Mark Bell's Power Project - MBPP EP. 670 - Nick Hiebert: Seed Oils Aren't As Bad As You May Think ft. Guest Host Chris Bell

Episode Date: February 1, 2022

Nick is a former student of Human Nutritional Science and Linguistics, and studied at the University of Manitoba. He currently works as a blogger, content creator, and nutrition science communicator, and has also contributed work script-writing for HumanOS as well as beta-testing for Cronometer. Nick is also the sole creator of the Nutri-Dex, a novel nutrition ranking tool designed to score hundreds of foods according to the personal nutrition goals of the user. Tucker Goodrich vs Alan Flanagan Debate: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZT6MPylYUHA&t=2135s Where to find Nick: Twitter: https://twitter.com/The_Nutrivore Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/thenutrivore Ko-Fi: https://ko-fi.com/thenutrivore Discord: https://discord.com/invite/rDFYJMCCmM Nutri-Dex: https://www.the-nutrivore.com/nutri-dex Special perks for our listeners below! ➢Bubs Naturals: https://bubsnaturals.com Use code POWERPROJECT for 20% of your next order! ➢Vertical Diet Meals: https://verticaldiet.com/ Use code POWERPROJECT for 20% off your first order! ➢Vuori Performance Apparel: Visit https://vuoriclothing.com/powerproject to automatically save 20% off your first order! ➢8 Sleep: Visit https://www.eightsleep.com/powerproject to automatically save $150 off the Pod Pro! ➢Marek Health: https://marekhealth.com Use code POWERPROJECT10 for 10% off ALL LABS! Also check out the Power Project Panel: https://marekhealth.com/powerproject Use code POWERPROJECT for $101 off! ➢Piedmontese Beef: https://www.piedmontese.com/ Use Code POWER at checkout for 25% off your order plus FREE 2-Day Shipping on orders of $150 Subscribe to the Podcast on on Platforms! ➢ https://lnk.to/PowerProjectPodcast Subscribe to the Power Project Newsletter! ➢ https://bit.ly/2JvmXMb Follow Mark Bell's Power Project Podcast ➢ Insta: https://www.instagram.com/markbellspowerproject ➢ https://www.facebook.com/markbellspowerproject ➢ Twitter: https://twitter.com/mbpowerproject ➢ LinkedIn:https://www.linkedin.com/in/powerproject/ ➢ YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/markbellspowerproject ➢TikTok: http://bit.ly/pptiktok FOLLOW Mark Bell ➢ Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/marksmellybell ➢ Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/MarkBellSuperTraining ➢ Twitter: https://twitter.com/marksmellybell ➢ Snapchat: marksmellybell ➢Mark Bell's Daily Workouts, Nutrition and More: https://www.markbell.com/ Follow Nsima Inyang ➢ https://www.breakthebar.com/learn-more ➢YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/c/NsimaInyang ➢Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/nsimainyang/?hl=en ➢TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@nsimayinyang?lang=en Follow Andrew Zaragoza on all platforms ➢ https://direct.me/iamandrewz #PowerProject #Podcast #MarkBell

Pat Broderick, family, how's it going? Now on this podcast, we talk a lot about getting your lab work done. That's why we've partnered with Merrick Health. They're a telehealth network and they're owned by Derek from More Plates, More Dates. But the amazing thing about Merrick is that when they get your labs done, they have a client care coordinator go over those labs with you. Now, a lot of you, when you guys are looking at labs and looking at your testosterone, cholesterol, et cetera, what Merrick Health does is they don't immediately throw a needle at you. They can help you figure out what type of things you need to do in terms of your nutrition, potentially what you need to do through your supplementation. And if you're someone who

potentially has hormonal issues, whether you're advanced in age or you do have very low testosterone, Merrick will put you on a protocol that is specific to you and that helps you out with your current levels. The problem with a lot of these other telehealth networks is that when they do HRT for individuals, they give everybody the same exact thing and that can actually damage you and not be beneficial. That's why Merrick Health is the way to go. And Andrew, how do they go about it? Yes, that's over at merrickhealth.com. That's M-A-R-R-E-K health.com. And let's say you just want to get your testosterone checked or maybe you want to get your testosterone, your estrogen and a couple of other things. Load all those labs into your cart and at checkout enter promo code Power Project 10

to save 10 percent off all those labs. But let's say you're not sure where to start. Head over to Merrick Health dot com slash Power Project and get the Power Project panel. That's going to cover everything you need to know, including a consultation with a client care coordinator. That comes free with that. And use promo code POWERPROJECT to save $101 off of that entire bundle. Again, MerrickHealth.com. Links to them down in the description as well as the podcast show notes. I'm not.

There we go. There we go. Is this thing on? What was that accent? It was pretty good. What was that? It sounded like Swedish? It's Dom Irere, right?

Oh, yeah, yeah. Is this thing on? It's a comedian who just used to fuck around with the microphone before he would start talking. Okay. And then he explained, like, he was, what, Italian? Dom Irere, yeah, he's Italian. And he would talk about his accent and everything, yeah. He's Italian. Yeah. He was his accent and everything. He's Italian.

He was on the Rodney Dangerfield special. So back when stand-up comedy was amazing, with Sam Kinison, Andrew Dice Clay, Robert Schimmel. Remember all those dudes? Lenny Clark. He's like East Coast dude? It's kind of what got Rogan into comedy, is that Dangerfield's thing.

Rodney Dangerfield would host, and each guy would get like 10 minutes, and they were amazing. That was incredible. They were like the best comedians ever. They could do it again now, though. There's enough good guys now to do that again. Bore, fill us in over here. We're talking today about like we're recording, right? Yep.

