the China Study.

Keys hypothesised that a high fat diet, particularly a diet high in saturated fat, was a major contributor to high cholesterol, which leads to heart disease in the form of arteriosclerosis (arterial plaque build-up).

However, much like the "China Study", independent analysis of the data shows that he "cherry picked" only the countries with numbers that supported his hypothesis and omitted the significant data that showed there was actually no correlation between dietary fat, cholesterol, and arteriosclerosis. Hmmmm!!


Inconclusive data didn’t stop Keys from using data from seven countries that supported his lipid hypothesis. When subsequent researchers reviewed the entire data that were available to Keys, they were astonished to learn that there was no correlation in the data to support Keys hypothesis. Oh dear...

Despite this the study is quoted as proof time and time again that saturated fat is a major contributing factor in arteriosclerosis. Reading What if It's All Been a Big Fat Lie? is where I start most of my clients that ask about it. Its defiantly worth a look.

The consumption of red meat, butter, and other sources of saturated fats is at an all time low, yet obesity is at epidemic proportions, diabetes is highly prelevent. My vegan friend would say this is because we aren't strict enough, but if veganism is the answer surely eating less meat (like we are) would have an effect?

But the official response from Gazza the vegan, with his data that actually backs up his statement is currently a deafening silence.

Why? Could it possibly be because it would mean an admission that he was wrong? Too strong in his statement which he can't prove. 


Well, there you go another piece of anti animal fat research that actually doesn't prove anything of the sort.  In the interest of fairness I will of course present all of the evidence in support of the "animal fat kills hypothesis. It is as follow;
[                                                                                                                                         ]
(note to self, leave space blank for any supportive evidence that might appear.)

Sadly I'm not joking, other than the above and Campbell's also selectivly biased work, there is no evidence that actually supports the argument. No doubt people will keep trying to find some, its just not appeared yet despite lots of years trying to find it. Its only been a week for my Nazivegan friend so in the context of things (and judging by his research skills), it may take a while.

To leave things on a light hearted note, here is something to put a smile on yourself. Don't personally follow it myself as you probably know, I don't consume pork. Funny all the same though. 

And to even it up, don't want to be biased like the research do we. A little vegan treat...enjoy

I love belief, often its all we have in the health circus. Many theories cannot be tested properly due to lack of funding or ethical reasons. If I make a statement that has no scientific evidence I would qualify it with "I believe" this to be true etc etc. Reading something in a book or seeing a factor such as fatty build up in arteries during autopsy does not give us answers. It points us in the direction of a research question such as "Does animal fat kill?" Categorically it does not give us an answer until we have data that significantly proves it.

If it was possible to prove it I believe (I can't 100% say yet because its not happened) that Gazza the Vegan (check my previous posts for details of the vegan crusade that is currently ongoing on twitter), would prove it and clear up any doubts myself that the rest of the world has. But he doesn't want to do that for some reason and keeps deflecting onto arguments about fires and evolution. 

My debate with Gazza continues. The original statement has shifted from "animal fat kills". We've now had a variety of differing statements that point the finger at meat as the cause of lots of things. From heart disease (despite vegan's favorite research the China Study showing statistically significant data that meat protects against heart disease), through to cancer but we are yet to see any data backing it up other than the odd mention of MD's clinical findings. Its all well and good stating Dr. X has seen atherosclerosis in patients but you can't claim its animal fat to blame unless the subject in question has lived their life under strict test conditions. Have the subjects eaten processed foods? Have they consumed a great deal of sugar? Were trans fats included in the diet, blah blah blah. Yes we frequently see people with atherosclerosis and the eat meat.

Maybe we could test it correctly, we could start with some dependent variables (DV) such as various health tests, maybe a questionnaire to assess health and/or dietary beliefs and so on.  Then we could have some independent variables (IV), and it is these that we can manipulate to get the data we require. So, we could have;

Non Meat Eaters

• Vegans
• Vegetarians

Meat Eaters

• Processed Meat Eaters
• Pasture Raised Meat Eaters

Not the best study design but its a hell of a lot better than stating "meat kills" no matter whether its walls sausages or a healthy homemade broth made with naturally raised beef. Its rather like assuming someone who lives on Linda McCartney Veggie burgers will be assessed in the same group who consume actual vegetables.

The vegans I've met (bear in mind I regularly visit a vegan shop) are mostly smug and holier than thou. They think they are healthier and want to convert us all. 

Scientist have found that vegans seem to run a greater risk of developing blood clots and atherosclerosis (remember even Campbell found this in his China Study, he just hid it). They also tend to have lower HDL (or "good") cholesterol.

I don't hate vegans I just can't see any evidence that backs up the argument to become one. Each week I eat few servings of organic chicken and wild fish, and some organic red meat as long as its grass-fed. I ate as a vegetarian and developed a serious amount of tooth decay and had to discontinue the experiment due to the ill health it brought. Gazza says this is due to vegetarians consuming dairy, but its interesting that I never consumed any dairy until 2 months ago so it does leave a big question-mark over why I got so sick.

I've still not managed to narrow down what Gazza actually eats? I've asked if tomatoes are allowed but he's not replied. I've also asked of vegan mothers are allowed to breast feed their babies, or if they do will they be removed from the cult?

Vegans tend to rely on lots of TVP (textured vegetable protein) which makes the fact that Gazza insisted I needed to kill a cow with my hands to be a meat eater. Not quite sure how a vegan would make TVP or their seed oils by hand but he lets not be picky. TVP is soy, one of the most dangerous foods on the planet, loaded with phyto-estrogens and phytates that stop the absorption of nutrients and disrupt hormone balance. Oh and they are also linked to the big C as well.

I don't recommend any of you go out and stuff yourself with KFC or burger kings, I also don't encourage caveman style diets with ultra high protein consumption. I typically eat meat once a day but sometimes only 3 times a week now. However, science shows us we cannot live long term without animal protein. You can and should enjoy your food and not restrict whole food groups. Their is categorically nothing wrong with salmon, chicken, and I would always aim to consume meat that contains collagen on a  weekly basis. We need the protein and the nutrients these foods deliver.