#0039 - Paul Saladino

On this episode, we cover the Joe Rogan Experience 1551 with guest Paul Saladino.

The No Rogan Experience starts now.

Welcome back to the show.

It's a show where two podcasters with now 115 hours of Rogan experience get to know Joe Rogan.

It's a show for those who are curious about Joe Rogan, his guests, and their claims, as well as for anyone who wants to understand Joe's ever-growing media influence.

I'm Cecil Cicero.

I'm joined by Michael Marshall.

Today, we're going to be covering Joe's October 2020 interview with Paul Saladino.

So, Marsh, how did Joe introduce Paul in the show notes?

So, according to Joe, Dr.

Paul Saladino is a physician and board-certified nutrition specialist.

He's a leading expert in the science and practice of the carnivore diet, a food regimen to which Saladino credits numerous health benefits seen in the patients under his care.

My favorite comment on this video was like the fourth comment down.

Someone said in an alternate universe, Paul Meatino is trying to convince Joe to eat a vegan diet.

Yeah, I saw someone saying Paul Saladino is his name because he's not Saladin.

It's really funny that his name has Salad in it.

Yeah, we're

that's it.

And that's all the jokes we're going to have about Salad.

That's it.

That's the last of us.

So is there anything else we should know about Paul Saladino?

Yeah,

I think there is some stuff.

So Saladino is a psychiatrist and a health influencer.

And as the show notes sort of suggested, he is all about the meat.

He was a physician at the time of

this show going out to air in 2020.

But by 2022, his license to practice medicine in California has been listed as delinquent due to his failure to pay fees.

And the California State Medical Board now lists him as no practice permitted.

This particular interview catapulted Saladino into the limelight.

And now his Instagram has 2.8 million followers.

His TikTok channel, more than 770,000.

He's got nearly a million YouTube subscribers.

So this was the big time for him.

It really genuinely was.

Side note, he often appears shirtless in a lot of his videos on TikTok and Instagram and YouTube, which is unusual for either a physician or a psychiatrist.

It's unusual for either.

It is admittedly very unusual.

That's a very strange photo to see if you're looking for a doctor, like on WebMD or something.

I will say this: it was actually hard to find a picture of him with a shirt on to use in our promotional materials for this show that I do every week.

So it was actually difficult.

I had to, like, it was either going to crop off a shirtless guy or find

Yeah,

yeah.

Um, so what else about him?

Well, his book, The Carnival Code, is described by the New Yorker as the closest thing the paleo diet movement has to a manifesto.

Um, he also, it turns out, advocates uh advocates for raw milk, despite there being no evidence it has any health benefit, and despite there being lots of evidence it has risks of bacterial infection and various other things.

Um, you may have seen actually he was the influencer, in fact, in May this year who was doing raw milk shots with RFK Jr.

in the White House.

So that was Saladino.

A year before that, he posted a video, this was in May 2024,

advising people to feed raw dairy to infants, which is an astonishingly bad idea, incredibly dangerous idea.

It's not his only bad idea.

In 2020, he shed his hygiene regime, which involves no shampoo, no soap, no deodorant, no toothpaste.

Instead, he uses water for all of the above.

I thought you were going to say he rolls around and dusts like a chinchilla, but okay, sure.

To be honest, if he was cleaning his teeth with raw liver, I'd prefer that to just using water because at least he'd be doing some scrubbing going on there.

Something there.

Yeah.

He's finally, he's the founder of Heart and Soil, which is an Austin, Tesla, Austin, Texas-based food supplement company whose name, for my liking, is way too close to blood and soil.

Way too close to that.

Sure is.

He co-owns that company with the fellow carnivore diet influencer brian johnson who's also known as the liver king oh

who is probably on our list to look at at some point in the future he i don't think he's ever been on joe he has he not i don't think so i don't think he has i i did a i did a search before i i didn't find him that's i i'm not sure about that but i'm pretty sure he hasn't been on joe rogan's show he's he's certainly in the wider rogan verse i think we can find him in the wider in the network of joever stuff yeah exactly and heart and soil, sorry, heart and soil, they sell bottles of encapsulated organ meat supplements, products, and liver pills.

Though, as we're going to learn, Saladinho is not against just chowing down on some of the real raw stuff right there in the studio.

Absolutely.

Absolutely.

Okay, so carnivore diet.

What did they talk about?

They talked about meat.

Okay.

They talked a lot about how meat is really, really good for you for all sorts of reasons.

He talked about how plants are really, really bad for you for all sorts of reasons, including that the plants are actively trying to poison you.

They talk about how we should all aspire to be like the Hadzi tribe, as long as we don't read too much about the Hadzi tribe and what their diet actually consisted of.

And at one point, they have a kind of side conversation about how ducks who get turned into foie gras actually have a pretty sweet life when you think about it.

Yeah,

they certainly do.

Okay, so we got a lot to get into, but before we get to our main event, we want to say thank you to all of our Area 51 all-access past patrons.

That's maybe just recite Jabberwockie, Fred Argruthius, Blue Ridge True Crime Podcast, Stone Banana, Don't Thank Me, Your Show Is Just Worth Investment, Daleen, Slarty Bart Fast, Tax-Free Nuclear Beer Run, Grodius End of All Things, Laura Williams, No Not That One, The Other One, Mike Fish, The Fallacious Trump Podcast, Am Am I a robot?

Captcha says no, but maintenance records say yes.

Lucy Cortez, for the love of God, please put normal names.

KTA, 11 Gruthius, Chonky Cat in Chicago is a salty witch.

Stargazer97, definitely not an AI overlord.

Scott Laird and billionaire oligarchs.

I do want to mention that we were on the Fallacious Trump podcast a couple weeks ago.

We mentioned it.

It just released.

So it's out now.

Check it out.

You can find us on that show.

We guested on that show and had an interview with Jim, and it was wonderful.

We had a great time.

So go check it out.

I want to mention that all the people I just named, they subscribe to patreon.com/slash no rogan.

You can do that too.

All patrons get early access to episodes as well as a special patron-only bonus segment each week.

And this week, we're going to listen as yet another guest tries to explain cholesterol to Joe as he chokes down raw beef liver.

So check that out at patreon.com/slash slash no rogan.

But for now, our main event.

It's time.

How do you define time?

Don't be so sure, bucko.

Huge thank you to this week's veteran voice of the podcast.

That was another Jordan Peterson imitation

this time by Kurt Health.

That was amazing, by the way.

I really loved it.

He was announcing our main event.

Remember that you too can be on the show by sending us a recording of you giving your best rendition of it's time.

Send that to knowroganpod at gmail.com.

That's K-N-O-W, roganpod at gmail.com.

And let us know how you'd like to be credited on the show.

So today we're going back to 2020.

And one of the reasons we're doing this is because Joe, for a long time, has talked about this sort of meat diet that he's on.

And he mentions it in multiple shows here and there, never really covers it too much.

And it's important to go back and sort sort of see where does he get his ideas from and where does he reinforce his ideas.

I think as we come into this show and hear him talk, we're going to recognize that these are ideas that he already currently holds and he already currently follows.

So where does he get those ideas from and who reinforces them?

Well, this person, Paul Saladino, who's coming in, this person is either someone who has helped influence him.

And you can hear in the beginning clip, he's going to talk about how he helped influence him and someone who is also going to tell him more about why eating meat is so important.

The surprising, most surprising part of this whole episode is the vegetables are poison part, which they spend so much time on and it is kind of amazing.

So much of our clips in the main event segment is going to be about consuming meat, how healthy it is, how it's good for you and how eating, genuinely, how eating plants is bad and how if you eat more plants, you're more bad.

So it's a really interesting juxtaposition, flipping diets on their head.

And that's what we're going to cover in our main event this week.

We're going to get started.

The intro music is still playing and he's talking to Paul.

Listen, man, I've been telling everybody that I eat mostly meat and they look at me like I'm going to die.

And it's kind of funny.

And I've had these conversations with people and they were like, oh, well, if you eat too much, Jamie, can we get more waters?

We only have one water out here.

I've been telling these people like.

that I eat only meat.

And they're like, well, you know, if you eat too much meat, it causes colon cancer, causes this, causes that.

And one of the things that i say and as a talking point that i actually stole from you is that most plants are inedible but almost all animals are edible and when you say that to them they look at you like oh

like if you just go out and eat like random plants you'll get sick as

that's real so like when i tell people i eat mostly meat they look at me like like you're doing something really steal like rob low started laughing at me i said i have like an animal-based diet you know some people are plant-based i'm animal based i love that word yeah animal animal-based.

Yeah.

Just steal what they're saying and make it better.

But what you said, what I've heard you say, that is, that's an accurate way of describing it.

Most plants are not edible, but almost every animal is edible.

I mean, and I think that if people spend time in the wilderness, regardless of the latitude, they'll start to appreciate this.

Yeah.

And I've mostly spent time in latitudes that are further from the equator than not.

But even at the equator, if you go walking around the woods or the forest or the jungle there and you try to eat leaves or stems or bark,

you're going to die really freaking fast.

So I think it's really interesting.

You could hear Joe actually saying that he's stolen these talking points from Paul Saladino.

So this is not the first time.

This isn't like someone coming along to promote their new dietary book that Joe's never heard of.

Maybe he's heard the audio book in preparation for the interview.

This is someone Joe has sought out because this is someone who's already influential to Joe.

So I think that's kind of an important point.

He's saying here that most animals are edible.

Well, okay, that might well be true.

Partly, that's going to be because they largely sort of shared a common ancestor, whereas the common ancestor of all plants goes back much further.

But the parts of the plants that we do eat aren't all of the plants.

That's also true of the animals.

There's a large portion of the animals we don't eat.

So you can say you don't eat the bark of a tree, right?

But you don't eat the bones of an animal either.

So like there are kind of equivalences to draw here.

We also don't eat most animals.

Like statistically, we eat a larger number of different plants than we eat different animals.

In fact, we actually statistically eat a larger number of brassica variants of plants than we eat varied animals because brassica accounts for broccoli and brussels sprouts and cabbage and kale and all these other things.

So brassica alone, there's more different brassicas than there are certainly mammals that we eat.

The whole point here is if you just eat plants, you're going to die really fast because plants aren't good.

Plants are dangerous.

Plants, as we're going to learn, are poisonous.

What are the animals that we're eating eating?

What are the animals that we eat?

What are they eating?

It's plants.

So, okay, it's plants at the bottom of this, regardless how you look at it.

Yeah, that's a great point, Marsh.

And this is something he's going to come back to throughout.

And he's saying very,

I think he's saying very severe language here when he's saying, you're going to die from this.

You will die from this.

You'll eat these things and you'll die.

And there's so many different, there's countries in the world where 20% of the population is vegetarian.

and there's they're doing just fine.

It's not, you would notice these things, you would know, you would see the statistically there would be a

some sort of dip in the mortality in places where they ate more vegetables than they didn't.

You can already tell that this is not a true thing that he is already starting out on.

Yeah, uh, I want to say,

piggyback off of what you said about what we eat, you know, if you just walk through the grocery store, count the number of plants you see versus the number of things that are packaged in the meat section and see how many, how many different, just see how many different varieties you can get in the meat section.

What, maybe 20 if you include types of fish?