We're talking today about some seed oils. We have an expert that's going to come on. And these guys have been kind of, there's been expert and expert kind of feuding. We don't know if these oils that are in our food – I refer to them more as like restaurant oils because I think seed oils, people are like, what the hell are those? I'm not sure if I even consume those. But we're basically talking about like vegetable oils, canola oil, that kind of crap. And it gets cooked at high temperature, and some people believe it to be really dangerous. But our guest today, he doesn't seem to think it's that dangerous and he's been

going back and forth. He actually thinks it's healthier. So he's saying that if we took like our steak and for example, ate like Piedmont tea steak, which is a lot leaner, and then maybe had a salad with some vegetable oil. My extrapolation of what he says is that that would be much healthier than like eating a fatty ribeye, right? Trying to figure out a way to get maybe a little bit less of that saturated fat and implement a little bit. And more of the PUFAs, which somebody like Paul Saladino said like linoleic acid's terrible for you and all these things. So we have to see what Nick says about this. It's a lot of it's like hearing the back and forth and then taking what's relevant to us, trying to extrapolate that out of what's relevant, you know, what he says. It gets to be

really hard to figure out, right? Because our processed foods have a lot of these fats in them, right? A lot of these highly palatable packaged foods that are in the grocery store have a lot of these fats in them. So it always seems like they're easy to blame because they are accompanied by a bunch of other calories, right? It's that analogy that like a firefighter is at every fire, but the firefighter didn't cause it. It's just associated with the fire because that's who puts it out, right? So maybe this water was responsible for it. Yeah. So what I'm saying is that like, maybe it's not necessarily the oils, but maybe it's the mixture of oils with sugar and other things that are toxic. And then people will just say,

oh, well, vegetable oil is toxic. And I think he's saying by itself, it's not, but do we eat it by itself? Do we ever consume it by itself? And I don't think so.

The other thing that I think is really interesting, John Mackey, who owns Whole Foods or started Whole Foods, says this, which I just find it very interesting. He's like, when you take one ingredient out of a food, he just doesn't think it's a good idea because the body doesn't know how to handle it. So when we take sugar and we extract sugar out of the plant, now it's just all sugar.

Maybe the same thing is true of whey protein. And they're thinking maybe the same is true of fat. Looks like Nick is ready to go. Awesome. Oh my god, look at Nsema's pipes. Holy shit, Nsema. Jesus. Calm down. How's it going, Nick?

There he is. I don't know if he can quite hear There he is. Yep, yep. I don't know if he can quite hear us just yet. Hello, hello. Yo. There he is. All right, there he is. All right, Nick, what do you got going on over there? We were talking today to try to investigate and get to the bottom of whether these PUFAs,

whether these seed oils, how bad they are for us, or maybe they're not bad for us. What is your take on this? And how'd you get into this mess in the first place? I'm not entirely sure how I got into the mess. I just heard a lot of people making very bold claims about the relationship between vegetable oils and health. And anytime I asked them for clarification, the answers they gave me just didn't seem very satisfactory. So I decided to just look into it myself. And as somebody who, I like to think that I have a decent epistemic framework that I'm working with when I look at nutritional science. I just wasn't able to find very much substantiation for very many of the claims,

if any of the claims that are made that ultimately cash out into vegetable oils being bad for human health. I don't see any validation for the claim. I don't see any persuasive justification for the claim. What about when they're heated up? Because that's kind of the complaint is that something like canola oil or some of these other seed oils or vegetable oils, when they're heated up and we use them for cooking, that they're now a shitty fat and they're bad for us. Well, the limited data that we have on the subject would largely seem to suggest that the benefits survive heating. It's only really been robustly investigated like a few times. And there is one systematic review on the subjects and the aggregated results are that the benefits seem to survive heating.

That's not to say that heated oils and non-heated oils are equal. Not to say that heated oils and non-heated oils are equal. It's just we don't seem to have a very good basis to suggest that there are statistically significant differences between them. If our research question is how these different oils affect disease outcomes. So if the unadulterated non-heated oils reduce which maybe the health value would be reduced. But in terms of how people typically engage with heated oils, it doesn't really seem to pick up a signal in the literature in terms of disease risk. And in fact, like there are some data sets out there that take a whole collection of fried foods. And the association that we see between these foods largely hold true even when they are cooked with heated fats, right? So like

red meat seems to increase disease risk and then vegetables seem to decrease disease risk. And that holds true even when it's heated oils that are investigated directly. So I don't see any persuasive. How does red meat influence disease risk what is the the mechanism there um i think i think the effect on apo b is probably doing most of the heavy lifting there um but yeah the thing is that when people ask this sort of question like what is the mechanism by which red meat causes disease risk or whatever, or increases disease risk? The thing is that we don't really need a mechanism for causal inference. That's like a really weird idea. It's not really weird. Like, the Bradford Hill criteria is something that has been suggested as, you know, a set of criteria, criteria in quotes, because even the creators of those criteria did not want those criteria used as criteria.

But even within those criteria, mechanisms are not a necessity, right, for causal inference. criteria, mechanisms are not a necessity, right, for causal inference. So my rebuttal there is just the relationship between red meat and disease risk, particularly coronary heart disease, seem to be linear and proportional, and the relationship would appear to be mediated by changes in LDL cholesterol or ApoB. Were these like randomized controlled trials or these like epidemiological trials? Well, they're epidemiological studies, but I don't think there's anything persuasive that disqualifies epidemiological evidence of a certain quality from being able to inform a causal inference. I don't think there's anything about it that disqualifies it from that. But we do actually have evidence that replacing animal foods with plant foods actually does reduce risk. So this is actually a

trial that Tucker brought up in his debate with Alan, the Leon Diet Heart Study, where basically people replaced butter, meat, and cream with bread, legumes, a little bit of fruit, and some margarine, and they saw a 73% reduction in disease risk. And that's what the calories matched, basically? 73% reduction in disease risk. And that's what the calories matched, basically? I believe calories were actually pretty equal between the groups toward the end of the trial. Yeah, because if I remember correctly, yeah, calories were pretty equal.

