Your Ancestors Ate Plants, And Plants Won’t Kill You

Animal foods are bad for you. Humans aren’t designed to eat meat. It isn’t natural for humans to eat meat. Your ancestors hundreds of thousands of years ago didn’t eat meat. Eating meat is a just a bad habit picked up my modern humans. If we all stopped eating meat, we’d all be healthier.

Yeah, that’s vegan thinking. Crazy stuff, right? Now try this:

Plant foods are bad for you. Humans aren’t designed to eat plants. It isn’t natural for humans to eat plants. Your ancestors hundreds of thousands of years ago didn’t eat plants. Eating plants is a just a bad habit picked up my modern humans. If we all stopped eating plants, we’d all be healthier.

That’s what I call reverse-vegan thinking. I’ve written about it before, but decided to tackle the subject again because the video of Pete Evans cooking for us drew the ire of some reverse vegans online. That dang ol’ Pete ruined a perfectly good pan of eggs by adding harmful squash and kale. Humans shouldn’t be eating those harmful plant foods.

A reader also sent me a link to this video:

I’ve seen similar videos, and it doesn’t surprise me that many of the people making them are ex-vegans.

I’ve mentioned Eric Hoffer’s terrific little book The True Believer in other posts. It was written in the 1950s but is still relevant today, as is much of what Hoffer wrote. Hoffer explains that people with the true-believer personality type are attracted to extreme positions. They’re aren’t comfortable with ambiguity (such as some plant foods are good for you and some aren’t.) And surprisingly (or perhaps not) they’ll sometimes jump from one all-or-nothing belief system to another, even when the belief systems are polar opposites.

The switch often happens like this: some intolerable event or situation or outcome finally pierces the true believer’s resistance to evidence that the belief system is wrong – or simply isn’t 100% correct. At that point, the true believer’s all-or-nothing personality causes him to flip from fully embracing the belief system to fully rejecting it. What was 100% correct and good in the past is now 100% wrong and possibly evil.

Vegans believe eating animal foods is morally wrong, and also harmful to our health. Some of them develop nasty health problems as the result of the vegan diet. I’ve known vegans who absolutely, positively refuse to believe their bad health is the result of shunning all animal foods. That simply CAN’T be true. So they write it off as bad luck, genetics, whatever.

But for some, the bad health is the intolerable outcome that finally pierces the belief system. I suspect most respond by adding animal foods back into the diet and going on their merry way. But the true-believer types flip completely. That’s when we get this:

Plant foods are bad for you. Humans aren’t designed to eat plants. It isn’t natural for humans to eat plants. Your ancestors hundreds of thousands of years ago didn’t eat plants. Eating plants is a just a bad habit picked up my modern humans. If we all stopped eating plants, we’d all be healthier.

If paleo humans didn’t eat plants, I wonder where the term hunter-gatherer came from. I recently had someone on Facebook insist that most Native Americans didn’t plants at all.

I dealt with some of those humans-didn’t-plants arguments in this post, so I won’t repeat the same replies. I will, however, re-use a slide from a speech given by Dr. Mike Eades:

That slide lists what Native Americans from a tribe in Kentucky ate. Were they hunters who ate a lot of meat? You betcha. But they also ate grapes, acorns, blackberries, sunflowers and hickory nuts. This was no surprise to me, because I read a ton of books on Native Americans as a kid, and I know damned good and well most of them ate both plants and animals.

This article describes what Native Americans all across the continent ate. Here are some quotes:

When Europeans arrived, the Native Americans had already developed new varieties of corn, beans, and squashes and had an abundant supply of nutritious food.

Maize (corn), beans and squash. That combination is known as The Three Sisters. The natives taught the Pilgrims how to grow that combination. Pretty strange lesson coming from people who (according to some internet experts) didn’t eat plants all.

Back to the article:

It is important to keep in mind that many Native Americans were largely hunter/gatherers until the Europeans arrived. Although many Native American tribes had well-developed agriculture, they did not have domesticated animals, and they still depended heavily on the wild plants and animals for food. Also, James Adair mentioned that the Indians did not use any kind of milk, he also stated that “None of the Indians however eat any kind of raw salads, they reckon such food is only fit for brutes.” Berries and fruits were eaten raw, but most other foods were cooked. James Adair was impressed with the culinary skills of the Native American women and said: “It is surprising to see the great variety of dishes they can make out of wild flesh, corn beans, peas potatoes, pumpkins, dried fruits, herbs and roots. They can diversify their courses, as much as the English, or perhaps French cooks: and either of the ways they dress their food, it is grateful to a wholesome stomach.”

Native Americans ate plants and animals, as did people in nearly all of the “primitive” societies discovered in modern times. Even Neanderthals ate some plants, according to this study:

Here we report direct evidence for Neanderthal consumption of a variety of plant foods, in the form of phytoliths and starch grains recovered from dental calculus of Neanderthal skeletons from Shanidar Cave, Iraq, and Spy Cave, Belgium. Some of the plants are typical of recent modern human diets, including date palms (Phoenix spp.), legumes, and grass seeds (Triticeae), whereas others are known to be edible but are not heavily used today.

Anyone who insists paleo humans didn’t eat plant foods is engaging willful ignorance. The overwhelming evidence says they did. The few paleo peoples who subsisted on all-animal diets were the exception, not the rule.