You can probably get a lot of things.

The fish is doing a lot of heavy lifting.

Fish is doing a lot of heavy lifting because there's really just three or four major animals that you eat, maybe five inside of the mammals and the bird section.

And then the rest of it's all fish.

So you've got a lot of

plants that you're eating.

If you walk through there, there's hundreds of different types of plants and different varieties of apples, different varieties of other things.

So it's just not true what they're saying.

And one of the things that I noticed, and I want you to pay attention to it, I feel like Joel Joe does this because I think he doesn't value when other people have empathy.

I think he genuinely doesn't value it.

And he feels guilty when other people have empathy so he has to sort of push back on that and say and almost in a way that he's like

trolling someone to to sort of gross them out in some way it almost feels like it's a pushback against them saying well I think it's unethical to eat animals and Joe saying oh you think it's unethical and then he's smashing a burger in his face just to show them how much he dislikes their idea and how how he hates how they're making him feel guilty about it you don't have to feel guilty about it You could just, you could just not pay attention to what other people think about whether or not you should eat meat.

Yeah, I think that's right.

And I think it actually goes back to something we used to highlight in a lot of the episodes that we came across when we started doing this show that Joe would bring up all the time, did you know that trees can talk to each other?

And it was again that effort to say that it's no more ethical to eat.

plants than animals because trees are intelligent.

And I think it's in the same sort of space of,

I don't want to feel bad for what my diet consists of.

So rather than reconcile the ethics of what I'm doing and just become okay with that, I have to denigrate anything that I disagree with in order to make myself feel better.

Yeah.

And he's going to, in some of the previous episodes we did, he's quoting Landman at length to talk about the genocide of mice that you eat when you eat wheat or whatever, just to reinforce that point over and over and over again.

And this is something to pay attention to as we work our way through these clips.

Okay, so

the next bit of tape here, we're still talking about plants and why they're not good for you.

You start to realize, wait a minute, why are we imagining that plants are benign?

They're beautiful.

They're fun to look at, but they are rooted in the ground.

They can't run away from us.

What's their defense?

Well, if you're out in the desert, a cacti has got a thorn.

or a rose has a thorn, a spine, but most of them just have plant defense chemicals.

And that's not even conjecture.

That's just known botanical science that plants make chemicals broadly called phytoelexins that are meant to dissuade animals, insects, fungi from over consuming them.

And so my fear is that we've assumed that plants are good for us.

And we see everything with these plant compounds through the lens of these are good for us.

How can we prove they're good for us?

There's a whole different part of the story.

What if we think about it from a plant's perspective?

What if these plant chemicals are not good for us?

And we're misinterpreting the research.

And I can talk about why I think we are.

And maybe maybe the plants are just making these chemicals to say, hey, if you eat a lot of me, you're not going to feel good.

I'm going to affect your thyroid.

I'm going to affect your androgens, your sex hormones, or whatever.

I'm going to make you have diarrhea or nausea or I'm going to kill you.

And we've just been thinking more plants, more plants, more plants.

When it's like, wait a minute, why are we eating plants in the first place?

So yeah, his argument here is plants have got a defense mechanism.

It's a chemical defense mechanism.

Animals, they've got other ways of avoiding being eaten.

They can run away or they can scare us, but plants, they're rooted to the spot.

They've only got chemicals.

So because of that, we shouldn't eat them.

We should eat the animals instead.

But those animals, again, they're eating the plants.

So how come the defense mechanism for plants doesn't harm the animals as well?

And it's because the animals evolved to be able to eat those plants.

And so did we.

Now, he talks about the plants developing this defense mechanism and the mechanism by which they develop that, the process by which they develop that is evolution.

But plants aren't the only thing that have evolved.

The reason they will evolve a defense mechanism is because they'll be predated on by animals, animals like us.

They will adapt to try and defend themselves.

We will adapt to be able to overcome that defense and it becomes an arms race over time.

So plants didn't evolve in isolation.

They evolved at the same time as us and therefore we can still eat these things.

Any argument that he has right now for why we naturally shouldn't be eating plants also extends just as much to the animals that definitely do eat plants.

And the last argument that he makes there is, well, what if?

What if these things are bad?

What if we think about it from a plant's perspective?

What if these things are actually bad?

Well, what if isn't an argument?

It's a hypothetical.

What if they're bad?

We'll figure out, are they bad?

We'll study that.

We'll look into the phytochemistry of it.

And when we do, there's no evidence that plants are routinely bad for us, unless we're eating the bark and the leaves and the various things we shouldn't be eating.

The other thing he's missing on this as well, that's just occurred to me listening to this back through.

A lot of the parts of the plants that we eat are the parts of the plants that they grow in order to be eaten, in order to spread their seeds.

We eat the fruit of a plant.

Plants spend a lot of their time and energy making a fruit in order for it to be eaten by an animal.

So those seeds will be ingested by the animal and then shit out somewhere else.

And then those seeds will grow.

Like the fruit is the plant saying, come and eat this bit of me.

That's how I spread.

That's how I grow.

It's how I procreate.

So he's missing that massive, massive part of plant evolution.

The whole point of fruit is, please eat me.

Yeah.

And he's also not taking into account that we, as a species, have altered evolution of these plants to better fit our diet for better yields.

We make them more resilient.

We do all these things so that we can then collect them in mass and then feed more people.

So we've changed them through genetic modification.

Either that's, you know, in a lab or just through centuries of us selecting those different plants that did better and produced better yields.

Go look at a piece of maize and then look at a piece of corn that we have modified over the years and years and years.

And one is scarcely got anything out of it.

It looks like a little baby corn with blacked out teeth, right?

It's a tiny little nothing.

And then you have this gigantic cob of corn with these huge kernels on it in comparison.

We have changed that plant to become part of our diet.

So while maybe you probably don't want to go out into the wilderness and pluck a bunch of maize and maybe, you know, see what's what's possible to eat on it and nibble on that, that's probably not preferred.

What's preferred is all the stuff we literally made for us to eat, that we have basically created to fit our palate and to make sure that we are nutritiously fed by this food.

He is taking all of that into account.

I don't know, some sort of weird hunter-gatherer lifestyle that he thinks people live.

We all go to the grocery store, Paul.

That's how we get food.

Yeah, I mean, that's an excellent point.

I mean, I mentioned in the earlier clip, Brassica is the plant that gave birth to through very careful selective breeding by humans

over generations.

It gave birth to cabbages and kale and broccoli and cauliflower and all those by selecting four different parts of the plant.

It was one plant to begin with until we put a lot of time and effort into maximizing the way that it would grow to give us the bits that we want.

We've done a lot of work here, Paul, to make sure that we've got something we can eat.

Okay, so in this next bit, he's going to be talking about deficiencies of vitamins and minerals.

And so this is a piece on that.

And there are other molecules like this that are also found in these type of foods, the brassicate family of foods, things like goitrin or allyl isothiocyanate.

They're all isothiocyanates.

So they're widely known to affect iodine chemistry at the level of the thyroid.

Have you ever seen people with the big necks in Africa, like the goiters?

There's an endemic goiter.

Get this huge neck.

That's hypothyroidism because they're consuming lots of foods that have goitrogenic, that are goitrogenic foods, lots of foods that have similarly isothiocyanate compounds that are inhibiting the absorption or at least the

utilization of iodine at the level of the thyroid.

So it's working against the thyroid.

So the intent of plants is very clear here.

It's saying, if you eat too much of me, I'm going to affect your thyroid negatively, and that's going to affect every other hormonal system in your body.

What he's neglecting to mention here is that the people in that area don't have a lot of iodine in their diet.

And it's not because plants cause this, it's because they don't, they have a lack of iodine in the things that they eat.

What can prevent this is a balanced diet.

You can just eat a balanced diet and that will prevent the things from happening.

But he doesn't say that.

What he says is don't eat plants because plants will cause some sort of problem.

And you could just instead say a balanced diet will prevent it too.

Yeah, absolutely.

This actually came up on a recent episode of my other show, Skeptics with a K,

where Dr.

Alice, one of my co-hosts there, was talking about a supermarket-free in-store magazine that was giving health recommendations to people to take CMOS as a supplement because you need to get enough iodine in your diet to avoid goiters and various things like that.

Now, actually, CMOS supplementation and iodine supplementation in a lot of ways can be quite a bad idea, especially if you're using naturally occurring iodine, because while too little iodine is bad for you, having too much of it is also really bad for you and cause all sorts of issues.

I'll link in the show notes where Alice goes into the evidence on that.

But even in that case, CMOS is a plant.

and is a high source of iodine.

So the plants that are trying to stop you having iodine, there are other plants that have got plenty of iodine in them.

So where is this plant that's trying to strip you of your vital nutrients?

The solution there isn't go off and chow down on a sheep slipper.

It's to have a bit of a plant somewhere.

So yeah,

you can get iodine.

You can get all these nutrients from plants as well.

As you say, for a lot of the places where you do have these issues, it's where the soil is largely been depleted or doesn't have good naturally occurring sources of iodine.

That's not a problem for us because we typically don't eat the things that grew within 15 miles of where we live.

unless you're following a diet that Joe Rogan or a farming strategy that Joe Rogan really wants, which is sustainable regenerative farming of

don't have stuff that travels more than 15 miles.

If you're going to do that, you need to make sure the soil quality is good because you will end up with iodine deficiencies and various things.

So this next clip, they were talking for several minutes about how bad broccoli is.

This is sort of the culmination of that particular conversation.

That's like vegetables.

That's all it is, man.

Just eat your broccoli.

It's fine.

But I cut out part of it.

We actually had three or four of these clips selected and we sort of condensed our notes on them because very specifically, they keep bringing up how bad broccoli is.

This is the culmination of that conversation.

Have there been any independent studies that show people taking like broccoli sprouts and then doing it for a prolonged period of time, measuring their system and then doing environmental hormesis and seeing if they measure up?

Well, there's actually studies that show they have two groups of people, and I can pull these up if you want.

There's studies that compare people that eat essentially no vegetables or low fruits and vegetables to high fruits and vegetables.

And they'll compare them at four, eight, or 12 weeks.

And at the end, they see no differences in the oxidative stress markers, the inflammatory markers, markers of DNA damage.

So it's pretty shaky ground to say that invariably all the studies of fruits and vegetables show that they provide this benefit.

In the short term, sulforaphane can create more antioxidant response.

You can get more glutathione.

But if you take it out a little bit of time, it doesn't look like there's any difference between people who are eating things like broccoli or Jerusalem artichokes or carrots or cabbage or any of these other vegetables compared to a group that eats none of them.

So there's these fruit and vegetable intervention studies, which don't show any differences between these people.

That's bananas.

I mean, it is bananas because it likely isn't true.

If you're not eating fruit and vegetables, including bananas, you're going to have some nutritional deficiencies or you're more likely to have nutritional deficiencies.

He's talking about a particular study.

It sounds sounds like the study he's talking about is from 2012 called Effective Fruit and Vegetable Intake on Oxidative Stress and Inflammation in CLPD, a randomized controlled trial.

That appears to be the study he's talking about.

It is, it describes itself as an exploratory study.

So not a full big kind of study.

It's a pilot essentially to say, is there something here?

It's got 81 participants.