So I guess one thing that I want to ask here is when it comes to seed oils and like olive oil, et cetera. Um, let's, I want to know your idea from like maybe a practical sense. Cause most people listening and they, when the people who are listening to the Tucker Allen debate, um, a lot of people were like, okay, well this is, this is awesome. Um, but now when applied to my daily life, what, what decisions should I make? Uh, is there any benefit in going for, um, non-seed oils rather than seed oils? Like if you're just going to make a decision in the grocery store, like you yourself, I'm curious, you yourself, um, is there any decision that you'd rather make in the long run just for yourself, not looking at disease risk? Uh, how do you kind of meander that?

do you kind of meander that oh well i mean i would i mean i i prefer like sesame oil and avocado oil just because they taste nice okay um in terms of disease risk like i think with these oils the the fatty acid composition is doing most of the heavy lifting in terms of mitigating disease risk. So this is why when we do trials like the PREDIMED trial and actually test oils versus like seeds and nuts and seeds, like head to head, we see non-inferiority between them to a large degree, because I think it's actually mostly the fatty acid composition that's doing the heavy lifting there. So as long as the oil has a high unsaturated to saturated ratio, like I think they're largely going to be interchangeable. So I don't think picking and choosing on the basis of what type of oil is really something that is very well substantiated in the literature. I think they are, they're probably all reasonably

interchangeable. Do you think these oils are getting a bad reputation maybe just because they end up appearing in a lot of our highly processed foods? Yeah, I think that's, I think that has a huge role to play. Cause if you think about like all of the, like all of the diet camps, right, they're all, they're all circling around this idea that certain processed foods are bad, right? So you have the low carb people saying it's the refined grains and the sugar. And then you have the vegan people saying, no, it's actually the meat that's in all of the processed food. And then you have the seed oil people saying like, no, it's actually the linoleic acid. They're all just circling around this idea that hyper palatable, like

there are certain hyper palatable processed foods that you should probably avoid. Now, I typically don't like to give like specific prescriptions or recommendations. But to answer your original question, I could probably refer to the very end of my long blog article that I wrote about vegetable oils. The blog article itself is about 15,000 words, but the actual whole document, I couldn't publish it all, but the actual whole document is over 30,000 words. There are like half of it.

I couldn't, I couldn't publish to the blog, but there is an overall summary conclusion at the bottom that I could just read for you. So that'd be great. In conclusion, vegetable oils appear to be a health promoting addition to the diet and seem to offer a range of health benefits and little to no apparent health risks to the general population. However, one should exercise

caution when navigating the current food environment as vegetable oils are included in many foods that are not particularly health promoting. If one chooses to consume vegetable oils, it would probably be wise to integrate them into a healthy eating pattern in ways that do not promote the overconsumption of calories. Some possible healthy ways to include vegetable oils in the diet might be in the form of salad dressings or cooking oils for sauteed vegetables. You just became my best friend because I love sesame oil. I love like ranch dressing. I love all that shit. So I'm just going to start opening up the playbook a little bit. So when you say health benefits, I know you probably went through it in the whole article, which if you can maybe mention the website it's on so people can go read it if they're interested.

But what are some of the health benefits from those oils that you don't see in other oils potentially? from those oils that you don't see in other oils potentially? So when we talk about, usually vegetable oils are discussed when they're being compared to animal fats. So largely in the diet, animal fat, like saturated fat is going to track animal fats and polyunsaturated fat is going to be tracking vegetable oil consumption. If you're looking at Western populations. So that's generally the substitution that we're looking at. So when vegetable oils are replacing animal fat, we see a linear and proportional decrease in risk that is also a function of ApoB. So LDL particles in the blood, that's the mediator or the moderator

between the relationship. So saturated fat and coronary heart disease, polyunsaturated fat and coronary heart disease, that relationship is moderated. So the moderator variable between the independent variable and the dependent variable, the moderator is LDL or APOB. What exactly is APOB? Yeah, APOB is the primary structural protein on LDL particles. It is the thing that we measure if we want to know your total LDL particle count plus VLDL particle count plus IDL particle count. All of the particles on the APOB 100

spectrum, we measure all of them by measuring APOB. So yeah, APOB is the basically the moderator variable between these oils and cardiovascular disease risk in particular. Gotcha. So, you know, I eat a, you know, Mark and I just got came off of a world carnivore month. We've done a carnivore diet for the past probably five years, like mainly a carnivore diet. Do you think that Mark and I would have better health outcomes? Like if we ate leaner meats and traded that some of those fat calories in for like salad dressing um i would not be able to say with 100 certainty that health outcomes would be better although i would make it an inductive inference so that it would likely be the case okay that's

what i would do yeah that's basically what i was trying to like thinking of is like what if we cut the a lot of the saturated fat from the meat? Because we do work with a meat company that has really lean beef. And then we lower it that way and then we just add in some dressing or something like that. Seems like it would work. Yeah, I would. I mean, yeah, to the extent that the substitution lowers a POB, I would expect a linear proportional decrease in risk because that's largely what the evidence would divulge. How much of this is like very specifically person to person dependent? When we had Tucker on when he was debating Alan and Tucker's a super nice guy, so I'm going to pick on him a little bit. I feel kind of bad,

but according to him, you know, if you were to have seed oils, it's going to really, really damage you like to the point where like you're not even going to be able to walk. If I have, if I have just about anything, I'm going to be okay.

If Mark and Chris and then Seema, if they eat literally anything, they're fine. They don't even notice the difference. Um, so again, how, like, I mean, is it safe to say that like it is specifically person to person dependent or is seed oil is good for everybody? Well, I mean, if, if the claim is that seed oils cause some negative health outcome, I would just ask for evidence. I would just ask for evidence. I wouldn't go any further than that until I was presented evidence. I've heard Tucker's backstory where some bad stuff happened to him because he ate some wheat. His diet was really bad. He had a piece of his

colon removed. And then it seems as though he made a rapid shift in his diet where there were probably dozens, if not hundreds of moving parts. And one of those substitutions, one of the things, one of the levers that he pulled was seed oils. And then he just proceeded to make the inference that the seed oils were the cause. See, the thing is that I think Tucker has a preconceived notion about what seed oils must do. And then he curates the literature, basically searching for things that confirm that bias. Because during his debate with Alan, I will say this with absolute confidence, that he dodged pretty much every single point Alan made. In fact,

there was one primary point that Alan made at the very beginning of the debate that Tucker dodged, point that Alan made at the very beginning of the debate that Tucker dodged. And they never got back to it because Alan allowed himself to be led by the hand down tangents that didn't need to be traveled. And that was really unfortunate because Alan could have played the card where he just redirected Tucker to the point every single time. And then the debate actually might have gone somewhere. But the debate didn't go anywhere because Tucker dodged and Allen didn't correct it. So it was a huge disaster. Almost every single point that,

that Tucker brought up was completely and utterly tangential to the debate proposition on the table that Allen had laid out at the beginning of the debate. So in terms of the debate, I, I am also actually on percent uh confident calling tucker a pathological liar because although although he won that debate i would say tucker won the debate yeah easy he won on optics and that's a poor way to win a debate and beyond that, he won on optics, but he won using bullshit because many of his claims were straight up false, like absolutely false, false to the point where I contacted primary researchers that he was citing, and they told me that Tucker was out to lunch.