Of course, that fact that paleo humans ate plants doesn’t automatically negate the belief that plants foods are bad for us. Most of the don’t-eat-plants arguments I see online center around the toxins in plants. Beans contain lectins, ya see, so we shouldn’t eat them, etc.

When I read those arguments, I’m reminded of a speech I saw Matt Lalonde give at the Ancestral Health Symposium in 2011. In case you’re not familiar with him, Lalonde has a Ph.D. in organic chemistry and does research at Harvard. He’s spent rather a lot of time studying the paleo diet and the nutrients in foods. He’s a fan of the paleo diet. But he’s definitely not a fan of weak science.

In his AHS speech, he said something along the lines of, If you walk into a room full of organic chemists and say people shouldn’t eat legumes because they contain lectins and lectins are bad for you, they’re going to look at like you’re an idiot and won’t listen to anything else you have to say.

That perked up my ears, because at the time I was telling people I don’t eat legumes because they contain lectins and lectins are bad for you. Not wanting organic chemists (or anyone else) to look at me like I’m an idiot, I paid attention to the rest of the speech.

Lalonde went on to explain that an organic chemist would ask a whole series of questions: Are the lectins neutralized by pre-cooking processes such as soaking? Are they destroyed by heat during cooking? Are they neutralized during the digestive process? Do they actually get into the bloodstream or pass on through?

In the case of most legumes, he said, the lectins are destroyed by cooking. Eat them raw or undercooked, yes, they’re harmful. Cook them properly, they’re harmless. The gluten protein in wheat and other grains, however, isn’t destroyed or neutralized by processing and cooking. So whether or not we can safely eat a plant depends on what it does to us once we cook it and ingest it, not the list of supposed toxins it contains.

Here are quotes from an article by Chris Kresser saying the same thing:

Lectins are a type of protein that can bind to cell membranes. Studies have shown that lectins can impair growth, damage the lining of the small intestine, destroy skeletal muscle, and interfere with the function of the pancreas. Sounds serious, right?

Not so fast. There are several reasons that these results cannot be extrapolated to humans. First, the animals consumed very large amounts of lectins—much larger than a human would get from a varied diet which includes legumes. Second, the lectins were from raw legumes. Why is this significant? Because humans eat primarily cooked legumes, and cooking neutralizes the lectins found in most legumes.

In fact, cooking legumes for as little as 15 minutes or pressure-cooking them for 7.5 minutes almost completely inactivates the lectins they contain, leaving no residual lectin activity in properly cooked legumes.

Phytic acid interferes with enzymes we need to digest our food, including pepsin, which is needed for the breakdown of proteins in the stomach, and amylase, which is required for the breakdown of starch. Phytic acid also inhibits the enzyme trypsin, which is needed for protein digestion in the small intestine.

Sounds pretty bad, right? While it is true that diets high in phytic acid contribute to mineral deficiencies, it’s also true that humans can tolerate moderate amounts of it without harm (perhaps because our gut bacteria produce enzymes that break down phytate and extract the nutrients the body needs). In fact, there’s even evidence that phytic acid may have some beneficial effects. It prevents the formation of free radicals (making it an antioxidant), prevents the accumulation of heavy metals in the body, and plays a role in cellular communication.

So yes, plants contain anti-nutrients. But humans figured out how to neutralize or destroy many of those anti-nutrients a long, long time ago. Adding cooked plants to a meal doesn’t automatically make it toxic. That’s why I now eat the refried beans with my fajitas when we go out for a Mexican dinner. That’s why I’ll eat pasta made with lentil flour now and then. My diet is still mostly animal foods, but I’m not afraid to eat plants.

If you believe you’re healthier on an all meat-diet, great. If it’s working for you, by all means, continue.

But please don’t try to tell me ancient humans didn’t eat plants, or that all plants are dangerous, or that all humans would be healthier on a diet devoid of plants. There’s simply no reason we’d all be biologically geared to be at our best on a diet our ancestors didn’t eat.


The Farm Report, Then And Now

      43 Comments on The Farm Report, Then And Now

Pete Evans emailed to let me know the segment he and the crew filmed on the Fat Head farm when they visited waaaay back in 2015 is now online:

Very nice. My immediate thought when watching was Wow, the girls have really changed. They’re not even girls anymore. They’re young ladies.

Quite a bit has changed since that segment was filmed. The hogs went to the processor soon after and became 500 pounds of pork products. The gazebo where Pete and I were sitting during the interview blew away in a storm. Most significantly, all the chickens are gone.

As I mentioned in a recent post, Rocky Raccoon VII and Rocky Raccoon VIII managed to wipe out what remained of the flock before I trapped them and sent them to raccoon heaven. The last survivor was the rooster, who had clearly been in a fight. He was torn up, but alive. When he became listless and it was obvious he was dying, Chareva conducted a mercy killing.

Here’s a picture of one of the chicken yards, looking quite abandoned:

As I write, we have no chickens. This messes with my self-image a bit, because I’ve gotten used to thinking of myself as a guy who lives on a little farm with chickens. Twice in the past two weeks, I’ve gone downstairs to make myself breakfast and discovered to my horror that we were out of eggs. Out of eggs?! We’re never out of eggs! We have chickens!