It's not a massive kind of study.

It's not hugely,

hugely indicative.

It's not hugely powerful.

But that's the study he cites.

It's not the only study out there that has looked at whether people taking various different levels of fruit and vegetables in their diet has a positive or negative effect,

especially even a positive, negative effect on things like oxidative stress.

So I'll link a couple in the show notes.

But basically, the one that he's citing agrees with them.

The other studies show there's actually a positive and beneficial effect to having fruit and vegetable in your diet.

Those are the ones he's not studying.

I'll also include a

meta-analysis on fruit and vegetable intake, which actually looked at the parameters that he's talking about.

And the conclusion there said that the majority of intervention studies, so 68% of them on an N equals 48,

reported beneficial effects of fruit and vegetable intake on more than one biomarker of systemic or airway inflammation.

A meta-analysis of included studies showed that fruit and vegetable intake decreased circulating levels of C-reactive protein and tumor necrosis factor and increased

beneficial cell population as well.

So So, there's lots of evidence that says

fruit and vegetables have got strong effects, including systematic reviews, meta-analyses that look at a range of different studies.

He's just not citing those studies.

What struck me was: why is he talking about broccoli for so long?

Why is he demonizing these fruits and vegetables?

And why is he spending so much time on it?

So, I went to his site, I went to his store site, and what I found was

that maybe he wants you to instead buy something like his beef organ tablets, which are

$52 for 100 capsules, or his warrior stack, which is three bottles of pills, one called Warrior, another called The Whole Package, and the other called Mood, Memory, and Brain.

And those run $182 for three bottles.

And just as an aside, if you have the one called the whole package and it doesn't include mood, memory, or brain and your warrior functions, what the hell does it do?

So I looked it up and it's, here it is, quote, vital nutrients and peptides to support your exercise performance, hormone production, and sexual health, end quote.

So you have a mind pill, you have one for getting your body fighting ready, and another for your whole package.

So that's that's exactly what was happening.

It's, by the way, it just contains grass-fed and finished testicle, liver, and whole blood extract, everything a growing member needs

to get nice and large and firm and

stay that way for up to four hours.

Good lord.

You know, I, but, but genuinely, this person's site has all these things on it.

And I do want to mention, this is something we're not going to play, but later on in the show, he coerces Jamie into taking some of these pills.

So he will say, Jamie, take some of these.

If you listen, he asks Jamie, Jamie says, well, I'll take a couple.

And he says, take four.

No, take six.

So he's not just saying, take one capsule.

These are, these are 100 capsules for $52.

So that's 50 cents a capsule, right?

And now you're like, you're like, at this point, you're taking $3 worth of.

What is it?

Six?

That's three bucks worth of capsules every time you're supposed to take this stuff.

So it's not a recommended dosage of just like two.

It's a lot of capsules they're expecting you to take each day.

This is, again, hearkening back to the previous person we covered where they had a nice big store where they're going to talk about all the things you're deficient in.

By the way, I have this store that can replenish all that.

Yeah, Gary Brecker from a couple of episodes ago.

And at the time I mentioned, it's worth kind of reiterating.

We covered on one of our bonus shows when Joe spoke with Brian Dunning.

And Brian Dunning said, you had this guy on who sold supplements.

And Joe took real issue with Dunning suggesting that he would have someone on the show who was selling the supplements he was recommending.

The guy just talks about the stuff that he likes.

He's not here to sell it.

This guy is directly not just even talking about the benefits of the supplements that he's selling, not just even mentioning that he sells supplements.

As you point out, he's making them take those supplements live online.

He's pouring them on Jamie essentially.

Okay, so they're going to continue on talking about vitamins.

But what about the vitamins that you're getting from plants?

I mean,

there are essential nutrients and phytonutrients that you get from plants.

What about those?

So this is really interesting when you look into it.

There are really, this is going to sound extreme when I say it, but I'll back it up.

There are no nutrients in plants that you cannot get from animal foods in essentially equivalent or more bioequivalent forms.

How come when like cats eat an animal, they go for the guts first and they'll actually eat the grass that's in the guts of the cow?

I don't know.

The guts of a ruminant.

I don't know why they would do that.

I guess it's fermented.

I don't know.

Because if you look at the nutrients in

animal foods, right?

There are many nutrients in animal foods that do not occur in plants.

And we know this.

B12, but the list is much bigger.

Vitamin K2, choline, carnosine, carnitine, anserine, taurine.

The list is extremely long.

But you can't say the same thing about plants.

There are no nutrients that occur in plants that you can't get from animal foods.

None.

Vitamin C?

You can definitely get vitamin C from animal foods.

And you get it from, what do you get, from liver?

Liver, heart, muscle.

It all has vitamin C.

So, like, it is true those things have vitamin C, but obviously not necessarily in the dosage that we get from plants and things.

Joel brings up cats.

Why are cats going straight for the guts and things?

Is it because they get this and this, gut, that?

Our diet is not the same as a cat's.

Cats are obligate carnivores.

Cats can't digest certain things.

Cats can't drink milk.

They don't have an enzyme for breaking down dairy.

They can't really do an awful lot of vegetables.

There's lots of things that you, chocolate.

Try and give a cat a bit of chocolate and you will endanger the cat.

We do not have the same

digestive system as cats.

We don't have the same nutritional limitations as cats because we aren't cats.

We have a much wider ability to take on calories and nutrients from a wider series of a rather set of foods.

And arguably that may be a big part of how we've managed to flourish.

And, you know, cats, for all, all I love cats, they're not running the world.

They are very limited into what they can do.

We are much more flexible creatures because of our ability to subsist on a range, on a much broader range of things.

But he even says about nutrients.

He says, there's nothing, non-nutrients in plants that you can't get from animal foods.

That I think is interesting because

if there's nothing in plants you can't get from animal foods,

Does that include all of the bad things that you say the plants are making to attack us, that the animals are also eating?

You know, like it's all chemicals.

It's all just chemicals arranged in different ways.

There's no reason why a plant would be able to give us nutrients, but poisonous in these other kind of necessary ways while animals aren't.

That's, he's just, he's deliberately trying to frame it as plants bad, animals good.

Yeah.

I, I, and, and, you know, if it's all so easy, then why supplement, right?

Like one of the questions I had about this was he keeps saying all the time, well, it's just so easy.

All you have to do is do this.

And as you listen, what you're going to notice is the reason why it's easy is because he's eating things that are mostly distasteful to a lot of people.

A lot of people don't eat the liver.

They don't eat the kidneys.

They don't eat the asshole of the animal.

They eat, you know, very specific muscle portions of the animal that have a lot of flavor and that have a lot of nutrients in them and that, you know, you can buy for relatively cheap and don't have to be very good at understanding how to cook it.

You can cook it with a relatively low squill level.

Cooking a kidney is a hell of a lot harder than cooking a T-bone steak.

It's just you gotta, you gotta clean it differently.

You've got to know how to cook it.

You've got to try to get certain flavors out of that piece of meat, et cetera, et cetera.

Same thing goes for liver.

Same thing goes for all the different things.

So it's much easier for him to sell this to you if he tells you, hey, there's this really distasteful part of the animal that's hard to prepare and it's difficult.

But hey, by the way,

I sell these pills that are just like compacted beef liver and a bit of jelly.

And you can eat that and you'll get the same thing as if you were to eat liver and it's easy for him to sell it.

Because again, Marsh, if you listen to this clip, it's something you pointed out in a previous show.

He can't show you his white lab cloak, but he sure as hell can list off a bunch of vitamins.

He can sure as hell list off a bunch of really technical sounding terms to make you think he's really being, he's really erudite.

He knows what he's talking about.

And so he's doing that in this clip.

And throughout the whole piece, he's mentioning really scientific language.

And he is a doctor.

It's not like this person isn't trained.

He is a doctor.

He knows a lot about this stuff.

I just think like there is definitely a grift grift involved.

Pay attention to what's behind the curtain for a moment.

I also want to say, too, they list a lot of things constantly about what's in food, but what they seem to forget is that food isn't just, I put vitamins in me.

That's not what food is.

Food is fuel.

Food is fiber.

Food is water.

Food is a lot of different things that you

bring into your body to help nourish it in different ways.

And just listing off the number of minerals something has doesn't necessarily mean it's good for you in a holistic way.

There's a lot of things that food does for you.

It's not just putting minerals in your body.

Yeah, that's true.

Although you mentioned fiber and they will address that.

I don't think

that initially,

but they will talk about it.

And the way that they'll talk about it is because the diet that Paul Saladino is recommending doesn't have a lot of fiber because it's all meat, there will be repercussions to your digestive system.

And Joe talks at reasonable length about how bad his diarrhea is and how bad a time you have on the toilet when following this diet, which arguably is a good reason not to just go for a meat diet if you don't want to have a horrible time every time you go to the bathroom.

And the other thing that struck me, it's something that hasn't come up and maybe something we'll try and look for in the future.

Obviously, in this kind of space, there's a lot of demonization of the idea of eating insects as part of our kind of protein mix and protein diet or the eat the bugs kind of thing.

I haven't heard Joe talk about it.

It'll be really interesting to see what his take on that is because I could just as easily see the whole thing flipped of him having someone on the show talking about how delicious scorpions can be if you cook them in this certain way and how disgusting it is that some people are forcing us to eat offal and brains and livers rather than having the good stuff.

Like the people out there trying to force us to eat these horrible offcuts rather than the good stuff.

So it genuinely could go either way.

I'd be interested to see his opinion on bugs in the future.

All right, we're going to take a short break.

We'll be back back right after this.

You're a Cummins diesel owner.

You know your truck is worth more than just any truck.

It's the workhorse that keeps you going.

That's why protecting your Cummins diesel is so important.

Complete Emissions Recall 67A and get a free warranty extension worth thousands.

Plus, an exclusive Cummins gift.

It's quick, it's easy, and it's protection that keeps your truck going for miles and miles.

Visit CumminsRecall.com to schedule your appointment today.

That's CumminsRecall.com.

Your global campaign just launched.

But wait, the logo's cropped.

The colors are off.

And did Lego clear that image?

When teams create without guardrails, mistakes slip through, but not with Adobe Express, the quick and easy app to create on-brand content.

Brand kits and lock templates make following design guidelines a no-brainer for HR sales and marketing teams.

And commercially safe AI, powered by Firefly, lets them create confidently so your brand always shows up polished, protected, and consistent everywhere.

Learn more at adobe.com slash go slash express.

Okay, welcome back.

Let's jump right back in.

Okay, so now they're talking about sort of what meats we should be consuming.

So he would say that

while meat of any kind is in great demand, it is interesting to note the following are the favorite cuts.

The brisket of the beef with the fat and the cartilages.

So these indigenous cultures

in the Arctic would they would favor things with fat and connective tissue.

The skin and subcutaneous fat of the warthog, pig skin, hog's head, and brains.

And number four is the liver of any animal.

Look at that.

Pig skin is never saved for rawhide and leather.

It's too valuable as food and is eaten after singing off the hair and a prolonged boiling.

Plump cow skin is similarly eaten.

A lean cowskin will be saved for rawhide and leather.

The hog's head, brains, and fat are both delicacies.

The liver of any animal, the hands and feet of monkey, because of the fat content.

Whoa.