One of the things that he did bring up, kind of the only thing that really got me was when he brought up, I think it was some study about soybean oil being used in some study. Do you guys remember? I don't remember exactly what it was, but it was like using soybean oil as a medication or something, and a bunch of people got sick or something. Was that bullshit? I could go into that. Yeah, I'd love to. I'd love to hear it. I could go into that. See, that is one of the cases where Tucker made something up.

I don't know if he made it up on the spot or if this is just something that he made up ages ago and is just regurgitating. But what he said about intralipid, which was the soybean oil-based lipid emulsion that was used on those children, what he said about that was false, utterly false. I contacted the primary researcher that he credits with the discovery of linoleic acid as a hepatotoxin. She told me he needs to read the publications again because he's got it wrong. She told me he's basically out to lunch and doesn't know what he's talking about. And she seemed really curious about who this guy was and why he was spreading misinformation about her publications and and when you crack open his references for that particular claim they divulge nothing of the sort there's no claim like there's

there's no evidence by reference to those citations that linoleic acid is a hepatotoxin that causes cholestasis in children. That's ridiculous. Like, I actually have a list here. So, Tucker's claim, linoleic acid in intralipid gives people fatty liver, and omega-ven, which is a fish oil-based intravenous lipid emulsion, reverses the effect, and the effect is specific to linoleic acid because cottonseed oil-based tpn also does the same thing here's the problem they actually know why um vegetable oil or or plant oil actually it's it's it's a plant oil thing it's not a linoleic acid thing it's a plant oil thing they know's not a linoleic acid thing. It's a plant oil thing. They know why this happens to the children. It's because of the phytosterol content.

Because when you actually bypass sterol regulation in the gut and actually inject people with phytosterols, it does fucky things to their livers. We understand this. It does fucky things to the livers of rats. It does fucky things to the livers of rats it does fucky things to the livers of humans we understand that the phytosterol content is the mediator between the exposure and the and the pathology that develops there is i mean tucker tucker loves rodent studies and he's the rat rider of justice so i'm going to put a rodent study on the table and and he can just deal with it there is a rodent study where they take soybean oil-based

lipid emulsions and then fish oil-based lipid emulsions which don't have phytosterol they add the phytosterol to the soybean or to the fish oil-based lipid emulsions and you see the exact same pathology it's not a function of linoleic acid they have causality here it's a function of the phytosterol content so he also makes the claim that vitamin e abolishes the hepatotoxic effects of soybean oil-based lipid emulsions okay we know from wider research that vitamin e and phytosterols have interaction in the human body via changes in sterile transportation across different tissue domains we understand this like i everything tucker said about intralipid was just a fabrication like there are better more plausible and more validated explanations in the literature and they're actually talked

about in the papers he cites which is ridiculous like. I think the problem is I, you know, I bought a hook, line and sinker because I just think, well, he's an expert. He must know he's got the study in front of him, whatever. And that's why I go to Twitter and I go to you. You know, I, I, I was telling Mark about you for quite a long time. Cause I'm like, oh, you got to read what this guy's saying. I think, you know, cause we're really about drilling down into the truth, you know, and trying to figure out like what's real and what's not real. You know, we're friends with like Dr. Saladino, who says that linoleic acid is like the worst thing in the world.

And one of his posts, he said to stop eating chicken and actually commented like this sounds stupid. Like to me that and I think he's a I think he's a brilliant guy. But like to me, that sounds like you're going to stop people from eating chicken. Let me butt in here for a second. It sounds to me like you don't think there should be as much concern over any of these oils. And what about, as Chris was pointing out with chicken, we've heard people say avoid pork because of what they're fed, even sometimes cows because of what they're fed. pork because of what they're fed, even sometimes cows because of what they're fed. Is there any, in what you're digging up and what you're looking at, is there anything that we should be overly concerned with if a cow eats corn or grass?

I would just say that if the health value of a food is dictated by its, or if the negative health potential of a food is supposedly dictated by its linoleic acid content i just want evidence i wouldn't go any further than that i just i just want evidence like extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence and that which is stated without evidence can be dismissed without evidence that's how i deal with most of tucker's interactions with me is that i just ask for evidence until he blocks me. What was the main question that was alluded on the podcast for people that didn't have opportunity to listen to the debate? And what would your answer have been to whatever the question was?

Okay, so Alan led the debate by asking Tucker why we see inverse associations with disease everywhere in the literature when we're investigating low to high linoleic acid content in the diet, high linoleic acid intake. So when we are investigating this exposure contrast in the intake, like it is almost never the case that we see risk increase. It's almost universally the case that we see risk decrease. And Alan pressed Tucker on this early on. And Tucker's rebuttal, and tell me if this sounds reasonable to you, Tucker's rebuttal was Walter Willett's goalpost for a plausible caloric intake is 800 calories a day. That was Tucker's rebuttal. That doesn't interact with the question.