Of course, I’m not the guy who takes care of the chickens, so when Chareva said she’d like to take a break, I had to agree.

In the meantime, her gardens are producing quite nicely. In the pictures below, you’ll see samples of her peppers, tomatoes, black-eyed peas and summer squash:

The tomatoes and summer squash were on tonight’s dinner menu, in fact.

This is interesting … Chareva swears she didn’t plant any cantaloupes, and yet we’ve got them growing in the garden. Her best guess is that the seeds were in a compost pile and decided to grow.

She’s also growing heritage corn in one of the old chicken yards. We may eat some of it, but the plan is to grind much of it into homemade chicken feed.

We lost another tree lately, too. Looks like I’ll be spending some weekends cutting up the free firewood, which is fine, but I’m worried that trees big enough to squash a human are snapping and landing in our yard.

Chareva’s break from chicken chores wasn’t long. She ordered 24 chicks a couple of days ago. They should arrive this week. Given what happened to the last flock, we need to reinforce the chicken yards again and replace one of the nets – we’re pretty sure Rocky Raccoon VIII got in by chewing through the old net, which was becoming brittle. I’ll be happy to have fresh eggs again, but I definitely don’t want to serve any more chicken dinners to the local predators.


Horrors! Aussies Are Ignoring The Anointed

As you know if you’re a long-time reader or have heard me as a guest on podcasts over the years, I’m often asked what we can do change government dietary advice. My answer is always some variation of My goal isn’t to change government dietary advice. My goal is to convince people to ignore the advice.

Here’s my reply to a comment from 2011:

That’s what I love about the internet age. We can educate ourselves and ignore the self-interested “experts.”

Here are three replies to comments from 2012:

I think we’re more likely to convince people to ignore the USDA.

We can’t out-bribe Monsanto, but we can ignore the USDA.

I think we’re getting there. The USDA will always be the USDA — essentially a government arm of the grain industry — but we can convince people to ignore them.

I’m not quite ready to declare victory and retire, but here’s more evidence that what I’ve been predicting for several years is actually happening, at least in Australia. A recent article in the U.K. Daily Mail is titled How fad diets could be doing more harm than good. We’ll start with the bullet points beneath the headline:

  • Australian’s are falling for fad diets in high numbers, new research reveals [It’s sad when people who work for newspapers can’t distinguish between a plural and a possessive – Tom]

  • A whopping 67 per cent of the population has opted to go gluten-free

  • Sixty five per cent ditched an entire food group, without advice from a doctor

  • Over fifty per cent of people indicated they don’t know what foods are healthy

Goodness. Aussies are falling for fad diets, ditching entire food groups (you can guess which groups) and going gluten-free – without advice from a doctor!

At the risk of repeating myself, it’s odd that anyone in Australia believes we should turn to doctors for dietary advice. After all, this is the country whose own Health Practitioner Regulation Agency actually prohibited Dr. Gary Fettke from giving dietary advice to diabetics. To quote the agency itself:

The committee does not accept that your medicine studies of themselves provide sufficient education or training to justify you providing specific advice or recommendations to patients or the public about nutrition and diet.

Dr. Fettke was, of course, advising diabetics to adopt a LCHF diet. As a surgeon, he appalled at the number of amputations he was performing on diabetic patients. Research combined with experience convinced him that a change in diet would help patients avoid that awful fate. But I’m sure Dr. Fettke would be first to tell you he learned most of what he knows about nutrition long after medical school.

Here are some quotes from a recent Washington Post article on how little medical students learn about nutrition:

When Americans hear about a health craze, they may turn to their physician for advice: Will that superfood really boost brain function? Is that supplement okay for me to take?

Or they may be interested in food choices because of obesity, malnutrition or the role of diet in chronic disease.

But a doctor may not be a reliable source. Experts say that while most physicians may recognize that diet is influential in health, they don’t learn enough about nutrition in medical school or the training programs that follow.

Nutrition is crucial to good health, as the article notes:

An estimated 50 to 80 percent of chronic diseases, including heart disease and cancer, are partly related to or affected by nutrition, according to Martin Kohlmeier, a research professor in nutrition at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

And yet nutrition is mere blip in most medical schools:

In a 2015 survey of 121 four-year medical schools, Kohlmeier and colleagues found that 71 percent did not require at least 25 hours of nutrition education and that fewer than 20 percent required a nutrition course — fewer even than 15 years before.

Just wrap your head around that one for a minute. Perhaps nothing has a more profound effect on our health than diet.  And yet most medical schools don’t require a nutrition course, and 71 percent don’t require at least 25 hours of nutrition education.

I read Good Calories, Bad Calories cover-to-cover twice and re-read some sections multiple times. I didn’t add up the time I spent reading it, but it was certainly more than 25 hours. More like 100 hours, easily.

But that’s just one book. When we moved to the farm, one of the movers looked at our bookshelves before packing up the books and asked, “Which one of you is a doctor?” Oh, the irony. Like many if not most people, he assumed doctors read a lot about nutrition.

Out of curiosity, I just counted the number of books about diet and health sitting on the bookshelf in my office – the ones I’ve actually read, anyway. There are 56 of them. I’m sure there are more elsewhere in the house. And that doesn’t include the lectures I’ve attended, the YouTube videos I’ve watched and the podcasts I’ve listened to, which would number in the hundreds. I’m sure many of you could cite similar numbers.