So they tend to favor the fat and the organs.

Bro, they're eating monkey hands.

Should we really listen to them?

I've never had monkey hands.

You ever had brain?

I've had calves' brain

when I was a child.

I don't remember.

It was a long time ago, but my uncle Vinny used to,

they used to, I guess it was calves' brain or lamb's brain.

I don't remember, but I remember they would grill it.

And I found it so strange that we're eating it i wish i could remember if i liked it or not but i also like i i was probably six you know and i don't know if i had a sensibility towards different you know interesting like i enjoy liver now i actually like it i enjoy heart i eat it i i like some things that other people i like sea urchin i like things that people might find weird because of the texture alone so i don't know if i felt that way when i was little

i mean i'm gonna say right now he's gonna regret bringing up how much he likes liver.

That is going to come back to haunt him in about 10 minutes' time, and he does not know that train is coming down the track.

They're talking about all the different parts of meat here, all the different parts of an animal that we wouldn't consider meat, or we wouldn't have in our regular kind of meat diet, but they were actually in high demand.

The reason that that stuff was in high demand, the reason they would eat the skin of a cow rather than use it for leather, the reason they would eat brains and things is because they were living in scarcity.

If you were hunting down an animal, you would try and eat all of it because any bit you don't eat is another reason why you have to go out hunting again sooner.

And maybe you aren't successful on that hunt, especially when the thing that you've you've taken down is going to spoil.

Meat will spoil.

There was no refrigeration in the wilds of those times.

If that's kind of where they want to go and sort of live like those, live like our ancestors in a bit of a throwahead to our toolbox section.

Meat that you, animals that you killed would spoil very quickly.

So you'd have to eat what you can, get as much calories off it as as you can.

That doesn't mean that eating monkey hands and monkey feet and various animals' brains is a necessarily good idea.

It just means it's better than starving.

Like it might not be a bad idea.

It might be perfectly fine.

Sometimes we can be squeamish about different cuts of meat.

I know in China, for example, chickens' feet are a delicacy.

We wouldn't eat those in the West.

That can just be a cultural squeamishness.

And we shouldn't judge, we shouldn't assume that we are better than people who eat chickens' feet.

But we also shouldn't assume that eating monkeys' hands and feet is the best way for us to stave off starvation.

We've got other ways to do that now.

And some of them grow on farms, George.

Like it's fine.

Well, and

this, one of the things that you need to understand about the way, you know,

molecules come together to eat food is fat has about twice as much

calories as other types of like protein and carbs, right?

It's about twice as much.

I mean not twice as much.

It's twice as much as carbs.

It's like

a third more than protein, let's say.

So it's more calorie dense.

It's a more calorie dense thing.

So it makes sense that they would prize the things that were mostly fat because those were very calorie dense and they could get a lot of nutrients from something very quickly in a small amount.

They didn't have to have a large amount of it.

They could have a small amount of it and it would have enough calories in them to sustain them.

So

is it a surprise that he's talking about lots of fatty things?

No, it's not a surprise at all in a scarcity culture like you suggest, where you're now walking to the pantry three times a day.

It's a calorie dump.

They're not just getting something out of the pantry.

They have to kill it.

Yeah.

What you mean?

They weren't carrying around bits of raw liver in their pockets and like popping it in their mouth like candy.

That is genuinely shocking.

Maybe they were.

They might well have been.

Just as you were going through that there, the other thing that kind of struck me was, of course, they're going to value the bits of the animal that are very fat-heavy because fat is a hard thing to acquire apart from animal saucer.

It absolutely is.

Yeah, these were hunter-gatherers, these were people who were eating a range of things.

They were eating berries, they were, you know, vegetables, fruits.

Those things don't have as much fat.

So, yeah, if you kill an animal, maybe you will go for the fat in those places because you unlikely to get the fat elsewhere easily in your diet.

All right, so this next clip is about foie gras,

and you're making them open their mouth.

It just seems gross.

Yeah, it is.

Here's what's weird about it.

Is that any grosser than things that are legal?

You know, because there's a lot of stuff that's legal that we do to animals.

Like, when do we decide what's legal and what's not legal?

Because factory farming should be fucking completely illegal.

And it's legal in California.

You can get factory-fed animals and you could buy them left and right.

What you can't get is foie gras anymore.

And I'm like, well, listen, guys, you're not making any sense.

Like, this is one small moment of this duck's day where they're feeding him and they're shoving a tube in his mouth and overfeeding him.

The life of a pig that you eat for bacon is a terrible, tortured life, and you're okay with that.

You're just not okay with this fucking duck getting extra grain pumped down its mouth.

Meanwhile, they're just living a normal life other than that.

And feed lots.

I mean, I think I agree with you completely.

Factory farming is a scourge, and it should, I don't know why we keep doing it.

It's creepy.

I mean, first of all, Joe's argument here appears to be, well, fuck the lot of them rather than let's make things better.

Why have you got a problem with foie gras ducks who only apparently have a lovely life the rest of the time apart from the one time that they get overfed?

There's no sense of their lives being in any way curtailed by the fact that they're going to be turned into foie gras.

They're actually,

it's more like kind of a petting zoo that they live in, but they get to pet other animals.

They're the kind of people who they're the ones who are going around the petting zoo.

They have a lovely time of it.

No, I mean, if they're being sort of raised for food, food they're probably not living in the best of conditions but we can improve that by caring about the conditions of the animals that are involved in the food chain joe wants to kind of have his cake and eat a little bit and that he wants to be ethics he wants to seem like he probably does also really care about the ethics of the animals involved in food production yeah

but not to the point where he will address the fact that having animals in food production is not as ethical as not doing that.

So he has to demonize vegetarians and vegans because they're crazy and plants are bad for you and trees can talk to each other.

He has to demonize factory farming and sort of live in this gray space in the middle.

And then Paul Saladino is saying, I don't know why we keep doing it.

Capitalism.

It's capitalism, Paul.

It's capitalism, it's consumer apathy, and it's a lack of strength in numbers.

If we all decided this is not a thing that we as society are happy with, companies would have to stop doing it because they would want to keep selling us meat.

We don't all decide that there isn't strong enough regulation against factory farming because there's too much money in the industry going into the pockets of politicians who then enact laws that protect those parts of the industry.

Like, if you want to stop it, you've got a massive platform, Joe.

You could start something right now and you could change the way factory farming in America works.

But instead, you want to demonize people who eat broccoli.

Yeah, that's pretty much it.

Yeah, that's you hit the nail right on the head there.

I think that Joe very much is living in a weird space where he wants to feel

empathy towards this, but then also, like you suggest, say, fuck them animals in a lot of ways.

It's a really weird line he has to walk.

Uh, I also just want to point out that his comment about foie gras in California isn't actually technically true.

You can buy foie gras in California, you just can't force feed a bird.

That's against the law, so you can't make your own foie gras, you can't have a place that makes it, but you can buy out of state.

And he makes it sound like you can't buy foie gras at all in state.

That's just not true.

Um, fun fact, though, it was banned on appeal.

The the force feeding of birds was banned on appeal by none other than kamala harris as the attorney who pushed that through so i just wonder why joe might hate her that much maybe this is another reason why he dislikes kamala harris

all right here we go next clip it's going to be talking about manure

which just completely makes sense because manure is fertilizer animals eat the grass.

They make manure.

The manure is fertilizer.

Worms and bugs live under the manure.

There's an entire ecosystem that evolves around these animals living the way they've lived for hundreds of thousands, if not millions of years.

It makes sense that it all works together synergistically to feed the soil and to provide nutrients for the very animals.

And those animals will die on that land and they will rot.

They will provide even more fertilizer.

And then other animals will live off of them and live in that area.

And they too will die.

And they will shit all over the place and piss all over the place.

And they will feed the soil.

And this is a system.

And we fucked that system up by growing corn.

We fucked that system up by growing a million acres of soybeans or whatever the fuck we do.

Why are we eating those things?

At the end, you hear Paul being like, why are we eating those things?

By the way, I have a store.

Look, we aren't taking the animals and just letting them die and letting them rot.

We're eating the animals.

There's a big difference between what you're describing and what we're doing.

Also, we fucked the system up by growing soybeans.

No, we didn't.

We fucked the system up by introducing humans into the population in massive numbers.

Now they have to eat and we have to create food for them and we have to rely on large sequestered areas to grow our food in that isn't near our homes.

We do all this stuff.

And so when you're complaining about this, you make it seem like, oh, if we just went all back to natural, if we went all back to natural, you would have to wipe out half the human population.

See, he doesn't even.

Listen, we replace the buffalo, man.

It's not that like he's talking about these big fields of buffalo.

We replace them.

We're the ones in their place now, and we have to deal with the consequences of us living here.

Yeah, I mean, if he wants to go back to that system, as you say, he just has to choose which half of the world to die.

And I don't think he'd struggle to make that choice.

Now I think about it, I think that'd be very quick to me.

Yeah, I guess you're right.

Okay, so this is a point where they get to talking about how you should eat.

So they've been talking about what to eat for a while, but now they're going to start talking about how maybe you should start consuming food.

And they talk about intermittent fasting.

It's kind of interesting today that there are a lot of people that are interested in intermittent fasting or, you know, having a very specific feeding window.

And they are seeing benefits of that.

I was reading some article recently that was saying

a study shows that there's no weight loss benefit to intermittent fasting.

And I'm like, who made that fucking study?

And who were you studying?

And how is that?

Everybody that I know that's done it has lost weight.

Like, what are you talking about?

Like, how, what is that study about?

And who, why would someone be even interested in promoting that?

So much of what gets done in the nutrition community and research is fuckery.

There's a lot of fuckery.

It is.

And the devil's in the details, right?

What were they feeding them?

What was the ratio of oils in the food?

What were they doing for intermittent fasting?

Were they intermittent fasting with junk food?

Were they intermittent fasting with standard American diet food?

So the studies that Joe's talking about here, those studies must be wrong because they don't match his anecdotes.

So his anecdotes trump the studies here.

It's not actually true.

It's not actually clear particularly that he's read the study he's talking about.

He's just dismissing those studies.

He doesn't like those studies.

He hasn't necessarily read them.

And then even Paul is saying, well, yeah, the thing you've got to bear in mind is what else were they doing?

Were they using junk food?

Was it standard diet?

If it's a good study, if it's well controlled, that won't matter because the people in both arms will have roughly the equivalent diet.

That's the whole point of doing a randomized controlled trial is that you take diet out of the equation.

So if both sides are on, broadly speaking, the same diet and one is fasting and the other isn't, we will see the difference on the fasting here.

And if fasting makes a difference, we should see it.

I actually found the study that he's talking about.

It appears to be a study called Effects of Time-Restricted Eating on Weight Loss and Other Metabolic Parameters in Women and Men with Overweight and Obesity.

It says in the study, the study was 12 weeks in duration and they found no differences in weight loss between the two groups.

They also found there was no difference in cardiometabolic benefits between the two groups.

Both arms in this study lost weight.

That's what he's not talking about here.

They actually both lost weight.

There was just no difference between them in how you lost weight.

So the weight loss was probably an artifact of being studied.

It wasn't like you were getting one to do intermittent fasting, the other one, the other set weren't, and nobody lost any weight.