That's just a dodge. Like it doesn't interact with the question. So the problem there was that Alan didn't flag that it was a tangential point, a red herring that didn't interact with the question. And he didn't redirect the conversation. Well, he could have said, well, okay, that's Walter Willett's opinion. Let's get back to the point. Why is it that there are universal inverse associations between this exposure and disease? And that's the way the debate should have gone, right? Every time Tucker wanted to dodge, Allen brings him back to the point it didn't happen that way it was really unfortunate because i actually thought that alan had the better points he just allowed himself to be taken down rabbit holes and tangents that didn't need to be gone down like uh 90 of what they talked about was tangential to the actual point that alan raised at the very beginning that tucker didn't seem to have any substantive rebuttal to other than a red herring about walter willett's preferences about plausible caloric intakes. And even that is kind of, even that, if that was like the question on the table, that's a red herring, because if you actually look at the median caloric intakes across the quantiles of intake in these cohort studies, they're not 800 calories a day. The median intakes are representing exactly that, the median intakes.

calories a day. The median intakes are representing exactly that, the median intakes. We don't really care about what's going on at the far reaches of the distribution. In each quantile, we see calories are roughly anywhere between 1,500 and 2,500, depending on the population, but they're roughly within a reasonably narrow range for every quantile we don't see craziness like it's 800 right here and 3000 right here like so the point that oh the researchers put this as a goal post for a plausible caloric intake it's just a red herring why should i care that's not represented in any of the median intakes in any of the quantiles of intake in any of these studies so why should i care right like the whole point the whole rebuttal that led down the tangent was just silly it didn't need to happen in um your research have you seen so like on the flip side of this we have saturated fat which is you know we find a lot of

that in meat but uh meat also has other fats in it. Is there like an upper limit of saturated fat that you found in your research or is there, you know, any sort of thing that you found with saturated fat? Like, can we have some of it? How much can we have? Like, what's, do you have any information on that? Yeah, there, I mean, like this is one of the most validated things in nutrition science because it's actually one of the few questions that we have actual like really long RCT data for. And we have a lot of validation from prospective cohort studies. I actually did a systematic literature search not too long ago. First time I ever did like a really serious systematic literature search. first time I ever did like a really serious systematic literature search. And I think I pulled up about 40, almost 40 cohort studies investigating this question. And it's true.

You see heterogeneity in some studies. There is no association between saturated fat and heart disease. And in other cohorts, you see the same thing. but the thing is uh there are a subset of cohorts where risk almost universally increases and if you stratify those cohort studies by intake and you do a dose response you see that the increase in risk is linear and the reason that a lot of studies are not finding statistically significant associations is that everybody's eating either a really low amount of saturated fat in those cohorts or a really high amount of saturated fat in those cohorts. So there's not enough statistical power to actually tighten the confidence intervals. So the actual range of intake that seems to associate with risk is crossing a threshold that is between 15 to 35 calories or

15 to 35 grams of saturated fat per day is the intake threshold that associates with risk. And the bottom end and top end of that is kind of like an S shaped curve, right? You reach a maximal level where there's just not as there's not enough statistical power to really show an increase in risk. But there is this upslope in the middle range where you do see an increase in risk, and then the confidence intervals just blow up on both sides. And this has been validated in three different meta-regression analyses on randomized controlled trials investigating the relationship between polyunsaturated fat substitution in coronary heart disease, is that it's a function of how it changes cholesterol, how it changes LDL, ApoB, whatever you want to say.

So a meta-regression analysis is a way of investigating. It's like a meta-analysis, but it allows to some degree for non-linear testing. So a meta-analysis just tests linearly, but a meta-regression has the capacity to test for non-linear effects. And we see this non-linear effect with saturated fat, where you cross the 10% of calories threshold and risk increases. I brought this up with Tucker and he actually completely ignored the point because I said, okay, Lee Hooper published a gigantic Cochran analysis on this.

If you look at her sensitivity analyses, you see that saturated fats being replaced with polyunsaturated fat from vegetable oils decreases total cardiovascular disease events. The relationship is mediated by serum cholesterol and polyunsaturated fat is the best replacement for saturated fat like that is what's divulged in the sensitivity analyses of that paper and he just read the abstract and said oh there was no difference in mortality and he dusted his hands off. Like everything was cool. It's like, well,

a, do those studies even have enough power to measure that end point? Because all cause mortality is not something that's always going to be affected. Depending. It depends on your study population. It depends on duration. Like what if you had a drug that reduced cardiovascular disease risk, uh,

or reduce the risk of myocardial infarction, which primarily affects people around the ages of like, say, 50 to 65. Like that's where the risk kind of peaks. Right. But that's not typically the age range where people die. Life expectancy, it's like a lot higher than that. Right.

So in the trial where you're investigating this drug that lowers the risk of myocardial infarction within the window of time that you investigate you can see a statistically significant reduction in in events but you might not see a difference in all-cause mortality because it's not actually captured like the study doesn't have enough power to detect the end point so he was like oh there's no difference in mortality why should i? Was there enough power to actually detect that end point? Was that a primary end point? The answer is no. So why should I care? Right? Yeah. I know you're enjoying this clip, but listen up. We have this beef company, P. Monti's Beef, that no matter what diet you're doing, whether it's low fat, high fat, carnivore, keto, whatever, they have perfect cuts that are going to fit your diet perfectly. And the cool thing, Andrew, less

connective tissue. So you're not going to have those gristly, nasty things that you have to spit out when you eat beef. That's what those are? That's what those are. Oh, and Piedmontese doesn't have that. They don't have that because the cows are jacked, lack of connective tissue, buttery when you cut into it. Amazing taste. So Andrew, how can they get some Piedmontese? Yes, sir. It's over at piedmontese.com. That's P-I-E-D-M-O-N-T-E-S-E.com. At checkout, enter promo code POWER for 25% off your order. And if your order is $150 or more, you get free two-day shipping. Again, that's at Piedmontese.com, promo code POWER. Let's go ahead and get back to this podcast.