So I’ll say it again: asking the average doctor about nutrition is as useful as asking the average plumber. The only difference is that the doctor is more likely to have been indoctrinated about the evils of saturated fat and the wonders of whole grains during that one course in nutrition offered in medical school.

Anyway, back to the Daily Mail article about those pesky Australians who are changing their diets without consulting a doctor:

Whether it’s to drop a few kilograms or an effort to put health first, Australians are falling for fad diets in high numbers.

New survey results released indicate a whopping 67 per cent of the population has opted to go gluten-free despite not being instructed to by a doctor.

Somebody from Down Under tell me: can that 67 percent figure actually be true? Two-thirds of Aussies are gluten-free now? If so, why wasn’t that a plot line on Rake? Cleaver Greene goes gluten-free to suck up to a hot new paleo attorney or something like that.

Going gluten-free without being instructed to by a doctor is roughly as dangerous as going tobacco-free without being instructed to by a doctor. What’s the harm, exactly?

The alarming research also states 65 per cent have ditched an entire food group, without the caution or guidance from a health professional.

If the entire food group was red meat, most of the media would be cheering.  But since people are giving up grains, the research is “alarming.”  To whom?  Kellogg’s?

TV presenter and Sydney GP Dr Sam Hay believes the influx of people attempting fad diets was putting them at risk, the Daily Telegraph reported.

Issues could include problems with the kidney and liver as well as growth and development.

Hmmm … how exactly is giving up grains going to damage my kidneys or liver?

‘The number of people restricting gluten is nuts, by doing that you’re missing out on grain fibre and putting the nation’s gut health at risk,’ Dr Hay said.

I see. So before humans started eating grains somewhere around 12,000 years ago (and much later than that in most of the world), they had damaged livers and kidneys and bad gut health. It’s amazing that the millions of people who’ve adopted a paleo diet didn’t make the connection between the diet and their plummeting health. You’d think that would come up in social media now and then.

‘The eastern suburbs are all about avocado and kombucha and paleo. Australians are getting very caught up in influential media personalities who really push particular eating plans or fads and most don’t have any science behind them,’ Dr Hay said.

As opposed to the rock-solid science behind most government dietary guidelines.

This isn’t about people being caught up in fads, of course. It isn’t about influential media personalities (meaning Pete Evans) steering the poor saps in the wrong direction.  It’s about people who are tired of lousy results doing their own research and looking for something that works. It’s about people sharing their own positive results in social media. It’s about the Wisdom of Crowds.

It’s also about people rebelling against The Anointed, or what Nassim Nicholas Taleb calls The Intellectual Yet Idiot. Taleb wrote quite a bit about the IYI in his recent book Skin in the Game, but as a reminder, here’s part of an essay on the subject:

What we have been seeing worldwide, from India to the UK to the US, is the rebellion against the inner circle of no-skin-in-the-game policymaking “clerks” and journalists-insiders, that class of paternalistic semi-intellectual experts with some Ivy league, Oxford-Cambridge, or similar label-driven education who are telling the rest of us 1) what to do, 2) what to eat, 3) how to speak, 4) how to think… and 5) who to vote for.

… their main skill is capacity to pass exams written by people like them. With psychology papers replicating less than 40%, dietary advice reversing after 30 years of fatphobia, macroeconomic analysis working worse than astrology, the appointment of Bernanke who was less than clueless of the risks, and pharmaceutical trials replicating at best only 1/3 of the time, people are perfectly entitled to rely on their own ancestral instinct and listen to their grandmothers (or Montaigne and such filtered classical knowledge) with a better track record than these policymaking goons.

Yes, given the lousy track record of dietary advice from The Anointed, people are perfectly entitled to listen to their grandmothers. Or their friends. Or well-informed strangers in a Facebook group.

I have an email buddy who lives in Australia but has done quite a bit of traveling for work, including some long stints in the States. He told me Americans and Aussies are much more alike than Aussies and Brits. We’re friendlier, less formal, less impressed by titles and authority, and generally more rebellious. Perhaps because we’re both nations settled by castoffs.

Anyway, if Aussies truly are rebelling against The Anointed and other nutritional “experts” in the large numbers cited in the article, that’s great. And let’s hope Americans continue to do the same.


Computer Troubles And A Mini-Vacation

Seriously, you need to just touch base with all the fans out here.  No explanation necessary, just “I’m still here, just crazy busy” will do. I couldn’t stand it another day.

I received that note in an email today. Yeah, I guess I’d best explain the absence. The brief story is that my Mac Pro finally died a couple of weeks ago, so I ordered a new Mac, then went on a little vacation in Chicago while waiting for it arrive. Now I’m back and crazy busy getting set up to work again.

The Mac Pro that died is the same one I used when I made Fat Head in 2008. Yup, it’s been around for 10 years. I also used it to produce Fat Head Kids … well, almost. We got the film rendered and sent off to the distributor, but there are lots of other files they need soon: dialog, sound effects and music on separate audio tracks, for example.

Almost two weeks ago, I walked into my home office one morning and noticed that while the Mac’s power light was on, the monitor was dark. I fussed around with connections and whatnot for an hour or so, then gave up and took the thing to a Mac repair shop. The repair guy called an hour later and told me the mother board was fried. Probably not worth replacing in a 10-year-old machine.