Everybody lost weight at basically the same rate.

So it's more likely to be, I know I'm in a study that involves my diet in some way.

So maybe I'm keeping track of things a little bit.

Maybe I change my behavior a little bit.

Maybe I don't have that extra biscuit here, that extra cookie here, or that extra bag of chips, or maybe I do that extra little bit of exercise or something.

There's little things like that that you do because you know you're in a trial.

And all those things can be confounding factors, but that's fine because that's why you have two arms that are randomized.

That's also present in the arm which doesn't have the intervention happening.

So this is just a study that's pretty well conducted and looking at it.

And because it comes to a conclusion neither of these men like, it's a bad study.

I want to just mention that if Joe were to look at this and it were to have the opposite, let's say he read an article that said that instead of there wasn't any difference or that people on intermittent fasting

didn't lose weight or it wasn't effective, et cetera.

I wonder if it said the opposite, that it was effective.

If he would have asked all those questions, that list of questions he had.

And this is something that you should bring with you every day when you encounter the news.

Ask all those questions all the time, right?

Does this study mean anything or does it just confirm my biases?

Is it just a bad study that confirms my biases or is it a good study?

Is this something that is worthwhile?

And I think like a lot of times we'll stop at the, it confirms my biases.

We don't have to go into it.

But that's also an important part that we need to reinforce because if you choose something that's bad to build your foundation on, you're building it on a bad foundation.

That ain't great.

Yeah, and pin in that because we will shortly come to a study that agrees with yours biases.

And I'm going to tell you where that study came from.

Okay.

So the next bit is talking about the process your body goes through.

and it's a process called ketosis.

Well, ketosis, particularly for people that have epilepsy or and for seals that work on those rebreathers, you know,

they found that being in ketosis can keep them from having seizures, which is really kind of fascinating.

It changes the neural physiology.

Yeah.

Well, for children, children that have epilepsy, they found a great benefit in being in ketosis.

It just makes sense that your body would fare best on the things that it evolved with.

The things that it evolved with are mostly animals, fish, and fruits.

I agree with you.

Whatever you could, you know, obviously you don't get fruit all year round.

You get it in a specific time when the fruit falls from the tree, but animals were available 365 days a year, and that's most likely what a lot of people ate.

And if you look at hunter-gatherer tribes, that's what we see.

Yeah.

And it's so interesting to me that they have a preference for animal foods.

Yeah, a lot of them will eat tubers occasionally.

There's actually a pretty cool study.

So, first of all, credit to Joe here.

He's talking about epilepsy, ketogenic diets.

According to the Epilepsy Society, there is some good evidence that a ketogenic diet might help reduce seizures and have other positive effects on epilepsy.

So, something that's that's actually something that's been known since the 1920s.

But the Epilepsy Society of the UK also point out that it's a medical treatment, this specific diet, and it's usually only considered once at least two suitable medications have been tried and then turn out not to work because it's easier to take medicine than to permanently shift to a very restrictive diet so but credit to joe he knows this this is actually true that bit in there is true then he goes on to say it makes sense that our body would just uh do better with the stuff that it evolved with that the things that

you know we we'd fare best on the things that it evolved with It evolved with plants.

Plants preceded us and we have evolved in symbiosis with plants.

So maybe vegetables are fine because plants have been around as long as we've been around and longer.

And he's saying, you know, animals, they're available

all year round.

So that's most likely what a lot of people eat.

If we were most likely mostly eating meat, what was the gatherer part of hunter-gatherer?

We weren't gathering the animals together to hunt them.

We were hunting animals and we were gathering stuff that wasn't animals.

The only time we started gathering the animals together is when we learned how to farm so we didn't have to hunt.

That or when we were building an ark.

We had to gather them.

So that's also a part that's gathering.

I just want to mention, like, if you don't know the phrase or the word ketosis, ketosis is when you deprive your body of carbohydrates.

And that then puts your body at sort of a low glucose level.

And it's supposed to, what it's supposed to do is what the people claim it does is that it burns fat stores in your body when you're in this low carb state.

And so that's what they're talking about.

They don't eat a lot of carbs.

Your body goes into ketosis.

And that's sort of what the framing of this was.

If you're not familiar with that is, but he, they mentioned that it's a surprise.

They say, oh, it's a surprise.

You know, like, like, you know, they have fruit all year round, but they prize these animals.

Why do they prize these animals?

You're like, animals are calorie-dense foods.

And then you don't have to go out and gather, like Marsh said in the previous clip, you don't have to go do the work.

Why would they prize it?

Because it makes it easier for them if they can just have have an animal that has a, as very calorie dense, and they can eat that instead of spending hours gathering things.

Yeah, exactly.

But then what you're saying is, you know, animals were available 365 days a year.

That wasn't true of fruit.

Fruit's not all year round.

I don't know how much to pick at that, but that feels like a very environment specific bias there.

Because yeah, in the UK, you couldn't eat fruit all year round.

You can,

for large parts of the year, you can eat the stuff that grows inside the ground.

So, sort of root-based vegetable-type things, and those things mostly you have to cook before you eat them.

But what about warmer climates?

You know, what if you're around the Mediterranean or parts of Africa where the climate has less variance?

Once you get around the equator, regions have very minimal seasonal differences.

So, I don't imagine there is a vast difference in the availability of fruit as a universal factor in kind of human digestive evolution there.

It's just kind of Joe's thinking of the stuff around him.

He's kind of pitching, he's picturing a caveman that looks like him because he looks like a caveman.

But

there were other parts of the world available.

Okay, so next bit of this tape is I'm talking about high fructose corn syrup.

There's things about high fructose corn syrup that makes it particularly damaging to the body.

What are those things?

So fructose and glucose are different molecules, and fructose and glucose have different biochemistry.

In glucose biochemistry, there's a stopgap.

There's a rate-limiting enzyme called phosphofructokinase, meaning that if you try and overeat glucose, your body is going to put the breaks on it and not do glycolysis, which is the process by which you turn glucose that you're eating into energy, right?

There's no break on fructose.

So fructose bypasses phosphofructokinase and can essentially move down the shared glycolytic pathway into the formation of the glycerol backbone and triglycerides, which are essentially fats,

without any breaks.

So the problem is not high fructose corn syrup itself.

It's that you can eat it

without stopping, right?

That you can get massive amounts of it and they're calorically bereft.

So if you were to eat, if I were to give you, if you look at isocaloric studies of fructose, there's no evidence that they, that fructose increases uric acid or blood pressure or weight gain, isocaloric.

But when anything with high fructose corn syrup is going to be so enticing, it's going to short surrogate your satiety mechanisms so much that you're just going to overeat it in a way that fruit doesn't do right like we said you fruit has this stopgap it kind of has this break on it you're like oh i can't eat any more fruit

so what he's trying to claim with all of this is that there are you know enzymes that are responsible for satiety and those enzymes can be shortcut and switched off depending on the types of sugars you're taking on board now what he isn't mentioning here is that that theory that hypothesis has been studied extensively and the totality of the study showed the exact opposite of what he's suggesting here.

I'll link some studies in the show notes that showed that being fed fructose before a meal led to greater satiety and fewer subsequent calories than when you're fed glucose.

And the same thing is true when you're fed sucrose before a meal compared to glucose.

So his idea that fructose is particularly and uniquely bad for its effect on satiety is just not borne out by the studies that I've seen.

Some of those studies I found on a a website of Dr.

Lane Norton, who actually did a really great breakdown of this episode, highlighting a number of the studies that Paul cites and highlighting a number of studies that actually have a better handle on

the evidence basis and the consensus.

And so writing for his website, BioLane, in 2020 after

this episode went out, Dr.

Lane Norton wrote, These findings are the precise opposite of what Paul says.

This shouldn't be surprising.

One cannot derive complex biological outputs by speculating about biochemical enzymatic regulation this is a fundamental error betraying paul's lack of scientific literacy and familiarity with impartially evaluating scientific evidence so that is the the um conclusions of dr norton there the other thing to point out here is that paul is saying um that you compare corn syrup to uh the the context this is all happening in the context of comparing corn syrup to the stopgap you get when you eat fruit um and and how fructose doesn't have that kind of effect well fruit

the the idea that fruit itself has a stopgap you can't eat too much of it whereas corn syrup just just shortcuts that you carry on eating fruit contains a lot of fructose the sugars of fruit are by and large fructose the word fructose is literally derived from the latin fructus meaning fruit so why would it be that high fructose corn syrup has a type of bad sugar that fruits do not have fruits don't uh have a stopgap but fruits have this stopgap mechanism High high fructose corn syrup doesn't.

Fruits contain fructose.

That's what fructus means.

It's fruit sugar.

Also, there's a huge difference between eating something that is a syrup versus eating a fruit.

Fruit has water in it.

A fruit has fiber in it.

You can't just pound 100 mangoes in a row.

But I might be able to just ingest the sugar from a lot of those mangoes if I just had a tube of the fructose that was in there.

That's just like, it's like comparing fruit to ice cream.

Like ice cream is very calorie dense.

It doesn't fill you up.

You can eat a lot of ice cream.

Trust me, I can eat a lot of ice cream.

And so if I eat a lot of ice cream, I'm not going to feel as full as if I ate two mangoes.

Mango, and it's going to have a lot less calories.

But the reason isn't because the mangoes have better sugar in them.

The reason is the mangoes have fiber and water in them.

That fills you up.

That's an important part of eating fruit.

That's why there's a stop.

That's why you can't eat more fruit.

Yeah.

I mean, I eat a lot of fruit.

My friends will point out.

I'm always eating a bit of of fruit.

I find it's a better way than me snacking on biscuits and various other sweet stuff after I have my lunch.

I'll have a couple of pieces of fruit and I won't need to eat anything else because they have the fibers and various of the things that fill you up without it being as calorie dense.

Okay, so this is the last clip in the main event.

This is them talking about vegetarians.

There's such a high proportion of them that eat it when they get drunk.

What is the number?

I think it's 30 to 40 percent, Joe.

Let's find.

I love this statistic.

It's a weird statistic, right?

Because who's answering these?

I always wonder, like, who's who are you asking?

Like, there's so many people that never get asked.

Yeah.

Like, how many people that are vegetarians that get drunk and eat meat and you never ask them?

And how many people stay strong and they stick to their diet when they get drunk?

What does it say?

Let's see, proportion of vegetarians, percentage of vegetarians that eat meat when drunk.

It's a big number.

I think it's, I remember reading it in the high 30s.

Yeah, it's a big number.

Yeah, and that's the ones that are willing to admit it.

That's the other thing about that thing.

It's like you just got to like keep, there was one girl who got in real trouble because someone photographed her eating fish, right?

Wasn't it like a fish taco or something like that?

Could have been, yeah.

I don't know exactly, but I've heard the stories.

Yeah.

Yeah.

34%.

37% of the slip.

Oh, 37 eating meat when drunk, and 34% of those admitted to slipping every time they're hammered.

Just 22% answered they only drop their standards rarely.

Well, that means they all do it then.

They're all liars.

So I was excited to hear this.

I was genuinely excited because I was trying to think, okay, they've looked something up here, they've got a study.

And then when Joe got to the line, 34% of those admitting to slipping, every time they're hammered, I knew exactly what was going on here because scientific studies don't use terminology like hammered.