If you had all the money in the world and you could do whatever study you want, what would that be? Because I know that it's really hard to get things funded and everything, and that's why a lot of this isn't done. that be? Because I know that it's really hard to get things funded and everything, and that's why a lot of this isn't done. I have no idea what kind of study I would do if I had unlimited money. Well, lately, because of this whole debate, I've been really wishing that we could have another one of these really large fatty acid substitution trials just to put it to bed because a lot of these studies come from the 60s, 70s, and 80s. And I think there's a couple going into the 90s. But back then we didn't measure markers that were as robust as what we could measure today. So they were measuring total cholesterol, which doesn't always associate with risk because it's actually

ApoB that's being tracked, right? So total cholesterol is a correlate for ApoB. LDL cholesterol is a tighter correlate for ApoB. LDL particle is a tighter correlate for ApoB, but it's all just tracking ApoB. The problem with the old trials is that they were using the measurement with the least sensitivity, right? So yeah, I would really like to see another one of these really large fatty acid substitution trials that actually makes a decent effort to control all of the variables. There was only one trial to my knowledge that was an inpatient trial that actually managed to keep things relatively stable between groups and control for confounding variables in a really robust way. There's only really one such trial that succeeded in doing that. And I would really like to see that done again,

where we just, but we're measuring things in a more precise, more robust way. So we could really just put it to bed. Uh, not that I think it really needs to get done. I just think it would be nice. Personally, I think we have enough validation on this question that we could put it to bed right now. I'll be perfectly honest. No, going back real quick to what Andrew was mentioning on a person-to-person basis, figuring out if it's actually a problem for you, even though anecdotal evidence is purely anecdotal, you know, Tucker was saying how he made that change and you're mentioning he made tons of changes. You know, we had Stan Efferding on, who's a fairly objective individual, and then he came on with Baker. and they were

talking about the seed oils for a little bit and stan is some stan is someone who's very objective and just mentioning also seed oils don't bother me at all i just don't use them anymore but when i have them give me no issue i really don't care that much about it because it doesn't give me an issue but stan was mentioning how himself and some people he worked with that he had actually pay attention to this stuff, when they have seed oils, they spatter the toilet rather immediately. So I would just go to say, again, for the end user who's listening to this, who's like, what should I do? One of those things is, like you were mentioning, don't make a bunch of different substitutions. If you're out there eating tons

of hyper palatable food, high calorically dense food all the time, every day, and then you make the substitution of oils, that might not be the thing. Like make the big changes first. And then when we get to the nitty gritty things, maybe the oil might be something for you specifically that you want to pay attention to. I think that sounds fairly reasonable. What do you think? Well, I definitely agree that you need to control for things in order to have high internal validity, right? So you could do an N equals one substitution study on yourself. So you're crossing over between different exposures, right? So in Tucker's case, he was on diet A and ended up on diet B, and he went from one to the other and made whatever inferences he wanted to. It's not clear to me that he actually made a one-for-one substitution between N equals one crossover, I don't see how he could have high internal validity for that question for himself. And even if he did do that and experience some negative effect, how much internal validity is actually there?

Because a lot of these things could be explained or captured by the placebo versus nocebo effect, right? So that's why anecdotes just really don't, they don't ring my bell because they could mean anything, right? I think, you know, I like a lot of what you're saying because I think sometimes we get too caught up in like over-analyzingzing and overreading the food label.

It is great to try to protect yourself the best you can and make the best choices possible. But that's not the first place that my mind goes to. My mind's not like, oh, man, I got to really be cautious of those seed oils. They're super delicious. I don't really think about them. I don't really think about them, but I am aware that all this, like many, many of the things that are in a grocery store have seed oils in them because they're these hyper palatable foods. They're really easy to consume. It's real easy to overeat with things like with, with the different types of food that are out there. But what have you seen with maybe some groups that do eat a lot of seed oils or a lot of oils, like Chinese food, for example?

Like we all love Chinese food. Every time we talk about it, we're like, we need to get out of here and actually go get some Chinese food because it's freaking amazing. There seems to be a lot of like sesame oil in there. And is there like people that eat a lot of that kind of food? that eat a lot of that kind of food? Like, is there, I don't know, is there any like real negative repercussion or is it only once you, you know, start to really over consume calories

that we see disease and some danger coming with those types of oils? Yeah, so again, like if the research question is, or if the claim being made is that there is some independent deleterious effect of vegetable oils again i would just ask for evidence and i wouldn't go any further right because at that point like i could be agnostic about it and i'm not the one making the claim i'm open to persuasion i'm here to be

persuaded the person making the claim that the vegetable oils increase risk, it's up to them to demonstrate to me that that's the case. Right. So like right off the hop, I'm not persuaded that these oils are particularly negative for anybody. It could be the case that they're negative for some people. I just ask for evidence. So perhaps, so perhaps searching for the mayonnaise that is made with olive oil is a waste of time. It very well might be. Sure. Yeah.

Yeah. All these things, you know, made by like Primal Kitchen and some of these things, maybe there's not as much to it as what we previously have heard. Yeah, see, the thing is that I think a lot of the vegetable oil scaremongering that occurs within the social media space is largely promulgated by people with poor scientific literacy who don't know how to interpret the data, don't know what they're looking at when they're reading coming up with conclusions that are just ultimately reflections of more reflections of their own biases rather than a reflection of what the literature is actually divulging uh like for example like i have on the screen in front of me i have an entire list of egregious claims from tucker that i extracted from his debate with Alan that I would be tickled fucking pink to go through. Because a lot of them are just bold face lies. It's so funny. Like, because I understand he won the debate on optics,

right? Like it's really easy for an observer of that debate to think like, wow, Tucker crushed him. But somebody who isn't like really tuned in and astute uh in terms of like debates and logic they might not pick up on why tucker won on bullshit right it's not obvious how he was dodging the whole time it's not obvious how he was being evasive and slippery and not answering questions it's it's not obvious to somebody who doesn't have

domain knowledge in debate and logic, but it's actually astounding when you just do me a favor, like anybody listening to the podcast right now, go back to the debate with Tucker and Allen, see Allen's initial

question about why we see inverse associations in the literature between linoleic acid exposure and disease outcomes. That was that was Alan's primary question that he put on the table for Tucker. Anytime Tucker talks about anything other than that is a dodge and an evasion. And just count up how many times he talks about something other than that and then you and then at the end of that you'll have a tally of how many times he dodged because that was the actual debate proposition that alan put on the table and now and tucker didn't interact with it nick do you have a hard time uh not getting frustrated like do you do you find yourself

getting frustrated right like it's it's uh it's easy when you're trying to look through like literature to try to say, I don't like what this guy is saying. I don't like these points. But then it's also easy to say, I really start to hate this motherfucker. Like does it kind of get that way for you where, I mean, because you said you have that list. Do you read his tweets? And it's keeping you up at night.