So I went through all the stages of grief for my deceased buddy … anger, denial, bargaining, etc. When I reached the acceptance stage a few minutes later, I brought it home and removed the hard drives. Truth is, I was planning to get a new Mac at the end of this year. Fat Head Kids is mostly animated, and the ol’ hoss was painfully slow when I was working in After Effects. I couldn’t watch many of the animations in real time until I rendered them. Often that meant going back to adjust the timing after viewing then rendering again. I knew I’d have to move up to a younger, sleeker model someday soon.

Soon turned out to be right now, since we’re almost but not quite done with the film. The next day, I went to our local Apple store to order an iMac Pro. I can’t just buy off the shelf – well, I could, but I wouldn’t get what I need. Film production is heavy-duty stuff, especially if there’s animation involved. When I buy a computer for production, I pretty much max it out. That’s why the old Mac Pro lasted 10 years.

The special-order model finally arrived yesterday. Now I’m busy reinstalling all my software. The next step will be to copy all my working files from backup drives, which will easily take 24 hours or more. Then I’ll finally be able to finish the film.

While waiting for the new Mac to arrive, I took a mini-vacation in Chicago. Specifically, I went here:

With these guys:

Those boys are my life-long best friends. I’ve known Bob (in the black hat) since sixth grade and Mike since the summer after high school. Back in the day, we were all in a band together. Some of my fondest memories are of being on stage with them. Some of my other fondest memories are of being offstage with them after our band days were over.  We’ve been threatening to have a reunion in Chicago for years and finally got around to it.

Anyone watching me over the weekend wouldn’t believe I just produced a film on diet and health. Friday night, we had stuffed pizza and beers at Giordano’s. It’s the best pizza in the world, in my humble opinion, and worth the carbs once in a blue moon. Stuffed isn’t the same as deep-dish, which has a thick crust. Stuffed means stuffed with meat and cheese and other ingredients. A slice looks like this:

On Saturday, went to Wrigley and drank more $10 beers than I care to count. I also ate an Italian beef sandwich and an Italian sausage for good measure. Amazingly, it was just 70 degrees in Chicago that day. The Cubs were down by five runs after three innings. Back in the day, they would have gone on to lose 10-0. But these guys ain’t your father’s Cubs. They stormed back and won 8-7, thanks to a four-run rally in the eighth inning. I’m still hoarse from all the yelling.

Here’s my bad attempt a selfie:

On Saturday night, we ate at a restaurant called Three Forks, which is near Mike’s office. It was quite expensive. It was also quite wonderful. I had the biggest and most flavorful filet I’ve ever eaten. And wine. And scotch. And some creamy dessert drink the waitress brought to us on the house, probably because were happily spending a small fortune.

After a weekend of eating foods I almost never eat and drinking more alcohol than I consume in a typical month, I flew home exhausted and fuzzy around the edges, but happy. Like I’ve said before, I’m okay with the occasional indulgence. It’s bad daily habits that screw up our health, not once-a-year blowouts.

I have a ton of loading and copying and resetting to do on the new Mac before I’m ready to resume normal work, but I hope to have it all wrapped up this weekend. Then I’ll get back to blogging. Promise.


From The News …

      50 Comments on From The News …

Interesting items from my inbox and elsewhere …

Why people hate vegans, part whatever … and how to deal with them

If I’m ever in Toronto again, I’m having a meal at this guy’s restaurant.

Animal rights activists were horrified this weekend when the co-owner of a Dundas West restaurant they’d been protesting for weeks staged what appeared to be a counter-protest of his own.

The restaurant in question, Antler, is known for serving “local seasonal and wild foods” that are native to Canada, such as bison, boar, rabbit, duck and deer.

A group of local activists had arranged a protest in front of the restaurant on Friday evening, writing on Facebook that it would be their fourth of such protests outside Antler.

Yeah, yeah, the usual holier-than-thou nonsense from vegan zealots. That’s not news.  But the owner’s method of dealing with them was:

About an hour into their demonstration, protesters say that the restaurant’s co-owner and chef, Michael Hunter, “brought out an entire animal leg and started cutting it up right in the window on a table reserved for diners.”

Event organizer Marni Jill Ugar wrote later that night on Facebook that she felt Hunter had been “taunting” the group by cutting up a deer leg right in front of them.

Aw, jeez, you try to annoy the crap out of the owner and his patrons, and he responds by taunting you? What is this world coming to?

“Once the deer was cooked Michael Hunter, owner of Antler, sat back down at the window to eat the dead deer,” she wrote.

“Look in the window. Look at Michael Hunter. That deer was treated like a joke. That deer was an innocent animal who did not want to die.”

Same goes for all the innocent animals who are killed to farm your soybeans, you mental midget.

At one point, a couple of police officers arrive and go into the restaurant. They are seen speaking to Hunter as he continues to prepare the meat.

After about a minute, Hunter packs up his tools and meat. Both he and the police officers are then seen smiling as they walk away.

They’re smiling, I’m laughing.

Meatless sliders?

Speaking of soybeans, White Castle is now making meatless sliders:

Vegetarians who once found it impossible to eat fast food have a new option that will give them the true White Castle experience.

The fast food chain is introducing the “Impossible Slider.”