What he's talking about here, he's found an article.

This is actually a vice.com article titled A Third of Vegetarians Eat Meat When They're Drunk and it's reporting on a survey of people who are vegetarians saying, yes, when I have a drink, I always eat meat.

That's where the hammer comes in.

It's editorial language, it's sensational language.

The reason sensational language is this is not based on a scientific survey, a scientific study.

This is a PR survey.

This is a PR survey specifically from a company called Voucher Cords Pro, which is a website where you can find discount voucher cords for a range of different things.

And if you're a website that sells discount voucher cords, how do you get attention with your adverts?

You can't just do new, you can't like the news stories,

newspapers aren't going to pick up on a story of this website says you can get 10% off a PS5.

So you put out spurious findings.

You pay market research companies to come up with incredibly spurious headline generating findings.

And then you have in like the third or fourth paragraph, a quote from the spokesperson of your company saying, isn't this really interesting?

God, people should

pay attention to these findings, says the person from this company, this company being a company that does this thing over here.

And you've smuggled an advert in the newspapers.

This is very much my territory.

I have spent decades researching these types of stories.

I have written about these types of stories for several national newspapers in the UK.

I have given lectures on these types of stories for universities on their journalism courses.

This is not a study.

So Joel says it depends on who you ask.

And that is absolutely true.

What happens with these is you sign up to be part of a market survey survey body of people and you get paid 10 pence, a shiny 10 pence for every survey you take part in.

And you can only cash out when you get to 40 pounds.

So you are incentivized to take as many different surveys as you can and to complete them as quickly as you can.

Because if you're one of the first people to complete it, you'll get paid.

If you're one of the last people, because you've spent a lot of time thinking about it, you won't get paid.

Incentives here aren't good.

Yeah, exactly.

2,000 people need to be in this survey.

It's the 2,000 quickest people, not the people who started it first.

It's the people who ended it first.

So you sit there and for 20 minutes, really think about your answers and click the buttons that really, really make sense after you thought about it.

And you're going to to find that the person sat next to you who clicked the first thing they could see gets paid and you don't.

Incentivized to have people who aren't paying attention here.

Worse than that, they have screening questions, things like in this case, are you a vegetarian?

Now, if you say no to that, you're not getting into this survey and there's only a certain number of surveys to do each day.

So you're not going to make that little step towards getting any amount of money for the time you've spent so far.

But if you say yes, even though you're not a vegetarian, nobody will ever check.

And any answer you give is going to skew the data immensely.

But no one cares about that because they want skewed data, because they want a headline generating finding.

So these are all built around people faking their way in to surveys that aren't relevant to them, coming up with findings that are headline generating, but aren't true.

The company of the survey do not care about any of that because it got them a juicy headline of the, you know, vegetarians eat meat when they're drunk.

And there's a little advert for their company right in the middle there in lots of national newspapers saying this amazing finding came from Voucher Cords Pro, who are a discount voucher company you read that you think oh maybe i should go there the next time i need to find a voucher joe treats this as if it's a scientific study it is an advert for a discount cord website this is what happens as you were saying earlier when a finding agrees with his biases this is how few questions he will even ask even when the finding he's got is people admit to eating meat every time they're hammered, which even he should recognize is not scientific language.

That is the work of bias right there.

I want to point out how he ends this.

He says, 22% answered they only drop their standards rarely.

Well, that means they all do then.

They're all liars, is what he says.

That's how he ends it.

And I just want to point out how fucking shitty and smug that sounds to people that you don't agree with the values that you have, right?

How shitty and smug that sounds.

It sounds, it reminds me of when he was talking to the sort of laughing he had when he was talking about Bernie Sanders booking a private jet for part of his oligarch tour.

Bernie Sanders had to go from one place to another in a quick amount of time.

He had two events in the same day.

There was no regular flights that went between these two airports.

It was two small airports.

He decided to book a private jet.

And it's the only private jet or maybe one of two private jets he took on this entire tour.

And, but Joe found out.

talked about it and then he used it to say, look at what kind of hypocrite this person is.

Look at they don't believe their values.

And he's saying the same thing here about vegetarians.

Someone who is ethically doing something, they don't believe the things they're trying to make you do.

And he sounds smug and shitty when he's saying this.

And like Marsh pointed out, it might not even be true.

Oh, it is.

It's not even might not.

It is 100% not true.

This is based on nothing at all.

But even the finding that was based on nothing at all that agreed with him.

him, he has to be like, oh, but the numbers are even higher than that.

And can't even accept the bias finding that is just an advert that agrees with him it has to be worse than that we're going to take a quick break and then move on to our toolbox section

you're a cummins diesel owner you know your truck is worth more than just any truck it's the workhorse that keeps you going that's why protecting your cummins diesel is so important complete emissions recall 67a and get a free warranty extension worth thousands plus an exclusive cummins gift it's quick it's easy and it's protection that keeps your truck going for miles and miles.

Visit CumminsRecall.com to schedule your appointment today.

That's CumminsRecall.com.

Your global campaign just launched.

But wait, the logo's cropped.

The colors are off, and did Lego clear that image?

When teams create without guardrails, mistakes slip through, but not with Adobe Express, the quick and easy app to create on-brand content.

Brand kits and lock templates make following design guidelines a no-brainer for HR sales and marketing teams.

And commercially safe AI powered by Firefly lets them create confidently so your brand always shows up polished, protected, and consistent everywhere.

Learn more at adobe.com slash go slash express.

Today, we'll attempt a feat once thought impossible: overcoming high-interest credit card debt.

It requires merely one thing: a SoFi personal loan.

With it, you could save big on interest charges by consolidating into one low-fixed-rate monthly payment.

Defy high-interest debt with a SoFi personal loan.

Visit sofi.com/slash stunt to learn more.

Loans originated by SoFi Bank NA, member FDIC.

Terms and conditions apply.

NMLS 696891.

Wow.

So that's the tool bag?

And something just fell out of the tool bag?

So for this week, Marsh, we're going to be doing the naturalistic fallacy.

Yeah, this is a nice, simple one.

It's very much the idea that anything that aligns with nature, anything you can tie to being natural, must therefore be better.

And what we're actually going to see, you can imagine how that comes up from what we've heard already about how we evolved to eat meat and not to eat plants that were already there while we evolved.

It's all about kind of our natural diet, our ancestral diet.

We'll actually hear a lot about our evolutionary process and our ancestral diet.

And they'll do that by actually comparing it to a tribe of Hadzi people who apparently still eat a diet that's very close to what our hunter-gatherer diet would have been.

So yeah, we're going to hear all about how hunter-gathering and that sort of diet is good because it's natural.

Now, obviously, there's lots of things that are natural that aren't good.

A lot of the diet that we used to have ancestrally and throughout our evolutionary history wasn't optimal for doing anything other than hunting.

You've got to spend your entire time trying to find an animal because we didn't at the time have farming.

So food food wasn't readily available.

So we didn't, we all had to try and gather food rather than just having a person whose job it was to grow food for the lot of us.

The latter of those is a better system, but it's not natural.

Therefore, it must be worse.

Okay, so we're going to get started early.

He's talking about ancestors and he's talking about hunting.

Do you do the cellular house cleaning?

And that's beneficial for humans.

Our ancestors would certainly have done that.

Please explain that to people, the cellular house cleaning,

that your body actually does get rid of some damaged cells.

Damaged cells and damaged proteins within cells and damaged mitochondria.

So, within the cell, there are these quote-powerhouse factories, which are probably ancient bacteria, you know, billions of years ago that combined with a single-celled organism, and we became eukaryotic with a membrane-bound nucleus and a membrane-bound organelle called a mitochondria, which produces ATP for the body.

And so, within the body, there are all these organelles within our cells, and some of them, the job of that organelle, is to basically be the trash compactor.

Old proteins are ubiquinated and they're moved to organ, to the organelles that recycle them.

And so you do this cellular house cleaning, but, and it seems to happen more when you're in this state of ketosis or when you're not using the glucose from, or when you're not in sort of an anabolic physiology.

And so you can see that with our ancestral, with our ancestors, we would have switched back and forth.

We wouldn't have been successful in hunts every day.

We would have had some hunts that were successful and some gathering sessions which were successful successful and others which weren't.

And when they're not successful, you're fasting.

And so that's a beneficial thing.

I mean, I think that that intermittent cellular house cleaning is an ancestral pattern that we would do well to espouse, to mirror.

So here we have an absolutely classic naturalistic fallacy.

We wouldn't have been successful with hunting all the time.

So there would have been periods of time where we weren't able to eat.

And that therefore must be better for us.

Well, just because that's how we used to live, it doesn't necessarily follow that it's beneficial.

What What if it wasn't beneficial, but was just what we had to put up with?

What if eating regularly isn't?

It is much better for us.

Just because it was how we used to live, it doesn't mean that it's beneficial.

Now, he talks about kind of the benefits of intermittent fasting.

They talk about kind of studies, various things like that.

The benefits are actually just as likely to be due to calorie restriction generally, whether that is fasting for long times between meals or just generally lowering your intake across the same number of regular meals as you'd regularly.

How he's talking about how we used to live live here and how we used to go a long time between,

if our hunting was unsuccessful, we'd have to go a long time between eating.

Now, the thing he's not pointing out here is that humanity flourished once we learned how to farm.

At that point, we didn't need to spend our time in famine and feast or spend all of our time hunting or way more often gathering.

We could do other stuff like building and learning and literature and writing and scientific discovery and eventually podcasting.

Yeah.

Yeah.

All you got to do is look at the population boom.

Look at the difference in our population when we started to industrialize farming, when we started to create these large fields of food.

Look at how our mortality rate has changed over the years.

Look at life expectancy and how that has risen.

All these things.

And he keeps everybody on his show.

It's so crazy to me that Joe keeps on having all these people that are like, the sky is falling.

This is the worst thing that you can do for your body.

And yet we look at all these rates of all these things.

They're all shooting upward.

And it almost seems like they're just ignoring the data of all those things that are true about our society, how it's way better than it was back when we had to scratch on the ground for a tuber.

Yeah, but that's just hygiene.

All of that is just hand washing.

Every bit of it is hand washing.

And if you're, if you're Paul said, you know, it's just hand washing with only water.

Only water, yeah.

Yeah.

Okay, so next bit, we're still talking about ancestral stuff.

This is when they bring up the Hadza tribe.

That started to kind of make sense to me.

I thought, oh, maybe it doesn't have to be as dogmatic as full meat and organs.

Maybe we can, you know, maybe more people would benefit if we think about this more like our ancestors, right?

More like the Hadza, eating berries or boabab or baobab, and then honey occasionally.

And you can always look at your blood sugar with a CGM or other metrics.

What was fascinating, and I actually have my, all my blood work, if you want to see it, or any of my continuous glucose monitor readings, but you can see this is all in the lab work or the blood work folder, Jamie.

And there at the bottom, there's those three images of my blood sugar and there's a few other ones.

But you can see that with honey and meat and organs, don't really have much of a change in the blood sugar at all.

It's pretty, pretty mild most of the time and it stays very consistent.

I like that he starts that clip talking about being less dogmatic than just meat and organs, which was his original carnivore diet.