Yeah, my brother was telling me about some of some of the tweets with uh dave feldman and folks like that do you get frustrated because you feel like they're pushing forward or putting something forward that um just just isn't really uh as close to the truth as they could have possibly gotten i get frustrated with bad faith interlocutors like people who dodge people who do do not want to engage in debate even though they hold strong positions like tucker he only debates when he is confident that he can win he doesn't want to debate me and my own the only inference i can draw for that that i can make on the subject that seems plausible to me is that he just doesn't think he would win against me um so like he tells this story right

of an interaction that him and i had i challenged him to a debate he immediately accepted right and immediately after that he started talking about how he wanted an oxford style debate i was like well you've already agreed to a debate you don't get to set the terms now for what kind of debate and if you want to set those terms i'm free to reject like just kidding it's gonna be a rap battle when you say oxford style debate why would that be in his favor what is an oxford style debate an oxford style debate is just a certain type of debate formats where you basically have two people debating and you have a tally of points pro uh or for or against and at the end you just count up the points or whatever it's not a style of debate that i'd be interested in having

because it's it's not a style of debate that would really allow me to grill him on his on his epistemology uh it's a style of debate that would again allow him an opportunity to win on optics instead of substance so i did not want to have an oxford style debate um but i i said you can choose a moderator like you can the i don't really care what the moderator is as long as they have like domain knowledge in debates and logic and bonus points if they have domain knowledge in nutrition so that they can track the conversation. This didn't seem like a very unreasonable ask to me. And it's so hilarious because he said, you're just trying to stack the deck in your favor. And it's like, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait.

Think about what you're implying, Tucker. Think about this. You're saying that having a moderator with domain knowledge in logic puts you at a disadvantage. Are you fucking serious, you serious like it's it's the most it was the most hilarious self-owned i've ever seen out of the guy right so he so he says okay we'll we'll pick a venue together right and then we go back and forth about the venue and he gets frustrated with me and says listen i told you i would pick the venue because i am the person who was challenged because earlier in the conversation he was like the person who's challenged gets to pick the venue but we'll pick

a venue together and then and then i and then i i was suggesting some venues that we might be able to hold the debate on and he was like you're just dying to live down to my lowest expectations i said the person who's challenged gets to defend gets to pick the venue and i i fucking screenshotted the tweet of him saying that we would pick it together and i showed it to him and i said what am i not understanding here you said we would pick it together i'm giving you suggestions and then he just fucking blocked me but he tells the story like i blocked him i blocked him like a day later when he started talking smack and retweeting me and blocking me and retweeting me at the same time. I was like, okay, I don't have time for that shit. And I just fucking blocked him.

He blocked me fucking first, and he tells it in the opposite direction. Like, you're a jerk. No, you're a jerk. Back and forth. Let's make you really mad. You just tweeted, I think yesterday or the day before, um, Mark and I actually fall in the class of a lean mass hyper responder. If that's even a thing, it seems like you, you don't think it is, or you think it's a bullshit. Can you

explain what that is? And then the, um, study that Dave Feldman did or the work that he did. Dave Feldman did or the work that he did? I think lean mass hyper responder is a name given to a particular lipid phenotype. It might, I mean, like he's free to use private language. He's free to come up with definitions of things and that's fine. He can use private language if he wants. If he wants to coin this term, that's fine. The problem is, is that this phenotype has been investigated in the literature like three times and you still see increases in risk. It's probably the most favorable lipid profile to have other than a completely normal lipid profile. So out of the different lipid combinations, low versus high HDL, low versus high triglycerides and low versus high versus high triglycerides and low versus high LDL. What that, I think in terms of combinations,

how many permutations is that? Well, it's a lot of different combinations. And what you universally see is that the phenotype with high LDL universally carries an independent and residual risk. But it is true that if you have low triglycerides and high hdl you're better off than somebody with high ldl who has the opposite but you're actually worse off than somebody who has low triglycerides high hdl and low ldl like his phenotype has been investigated in the literature uh and i'm talking about dave fellman's uh phenotype so like on his website he has this weasley fucking thing on his website called like the cholesterol bounty or whatever and and he sets up some criteria that are like impossible to meet and i think he understands that they're impossible

to meet right his criteria have to be uh a study divulging that his phenotype associates with risks in a way that is equal or higher than the CBD prevalence in the American population. It's some weird analysis that you would never see in any investigation on this ever right so it's it's essentially an unwinnable challenge right he's like prove to me that my lipid profile is dangerous for me and it's just appealing to ignorance prove to me that my prove to me that ldl matters if i'm wearing pink socks like it's just it's just appealing to ignorance it's like just he's claiming oh there's no there's no paper on this particular on this particular subject where the data was analyzed in this particular way yeah it's because that particular type of analysis is fucking crazy and nobody would ever do it like i think the hard part is like what you said before so like

i know we know dave Dave Feldman very well. He's a friend of ours. He's, he's just super, super smart. And I think a lot of times we get bamboozled by people who are, you know, they're really smart and we just, we just go with it, you know, and I'm never sure. That's why I like to dive in and investigate more. That's why I looked at your work because I'm looking at Dave's work and then I say, oh, somebody's rebuttaling this. Who is it? You know, and I find you or I find Kevin Bass or something

like that, you know, by, by, by looking at the people that are, you know, tweeting back at these other people. So it's, it's interesting. And then like, like I said, Mark and I just try to drill down to like, well, what's actually true. And it's so hard to assess um when we don't come from a scientific background you know yeah it's very difficult for people to adjudicate and appraise evidence quality if they don't have any background in science or epistemology or anything of the sort and that i actually think is also tucker's problem is that if you listen to him talk, his epistemology is extremely inconsistent. He contradicts himself constantly. And it's not obvious unless you have like domain knowledge in epistemology, whether or not he is contradicting himself.