It’s the first plant-based and scientist-developed burger to hit the fast food market.

Yeah, that’s the key to good health: eating foods developed in laboratories by scientists.

It’s made with a meat substitute that apparently tastes and even bleeds like real meat, but is made entirely out of plants.

If you want something that looks like a burger, tastes like a burger, and even bleeds like a burger, just eat a burger. Nobody ever goes looking for meat that looks and tastes like tofu.

On the other hand, the next time vegans decide to protest outside Antler, perhaps the owner can cut up a bleeding meat substitute in the window.

Meat and Men, Part One

As you probably know, the vast majority of vegans are women – around 75%, according to one survey I saw. So why is that? A study reported in Science Daily gives us the answer:

According to a new study in the Journal of Consumer Research, consumers are influenced by a strong association of meat with masculinity.

“We examined whether people in Western cultures have a metaphoric link between meat and men,” write authors Paul Rozin (University of Pennsylvania), Julia M. Hormes (Louisiana State University), Myles S. Faith (University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill), and Brian Wansink (Cornell University). The answer, they found, was a strong connection between eating meat — especially muscle meat, like steak — and masculinity.

In a number of experiments that looked at metaphors and certain foods, like meat and milk, the authors found that people rated meat as more masculine than vegetables. They also found that meat generated more masculine words when people discussed it, and that people viewed male meat eaters as being more masculine than non-meat eaters.

The authors of the study seem to consider the association of meat and manliness a problem we must overcome:

If marketers or health advocates want to counteract such powerful associations, they need to address the metaphors that shape consumer attitudes, the authors explain. For example, an education campaign that urges people to eat more soy or vegetables would be a tough sell, but reshaping soy burgers to make them resemble beef or giving them grill marks might help cautious men make the transition.

Or you could just make those soy burgers bleed. But as for those “cautious” men, perhaps they just intuitively understand the effects of swapping meat for soy …

Meat and Men, Part Two

Here are some quotes from a study in my files:

A randomised crossover dietary intervention study was performed to evaluate the effects of replacing meat protein in the diet with a soyabean product, tofu, on blood concentrations of testosterone, dihydrotestosterone, androstanediol glucuronide, oestradiol, sex hormone-binding globulin (SHBG), and the free androgen index. Forty-two healthy adult males aged 35-62 years were studied. Diets were isoenergetic, with either 150 g lean meat or 290 g tofu daily providing an equivalent amount of macronutrients, with only the source of protein differing between the two diets.

Okay, so they divided up the men and fed one group meat, the other group tofu. And here are the results:

The mean testosterone:oestradiol value was 10% higher (P = 0.06) after the meat diet. SHBG was 3% higher (P = 0.07), whereas the FAI was 7% lower (P = 0.06), after the tofu diet compared with the meat diet. There was a significant correlation between the difference in SHBG and testosterone:oestradiol and weight change. Adjusting for weight change revealed SHBG to be 8.8% higher on the tofu diet and testosterone:oestradiol to be significantly lower.

So the meat-eating men had a higher testosterone to estrogen ratio, and lower levels of sex hormone-binding globulin. Wikipedia tells us SHBG limits the bioavailability of hormones like testosterone, and then adds this little nugget:

SHBG levels are usually about twice as high in women than in men.

So I’m pretty sure swapping soy protein for meat isn’t something most of us men want to do … even if the soy burger bleeds.

A meat-eating man sets a record.

If you saw Super Size Me, you may recall the interview with Don Gorske, the guy who eats a Big Mac every day. Frankly, I wasn’t sure why Spurlock included him. He was lean and fit, and thus seemed to undermine Spurlock’s premise that eating at McDonald’s makes people fat.

Anyway, Mr. Gorske recently reached a new milestone:

Another day, another burger, and one major McMilestone for one man.

Don Gorske, 64, recently downed his 30,000th Big Mac from McDonald’s.

He’s eaten at least one almost every day, since May 17, 1972.

The Wisconsin man has a spot in the Guinness Book of World Records. In case you’re wondering, he says his cholesterol and blood pressure are normal – and he weighs five pounds less than he did 5,000 Big Macs ago.

And he somehow managed to avoid having a liver that resembles an alcoholic’s … perhaps because unlike Spurlock, he’s not a closet alcoholic.

How to kill raccoons slowly

Raccoons have become the bane of my existence. Remember last summer, when I found out Rocky Raccoon VI was living inside the chicken coop – after he wiped out half the flock?

In the past month, I’ve trapped and killed Rocky Raccoon VII and Rocky Raccoon VIII. Both of them managed to find a way into the chicken yard – Rocky Raccoon VIII apparently climbed a tree, leaped onto the net and chewed a hole in it.

Our last remaining flock is now so small, we’ve gone from selling eggs to buying eggs at the grocery store when we run out. It was a real letdown to put eggs in the grocery basket after all these years.

Anyway, some raccoons are apparently feeling the effects of eating too much people food:

Here’s another reason for keeping raccoons out of your compost bin: our leftovers are giving them high blood sugar.

A new study by a group of Ontario researchers found that raccoons with easy access to human food waste were significantly heavier and had higher blood glucose levels than others.

The findings, published last week in the journal Conservation Physiology, compared data from three groups of raccoons: those with high access to human food waste living on the grounds of the Toronto Zoo, those in a conservation area with moderate access to garbage, and those in a farming area with hardly any access to food waste.