Yes, I know.

But that went badly.

So we started to add some other stuff back in.

But we don't need that other stuff, actually.

The entire interview is about, we don't need to do that.

But he's now admitting, all right, but I am now starting to put some of the back in as well.

But yeah, he's saying here, eat like our ancestors.

Naturalistic fallacy again, just do what the ancestors were doing.

But also, you know, we eat like our ancestors, but also continually monitor your glucose levels with a wearable device, but ancestrally.

Pick a lane, man.

It's amazing.

I noticed that they're not also just doing everything like our ancestors, right?

They seem to be saying, well, we're going to eat like our ancestors, but I'm going to live in a house.

I'm not going to put my house on my back and travel across the land.

I'm not going to spend many of my hours each day finding the food.

Instead, I'm going to trade my labor for that food.

And then I'm going to do that.

I'm also going to adhere to tons of different sanitation ideas that we've developed over the years.

I'm going to live in a place that's sanitary.

I'm going to poop in the cleanest water in the world.

I'm going to, you know, there's all these things that they're doing that genuinely you didn't do as your ancestor.

They're picking and choosing the things that they want to do.

And it reminds me so much of how we treat vaccines, right?

We have all these wonderful things around us that can help prevent disease, help us thrive.

And they're so good at what they do, they forget that what the world is like without it, right?

We forget what the world is like without vaccines.

We forget what the world is like without massive amounts of food that we can consume whenever we want.

We forget what that's like.

And these people choose to turn the clock back on their own diets because they have the privilege to do it.

Now they're going to continue talking about the Hadza tribe.

Hopefully in the future, when I get to go spend time with the Hadza, I'll be able to eat in the comb like they do.

But in the anthropology folder, Jamie, there's a study, the Hadza fallback foods.

The Hadza, both the men and the women in the Hadza tribe rate honey as their favorite food.

And the men say meat is their second.

The women say meat, baobab, and berries are all.

So if you go down to the third or the fourth page, you'll see this graphic.

Baobob.

Baobob.

What is that?

B-A-O-B-O-B.

So you see that's the black bar is how many people like honey, right?

And the next bar is meat, and then baobab, berries, and tubers.

So both males and females,

they don't really like tubers a whole lot.

They'll dig them as a fallback food.

And actually, the title of this paper is Hadza Fallback Foods.

But at the end of the paper, they say there's this observed behavior that if there's a lot of meat in the camp, the women will stop digging tubers for two to three days.

Baobab is this tree in Tanzania that has this fruit.

I've never had it, but it has this kind of dry, this dry fruit pulp on the outside of the seeds.

Maybe you can find a picture of Baobab, Jamie, but yeah, it's interesting stuff.

But they all love honey in the Hadza tribe.

So, what I like about this, he says the Hadza people, they rate honey first.

Okay, he said, and he says that the men say meat second, and the women say meat, baobob, berries, and then later he adds tubers tubers to round out the five.

That sounds like both the men and women ranked meat second.

You know, men say meat second and women say meat, baobab, berries.

Except that's not what the studies actually say.

It's not what the tribes people actually say.

So he's talking about a paper where they asked Hadza people what their favorite food is out of five options.

Hadza women ranked meat fourth favorite out of five.

He's changed the order there and got kind of vague about it, but he's switched meat right up up to the top to make it seem like they would prefer to eat almost everything else on the list other than meat.

There's only one thing below it.

I've got a quote from a couple of papers here.

One says here, we report on the food preferences are listed with photographs of species within the five major food categories in their diet.

So honey, meat, berries, baoba, and tubers.

While male and female ranks agreed on the other three food categories, females ranked berries second and meat fourth, whereas males ranked meat second and berries fourth.

and the rest were all the same.

So, very clearly, meat isn't that big a deal.

Another paper points out that while meat accounts for a whopping 40% of the calories in the diet among adult men of the tribe, among women, the figure is only 1.2%,

making Hadza women near vegetarian.

That is his example of how we should be living on a mostly meat diet.

The Hadza tribe, we should be living like our ancestral diets that the Hadza tribe carry on.

Hadza women, 1.2% of their calories come from meat.

The study goes goes on to say, if there's a, no, and he also says here, if there's a lot of meat in the camp, the women will stop digging tubers for two to three days, which makes it sound like, because there's so much preference on the meat.

But what's actually happening there is, if you had food available already, in particular, as I mentioned, food like meat that's going to spoil quickly, why would you spend your time and energy digging up food that will still be there when the meat is gone?

If the meat is going to go off, eat the meat and then dig up the tubers.

Don't dig the tubers up now and eat the meat while the tubers go off.

It's obvious.

It makes total sense.

What he doesn't mention, and this is going back to one of those papers again, women normally dig tubers every day, though they may ignore tubers for an extended period when berries come into season, since berries are super abundant.

In addition to being more highly preferred, ranked second by women, berries are easy to acquire.

Children as young as two or three year olds can simply feed themselves all day on berries and need very little provisioning.

So he makes it sound like the only thing that stops women digging up tubers is the abundance of meat.

But actually, berries as well will stop them doing that because it turns out you eat the thing that doesn't require effort now, especially if it's going to spoil.

And then when that's out, you spend the effort getting the thing that's going to work.

Yeah, yeah.

And what doesn't require effort for us is going to the meat counter.

Yes, exactly.

Or

vegetables.

Yeah.

Yeah.

He ends with, they all love honey.

And you're like, yeah, sure.

Of course.

It's pure sugar.

All the other things you're talking about,

almost pure sugar, it's not completely pure sugar, but it's almost pure sugar.

And all the other things you're talking about are very different than honey.

Honey is and also comes in smaller quantities.

So of course they would prize the thing that they can't have very often.

It's a treat for them.

And so they, of course, rank it the most.

He makes it seem like they rank it because their biology is screaming to them that they need this thing.

And that's what's making them rank it instead of just being like, hey, man, I like the way honey tastes.

it's pretty it's pretty great so

this is the problem is that he keeps equating everything to uh the the drive in you is nutritional not preference he keeps on messing this up throughout this whole episode and this is an example of him doing that now we're going to talk about tooth decay

But if you look at, and if you look at tooth decay in the Hadza, there's some interesting findings.

The women actually that are in, that eat indigenous ancestrally don't really have significant tooth decay.

The men have higher rates of tooth decay, and we don't know whether that's because they're eating more honey or because they also smoke tobacco and marijuana.

And tobacco and marijuana are certainly associated with dental cavities or periodontitis.

So there's been some concern about that.

But at least in myself, I haven't seen anything.

And I've actually talked to a number of dentists who have said, no, honey is protective in the mouth, which goes against everything we think.

But there are studies that look at the pH of the mouth.

So I'm not a dentist.

I'm a medical doctor.

But when I've been educated by dentists, tooth decay appears to happen when the pH of the mouth drops.

When we eat sugar or something that's fermentable, or in the setting probably of fat-soluble vitamin deficiency, the pH of the mouth drops and the karyogenic bacteria are able to thrive.

Well, if you look at the pH of the mouth, when you eat honey, it drops and then it rebounds more quickly.

So it's interesting.

Is there something in the honey that prevents that?

It's certainly an ancestrally consistent food.

If you look at where honey is available in the world, it's eaten everywhere it's available.

So yeah, we're going to just hang a lantern there on ancestrally consistent food.

You couldn't get a more classic naturalistic fallacy right there.

But I love that he talks about the difference in tooth decay between the men and women of this tribe.

And like, yeah, the women don't seem to have that much of it, but the men seem to have quite a lot.

We can't tell why.

It could be the meat.

The one thing you have established in the studies is that men get 40% of their calories from meat and women get 1.2%.

That may be a distinguishing factor.

It would be weird that he hasn't drilled down on that, except he is Mr.

Eat Only Meat and maybe a little bit of honey.

So maybe he doesn't want to start picking at that particular thread.

So yeah, that seems like a big distinguishing factor that he's not exploring.

So he says he's, you know, he makes it feel like we should be surprised that honey is eaten everywhere it's available.

It's literally been the easiest sweetening agent we've had before we could process sugar.

Before we could take like large bunches of beets or sugar cane and turn them into sugar, we used honey as a sweetener.

That's a traditional, it's an ancestrally consistent food, I guess I could say.

It was something that we used for a very long time.

It was the easiest thing we had.

It's not crazy that we kept using it throughout the entire time, but I would say and suggest that if you were to ask a regular household now how much honey they go through versus how much, say, refined sugar they go through, I would bet that the sugar amount is more than you know than the honey amount because it's just easier way to sweet something, sweeten something that's more neutral than it is with honey.

If you sweeten it with honey, it's going to have a honey flavor, but if you sweeten it with just sugar, it will just be sweet because that's a very neutral type of flavor.

So there's a possibility now, I would imagine,

I don't know, I never surveyed anybody, but I would imagine that people use less honey than they do refined sugar because it's just easier for us to use and it leaves less of a trace in your food.

This also feels too to me, Marsh, like the argument from popularity.

Everyone has access and eats it, so it must be special that's what he's trying to say and it's like well it was been available for a long time and it was before technology we had we had technology to make things more sweet so that's why it still remains in our pantry but it it's it's popular because for years and years and years and years and a lot throughout a lot of our ancestry we ate it not because it was special but because it was available Yeah, and I love that he uses that argument while also advancing the point that we shouldn't eat vegetables.

They're bad for us.

But I would say vegetables are ancestrally consistent food.

We've been eating vegetables for a very long time.

And

wherever vegetables are available, there are lots of people eating the vegetables.

But apparently that argument doesn't work for those.

I'll also point out, as I mentioned at the top of the show, given that we're talking about tooth decay here, Paul has put out videos saying you shouldn't use toothpaste.

Water is sufficient.

Now, even if he's now using water and honey, I'd still suggest he isn't someone whose dental advice we should take.

And when he says, when I've been educated by dentists, I would argue not quite enough.

He hasn't listened enough.

Yeah, he's finding the one in 10 dentists that don't recommend toothpaste.

Yes, yeah, yeah, yeah.

Okay, so now he's going to talk about carbohydrates in this next clip.

There's some really interesting evidence that polyunsaturated fatty acids probably hijack these satiety mechanisms as well, and that linoleic acid, specifically in other omega-6s, can have negative consequences at the level of the brain, and you don't get that satiety response to turn off.

But yeah, I agree with you.

Every once in a while on strict carnivore diets, people can't eat enough because of this.

And they do benefit from including some carbohydrates in their diet.

And I think, you know, our ancestors have done that occasionally.

But again, I do think that for humans to thrive, we should not fear meat and organs.

And you make that the center of your diet.

And like you're saying, I think that there is a benefit to a carnivor-ish diet.

Just like you, how many people are going to eat just meat and organs for their whole life?

Some, a devoted few, and they're definitely going to benefit.

But I think that the number is 10 to 20 to 100x who might benefit from understanding that meat and organs are valuable, incorrectly vilified, and that there's a spectrum of plant toxicity.

So this is interesting to me because on the subject of naturalistic fallacy and in the context of what we've been saying, now we're saying that ancestors, our ancestors did actually eat more than just meat sometimes, but we shouldn't.

We've kind of reversed this here.

Like, oh yeah, they used to have some extra stuff, but we shouldn't, we wouldn't benefit as much as that.