Blood glucose level is determined by measuring for the presence of a glycated serum protein (GSP). The urban raccoons averaged GSP levels more than double those of their rural cousins.

So the raccoons eating human food have high blood sugar – and double the glycated proteins of the country raccoons that kill my chickens. And what do researchers blame for the high blood sugar? Too many leftover donuts? Breads? Pretzels? Candies?

Of course not:

That doesn’t surprise Suzanne MacDonald, an animal behaviour specialist in the psychology department at York University.

“They’re eating high fat, high salt, just like we are. It’s not surprising that raccoons are mirroring what humans in cities look like.”

Yeah, it just HAD to be the fat and salt, of course.

And that’s why I can’t retire from blogging anytime soon.


Lies Lying Liars Tell

      75 Comments on Lies Lying Liars Tell

Last week, I explained why lying liars lie: they believe it’s okay to abuse the truth if what they consider a Big Truth is advanced in the process. Morgan Spurlock was, by his own admission, an alcoholic for decades, yet allowed the world to believe eating at McDonald’s for 30 days trashed his liver. I suspect he told himself it was okay to lie, since McDonald’s is an evil corporation that sells unhealthy food.

I’m convinced the world of nutrition research is full of lying liars telling lies. And most of the lies they tell are about the dangers of eating animal foods.

I understand when vegans who are scientific illiterates insist meat will kill us. The poor little dears don’t know any better. Yesterday on Twitter, I broke my rule about arguing with idiots and had some back-and-forth exchanges with a vegan. It was, of course, the same old, same old. The vegan cited a couple of observational studies as proof that meat is deadly.

Since this was all in response to a tweet in which I mentioned Tim Noakes, Professor Noakes replied to the vegan as well.  He explained that observational studies don’t prove cause and effect. The vegan’s reply? Saying “observational studies don’t count” is just semantics. The evidence is very strong.

Yes, you read that correctly. A guy who thinks the difference between clinical and observational studies is just a matter of semantics was arguing about science with Tim Noakes. It was like watching a child who’s learned to play three notes on a recorder arguing about music theory with Mozart.

Anyway, we can forgive the vegan. He was simply regurgitating what the vegan preachers always say and doesn’t know enough to recognize how little he knows. I don’t believe he was being intentionally dishonest.

But then there are the lying liars — doctors and researchers who simply can’t be that ignorant. And yet they ignore all the contrary evidence — not to mention the principles of basic science — and continue to tell us animal foods will kill us.

Why? I can think of two reasons. The first is that they believe eating animals is immoral. That’s certainly the case with the loonies at the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine.

PCRM is, of course, an organization founded to promote veganism, not a group of concerned doctors. Only a tiny fraction of its members are physicians. Dr. Neal Bernard, the founder, grew up on a cattle ranch and now preaches about the dangers of eating meat. Perhaps Freud would have something to say about that. What I’ll say about it is that Dr. Bernard will say pretty much anything to scare people away from animal foods.

One of PCRM’s biggest campaigns warns people about the dangers of eating eggs. And yes, they can point to observational studies in which eggs are associated with diseases. But there are plenty of studies that show the opposite. For example, here’s the result of an observational study reported in USA Today:

The results showed people who consumed one egg a day carried a lower risk for cardiovascular disease and strokes compared to those who didn’t eat eggs at all.

And here’s the result of a clinical study reported in Science Daily:

Eating up to 12 eggs a week does not increase cardiovascular risk factors in people with pre-diabetes or type 2 diabetes.

Dr. Bernard is a zealot, but not an idiot. He has to know about the studies that show no harm from eating eggs. But that’s the little truth (otherwise known as the actual facts). He’s more interested in the Big Truth, which for him means that people shouldn’t eat animals because it’s immoral. So he’ll happily lie about the evidence.

Other lying liars have different motivations. As I recounted in a recent post, Walter Willett of Harvard is now claiming that one-third of premature deaths could be prevented if we all became vegetarians. One-third! That’s a huge, unbelievable number … especially since some large observational studies (like this one and this one) showed no difference at all in the lifespans of vegetarians and meat eaters.

Surely Dr. Willett is aware of those studies. So why would he tell us going vegetarian can have a huge effect on mortality that’s never been demonstrated in any study?

Perhaps this will explain it:  Willett is now the co-chair of an organization called The EAT-Lancet Commission on Food, Planet, Health. Here are some quotes from their website:

The Sustainable Development Goals cover topics ranging from urban life and education to oceans, inequality and gender.

Food production is notoriously energy-intensive. Reducing the amount of energy used in developed countries’ food systems is an important step to lower GHG emissions and environmental impact.

Food production contributes around a quarter of all anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions. By eating limited amounts of meat or none at all we can reduce methane emissions and improve our diets.

Reducing inequalities between countries and within societies themselves will require a huge boost for those at the bottom of the ladder.

Goal 5 is the gender equality stand-alone goal, but it can only be successful if women are integrated into each and every goal. That means goals around food too. There are many reasons to focus specifically on women’s nutrition: For example, healthy women are better equipped to break existing barriers to equality and they can nourish healthy babies.

There is also a reverse relationship between food and peace, justice, and strong institutions: A lack of these can also be a root cause of dysfunctional food systems, hunger and poor nutrition. Getting it right on food can both depend on this goal, and strengthen its attainment.

I could go on and on with quotes, but you get the idea. These are a bunch of social justice warriors, and Willett has become one of them. He believes eating meat is bad for the planet, bad for social equality, perhaps bad for women and children, etc., etc.

Now, I don’t care what your views on social equality, gender equality, peace, love, justice, clean water and free healthcare for all happen to be. If we’re talking about the effects of eating meat on human health, leave them at the door. Your social-justice goals shouldn’t figure into the discussion … unless you’re the type who believes it’s okay to abuse little truth in order to promote Big Truth.

Yes, I’m only speculating, but in light of his outlandish and unsupported claims about how we’d avoid one-third of all premature deaths by going vegetarian, I’m convinced Willett is promoting his Big Truth at the expense of actual facts.

An article with the rather provocative headline No amount of alcohol, sausage or bacon is safe according to cancer experts landed in my inbox recently. Here are some quotes:

No amount of alcohol, sausage or bacon is safe according to a new global blueprint on how to beat cancer.

Even small amounts of processed meats and booze increase the risk of a host of cancers outlined in World Cancer Research Fund (WCRF) guidelines updated every decade.

The respected global authority has unveiled a 10-point plan to cut your risk of getting cancer by up to 40%.

Boy, human beings must be remarkably delicate creates if no amount of bacon or alcohol is safe. I hadn’t heard of the World Cancer Research Fund, so I went looking. I found this article from the Huffington Post illuminating:

Among ten recommendations on how to avoid cancer, the [WCRF] report argues that there is “convincing” evidence that red meat and processed meats increase the risk of colorectal cancer.

However, the largest ever study examining the link between colorectal cancer and red and processed meat consumption did not find any association. But it was never been published – even as 19 other studies on cancer and diet were published by the Pooling Project.

The fact is that their colorectal cancer study had more subjects than many of the other studies published by the Pooling Project – and the four-year delay in publication cannot but raise the question of whether their results just didn’t fit in with the nutritional beliefs of Harvard’s School of Public Health, one of whose senior figures – Dr. Walter Willett – has long recommended limiting red meat and who, coincidentally, is a board member of the World Cancer Research Fund.

I don’t believe I need to comment. Draw your own conclusions as to why Willett would perhaps block publication of a large study that found no association between cancer and red and processed meats.

I don’t think we can blame Willett for this one, but it’s another fine example of lying liars telling lies: A recent article in the U.K. Telegraph was titled Atkins diet may cause heart failure, major new protein study finds. Ah, so they studied the Atkins diet, right? Wrong.

The Atkins diet may raise the risk of fatal heart disease, according to a new study.

Analysis of more than 2,440 men found that those with a high protein intake faced a 33 per cent increased risk of developing heart failure, where the organ is unable to pump sufficient blood and oxygen around the body.

Those who ate the most protein from animal sources had a 43 per cent higher risk of heart failure compare to those in the study who ate the least.

It wasn’t a study of the Atkins diet at all. It was just another lousy observational study based on food questionnaires. Men who ate more animal protein had a slightly higher rate of heart failure. Okay, fine. And I’ll bet you dollars to donuts (and you can keep the donuts) the men who ate more animal protein also ate more sugar, drank more alcohol, etc., etc. There was no mention whatsoever of any subjects being on a low-carb diet.

The New York Post ran an article on the same study titled Are high-protein diets quietly killing middle-aged men? Go look at the photo that accompanies the article. It’s a lean, muscular guy clutching his chest. Yeah, that happens all the time. Lean, fit guys have heart attacks because too much protein quietly kills them.

Here are some quotes from the article:

The American Heart Association study’s authors say there’s more research to be done on the connection between high-protein diets and heart failure.

However, it doesn’t look good for middle-aged men who gorge on burgers and bacon instead of whole grains and veggies.

In other words, the American Heart Association once again conducted an observational study and discovered that by gosh, they’ve been right all along. We should be eating more whole grains and veggies and stop gorging on burgers and bacon. Too much protein will give you heart failure.

But then the American Heart Association will have to explain this study, which was posted on the site for the European Society of Cardiology under the headline Heart failure patients with a higher protein intake live longer.

Heart failure patients who consume more protein live longer, according to research presented today at Heart Failure 2018 and the World Congress on Acute Heart Failure, a European Society of Cardiology congress.

This study investigated the association between protein intake and survival in 2,281 patients with heart failure in the BIOSTAT-CHF study, which was conducted in 11 countries in Europe. Patients were divided into four groups according to the amount of protein they consumed, and then the association with mortality was assessed.

At the end of the median 21 month follow up period, 31% of patients in the lowest quartile of protein intake (40 grams or less per day) had died compared to 18% of patients in the highest quartile of protein intake (70 grams or more per day).

After adjusting for multiple confounders, including age and renal function, patients in the lowest quartile of protein intake had a 46% higher risk of death than those in the highest quartile of protein intake.

So I guess more protein will save your life if you’ve had heart failure … but a high-protein diet is the reason you had heart failure in the first place.  Yeah, that must be it.

Or it could just be that lying liars lie. When doctors and researchers tell you meat will kill you, I think that’s the safe assumption.