And then we're also finding that, you know, plant toxicity is an issue.

Plants are bad, despite the fact that our ancestors traditionally ate quite a lot of those.

So where are we on the natural stuff here right now?

He's all over the shop.

He also says people are vilifying meat.

I mean, sure.

Are there some organizations that do it?

But like, why do you spend your life worrying what PETA says about what you eat, right?

You're going to eat it no matter what.

You could just not pay attention to them.

I think that they just take some, some sort of intellectual damage and also some experience some cognitive dissonance with the ethics around these things.

And it bothers them, right?

I recognize as someone who consumes meat that I'm doing something unethical.

I recognize that.

I have to contend with that all the time.

I try to change my diet so I don't eat as much meat, but that's something I have to think about when I eat meat.

And if you have to think about that, maybe it'll slow your meat prop meat consumption down.

That might be a good thing for you.

Also, I just want to point out too that like he makes it seem like there's sort of this majority of people are vilifying vilifying meat.

There's no majority of vegetarians in the world.

I mean, the U.S.

has 4.2% and the UK has about 8% of people that report as vegetarians.

The largest I could find were people that were in India.

India has the largest population of vegetarians percentage-wise, and maybe even maybe even numbers-wise, because it's a very populous country.

That's the largest number.

It's not a lot of people.

And so the idea that they're seeming like a ton of people are vilifying meat nobody's there's there's very few organizations out there that are saying you shouldn't do it they are just listening only to those organizations so they could fight back against them yeah and also when it comes to vilifying meat it isn't necessarily for the the people who are saying you shouldn't eat meat aren't saying it for any of the reasons they're talking about here the number one reason not to eat meat as you say is the ethics of uh of of killing animals that are living creatures the number two reason is climate change yeah you shouldn't be eating meat because of the contributions of carbon to the atmosphere.

They haven't had that discussion at all.

And the reason they haven't had that discussion is either because they'd have to talk about how climate change isn't real.

I don't know whether Joe actually thought that at the moment when this went out in 2020, or they'd have to countenance the fact that they don't have an answer to that.

And then the third reason to eat less meat is eating red meat is associated with a higher cancer risk.

And that is something that they'd have to deal with.

But really, climate and ethics are the two biggest reasons that they are just not

in any way addressing in this.

They vaguely touch on it when they talk about how you can do regenerative farming, right?

So they vaguely touch on climate change there by saying they don't want factory farms.

And what you can do is this regenerative farming, but that's just not true to be able to feed everybody.

And certainly not true with the level of privilege that these two gentlemen experience, right?

It's certainly not true in that sense.

And I guess on the ethics, they talked about that duck.

So I guess we covered the ethics as well.

It certainly did so this next piece is about vegetarians and their brains

check this out you'll appreciate this so in the evolution folder jamie i don't know if the study will be great to pull up but there's a study in there the vegetarian erp brain study so they've done studies with with vegetarians and vegans and omnivores looking at the eeg so looking at the electroencephalogram and looking at the way the brain responds at a neocortical and a more basic level and so the bottom thing there is kind of a complex statement but they, you see what they say.

The findings suggest that vegetarians' aversion toward non-vegetarian food prevails at the subjective level and it's consistent with personal beliefs.

But at the neural level, the intrinsic motivational salience of animal food remains.

So that means that in the deeper brain, they still crave meat.

Yeah, well, they eat it when they get drunk.

Exactly.

Okay, and this is the piece where he's talking more about how he's believing a study that was actually a marketing survey.

So

then he goes off on that for a second.

But look, a lot of people are ethical vegetarians and vegans.

They do it because they think killing animals is a bad thing.

And, you know, look, I think too, that I have.

If I were to say I have nothing but respect for people who do that just as an ethical thing, I have nothing but respect for those people.

I don't think Joe respects those people, but I genuinely respect people who don't eat meat because it's unethical.

I think that that's something they have thought deeply about the things that they consume and they they made a very conscious choice people have a lot of different urges and then they control those urges and sometimes if you maybe you know and again i'm not saying that the survey he's saying is true but let's just presume that one person out there gets drunk and eats meat let's just say that that happens one single time you lower your inhibitions when you're uh when you're drunk right so like there's a possibility that you might decide to eat meat When you're not, you're controlling your urges.

I think if Joe looked at it more in a different way, like how he considers himself and his workout regimen, I think he would have more respect for them because they're listening to the inner general in their head, saying, don't eat meat, dude.

Don't eat meat because it's unethical.

But instead, it's not something he does or values.

So he's going to shit on it.

This is next bit.

We have to play it in the main section.

This is about bears.

There are other things that are like this.

Uric acid is a good example, too.

And incidentally, both LDL and uric acid rise when humans fast.

So if you stop eating, your LDL is going to go up.

And that's been demonstrated multiple times in studies.

Fasting raises LDL.

They've even shown this in hibernating bears.

Hibernating bears have a rise in LDL, but they don't develop atherosclerosis over the course of their hibernation period.

There's actually

a screenshot at the bottom in the Lipid CBD

folder, Jamie, and I'll pull up.

There's another study here with the hibernating bear study.

It's pretty fascinating.

The bear's athero hibernation and so we see this over and over in humans that fasting raises ldl fasting raises uric acid but fasting people who fast people who do ketogenic diets they don't get gout they don't get atherosclerosis in quite the same way or at least that's the hypothesis certainly bears don't

okay didn't think i'd have to say this we're not bears we aren't bears we aren't bears i'm afraid thanks thanks marsh thank you yeah we're not i mean and i can prove that if you don't believe me i can prove it try sleeping for two months.

See what happens.

You know, pack your anus with grass and feces and go to sleep for a couple of months and see how you fare.

Because if you, if you fare well, you might be a bear.

Yeah, you might be a bear.

Yeah, well, it just seems such a genuinely weird thing to say.

I get and I understand that sometimes we compare ourselves to other animals and use other animals to test on, et cetera, et cetera.

Because it's natural.

Because they're natural.

No, like the animals are natural.

So we can do this.

We can compare it to nature.

That's what we're doing here.

Yeah.

Yeah.

Yeah.

Exactly.

But I also think, too, like there are moments that we like try drugs on things and do things like that.

Yeah.

We, we do animal testing, et cetera, et cetera.

I recognize that.

But he's talking about a very specific process that this animal goes through that we have no, we don't even come close to going through that process.

So he's talking about a system in a body, in an animal that does a thing that we don't do.

And somehow we should listen to that as if that is proof of something.

This is just genuinely silly.

Yeah, it happens in nature.

So it must be a good thing.

Yeah, that's exactly what we're doing, Ian.

All right, last clip in our toolbox section.

But if you could get him to just completely, objectively learn and not disrespect his choice to become plant-based, what would you say would be the optimal thing for someone to do having recovered from heart failure and a heart transplant?

What would you recommend?

This is for CT or just anyone?

Anyone.

Let's just have CT listen to this because I'm going to send it to him.

Right.

But anyone in that particular, anyone without any ideology, what would you say would be the optimal thing to eat?

Eat like your ancestors.

Eat like the Hadza, you know, not your doctor.

So eat like, eat, eat meat and organs as a center of your diet from well-raised animals, Rome Ranch, White Oak Pastures, Polyface Farms.

Don't fear the organ meats.

Don't fear red meat.

I really think, I mean, there's tons of stuff in the book about why this information is bad.

Know which plants are the most toxic.

Eliminate the most toxic plants and eliminate vegetable oils and processed sugars like the plague.

And, you know, I think if you do that, you're going to thrive.

And I think you're going to feel really good.

So yeah, that is a textbook example of the naturalistic fallacy.

What you need to do is eat like your ancestors and do all of these things.

This is near the end of the show.

It's worth pointing out.

This is kind of near the wrap-up.

What Joe's doing here as well, he's asking a question about a friend of his who had a heart transplant.

And he's like, oh, generalize it to Morse people.

But he said, but I'm going to send this to my friend CT after the show.

So he's sending this to someone who's had a heart transplant, who has had heart issues as medical advice, as this is what you should change your diet to to be for the best.

And they're using Paul Saladino's naturalistic fallacy-laden misrepresentations of studies advice here, dietary advice.

He's even saying, eat like the Hadza people.

Well, we've already seen the Hadza people, unlike as he's portraying them, don't have meat as the center of their diet.

Hadza women are mostly vegetarian.

They get a small fraction of their food from meat.

So are we going to, are you suggesting they eat like those heads of people and have 1% of your diet be meat?

No, you're saying, eat the diet in my book, buy the supplements from my site, eat the things that I think you should eat, and trust me when I say they're good for you.

And he's trying to sort of prop all that up on, yeah, it's natural, it's what our ancestors would have done.

Yeah, I'm going to go eat like the heads.

I'm going to gorge myself on berries.

I'll be back.

Sounds good.

Yeah.

I'm the last person that thinks I'm smart.

Trust me.

All right, at the end of the episode here, Marsh, anything good in this?

We got to watch Joe chalking down some raw liver for a while and very clearly hating it.

He is not the next Andrew Zimmerman.

No.

Yeah, to a point where later in the episode, he kind of references it back about how unpleasant it was, but he didn't say in the moment it was unpleasant because he didn't think he was able to.

So that was quite nice.

Other than that, look, Joe wasn't wasn't wrong about ketogenic diets being useful for some specific epilepsy patients.

They overstate who it would benefit.

They use it to prop up the idea that ketogenic diets are more broadly useful, which isn't true.

But if I'm going to clutch at any straws, that's the closest thing I'm going to get.

I didn't know that ketogenic diets were useful for some people with epilepsy.

I do know that now, having checked what they said.

And he wasn't wrong about that very specific bit when he talked about epileptic children.

I think when I listened to this,

I didn't find a lot good, but it just reminded me of why people choose things like this to change their diet.

These fad type diets, they're easy to remember.

They're easy to put in place in a sense that there's not a lot of things you have to do.

Listen to how simple this diet is that he said at the end.

He summed it up in less than a...

20 seconds for what you can do to

make yourself feel great is what he said.

So if you can, a lot of people are in the world busy doing a million other things, and they're looking for that one simple trick.

And these people, that's what they're selling you.

They're selling you one simple trick.

Do this thing, supplement through my company, buy my products, and you will feel great.

And I think this is

the same guy who a hundred years ago would walk around with a briefcase of pills and set it in front of your door and try to sell you all this stuff.

He's just now doing it on a mass marketing scale on Joe Rogan, but it's pretty much a pill salesman, a snake oil salesman, somebody who's trying to sell you something that isn't going to do the things it claims it does, but he's going to woo Joe with his big language and the things that Joe already agrees with and punch down on all the people Joe doesn't like.

And it's going to be a home run for Joe every single time.

Okay, so that's it for this week.

Remember that you can get more than a half hour of bonus content each week for as little as a dollar an episode by subscribing at patreon.com slash no rogan meanwhile you can hear more from me at cognitive dissonance and citation needed and more from marsh at skeptics with a k and the skeptic podcast and we're going to be back next week for a little more of the no rogan experience

if you love the show please rate and share it if you want to get in touch with us become a patron or check out the show notes go to knowrogan.com K-N-O-W-R-O-G-A-N dot com.

Hi.