Like it's not obvious. So, yeah, I agree that it's difficult for people without such domain knowledge to actually appraise evidence quality, but there are some general heuristics that one can follow that I think are pretty reasonable. Um, and they relate to just appraising evidence based on its position on the hierarchy of evidence, right? That's a very, very, um, um it it's a very effective way to just distill down like okay if it if it's this kind of evidence this is where it belongs in the evidence hierarchy if it's this kind of evidence this is where it belongs on the evidence hierarchy and its quality is either higher or lower than the rungs allow than the rungs above it and the rungs below it, right? So at the bottom of the evidence hierarchy, you have things like Tucker's favorite, right?

Like animal studies, in vitro studies, ecological association studies. Those are all at the bottom of the evidence hierarchy. And then you have intermediate steps in the evidence hierarchy, like cross-sectional studies and case control studies. Above that, you have cohort studies and randomized controlled trials. And then above that, you have meta-analyses of either randomized controlled trials or prospective cohort studies. And the thing to understand here is that you have to keep your eye on the ball because the evidence hierarchy, you apply it and it really depends on the research question you are investigating,

right? If your research question is, how does vegetable oil affect hepatic metabolism in rodents, right? If you want to answer that question, you go to one of the bottom rungs of the evidence hierarchy that is designed for internal validity with regards to human outcomes you would go to the animal study right but if if your research question was how does vegetable oil affect hepatic metabolism in humans the rung you don't you don't go to the rung where they're testing on fucking rats right that's not that's not the rung that should be the first thing that comes to mind. You should be like, well, what is the actual population level association between this exposure and that outcome? Has this been investigated in a randomized controlled trial?

Can we actually show that vegetable oils as an exposure leads to this outcome that has been supposed right so on the evidence hierarchy as well they're like inferring causality with regards to human outcomes from animal data is largely fucking stupid uh inferring human outcome data like what outcomes will happen based on petri dish studies is largely fucking stupid. Ecological studies don't track individual level exposure and outcome, only population level prevalence of exposure and outcome. It's not actually connecting the dots between the exposure and the outcome on the individual level in terms of individual exposure, individual outcomes. individual level in terms of individual exposure, individual outcomes. Cohort studies do that.

Case control studies can do that, but they lack a temporal component. So you don't know which one preceded the other. So case control studies are not very good for inferring causality. Cross-sectional studies are not very good for inferring causality. Ecological studies are not very good for inferring causality because they don't actually track individual level exposure and outcomes. Cohort studies meet all of the necessary criteria for causal inference and randomized controlled trials meet all of the necessary criteria for causal inference. And Mendelian randomization, which is another form of epidemiology, more robust form of epidemiology in a lot of cases, also meets the goalpost for cause or is able to satisfy all the criteria for causal inference. want to have high internal validity, which means you want to know how likely it is that you're observing a cause and effect relationship. I don't see how you get that from the lower rungs on the evidence hierarchy where Tucker likes to live. I can see it where like from the, on the upper rungs

of the evidence hierarchy, I can definitely see how that can happen because for causal inference, you essentially just need three things that Tucker has disagreed with me about this as well. causal inference, you essentially just need three things. Tucker has disagreed with me about this as well. But there are a lot of definitions of causality. There are a lot of criteria for causal inference. And that's true. But they all share roughly around the same characteristics. You need a time precedence. So one thing needs to precede the other. You need a relationship. So these things need to associate with one another. And you need replicability or non-spuriousness, right? So you need to be able to observe it over and over and over again. You need to have others validate your work.

You need, in the terms of nutritional epidemiology, you need to observe this exposure and outcome in multiple populations. You need to validate it, right? Those are essentially the criteria that need to be met for causal inference. And how you get to that is largely adjudicated by statistics, which I won't get into. But there's nothing about the type of epidemiology that Tucker dismisses that disqualifies it from causal inference, for example. Thank you for your time today, Nick. We really appreciate it. Where can people find you and where can they follow along?

Oh yeah, you can find me on Twitter at Twitter slash the underscore Nutrivor. You can find me on my website, which is where you can also find my blog and the large blog article that I wrote on vegetable oils at www.the-nutrivor.com. And you can also, if you wanted to talk to me directly or ping me, you can come onto my Discord server and the link to my Discord server can be found both on my website and on my Twitter profile. It's right in my Twitter bio. So if you wanted to come into my Discord server and actually ping me and talk to me directly about any of this stuff, or hell, even debate me on any of this stuff, I would be more than happy to have you. Awesome. Great.

Thanks again for your time. Have a great rest of your day. Yeah, you too. Thanks a lot, man. Thanks, guys. Thank you. Thank you. Cool.

I think he gave us some good key points and just, you know, it seems like the verdict is still out. I just think the reason why I just kind of, you know, shut it down and we could talk about it forever, right? I mean, you can go on and on and talk about this study, that study. I, for one, I'm not a fan of studies. And one of the reasons I'm not a fan of studies is exactly what he brought up towards the end there when there's like all these rules to a study. So this study said this, this study said that. Oh, but wait, that study didn't follow these same rules. This study didn't have this same rules.

Oh, that study was done with people that were 80 years old. Oh, that study was done with people who are very inactive. Oh, that study was done with people that are extremely active. Oh, that study was, and they always get, they seem to to just get dismissed and i like to just watch what people do watch how it works for people when it comes to learning a skill when it comes to observing people that i admire and look up to i'm just like well what's that guy doing you know and then you're like okay well you know i wonder how that would work for me. That guy eats a lot of pizza. I don't know if that would work for me because I'm already fat or something like that.

So you have to kind of start to whittle away what you think will work for you. But I think a lot of what he said today is really, really super simple. Sugar isn't the problem. Wheat and all these other things, grains, they're not the problem. The type of fats that we have in our food, those aren't the problems. The problem is we don't have control. We've lost control. We've lost our minds when it comes to how we eat food and what we celebrate as being good, yummy food. It also seems like there's not much, many bad fats.

Like you even said like saturated fat, there's a limit. But it's like, you know, all these fats are like, you know. No one has an ability to tell you what the limits are except for when it comes to maybe energy. And then back to studies, we don't know because we never studied that in the context of like maybe a carnivore diet or a keto diet, right? So the context changing would change like how the outcome comes out yeah one thing i wanted

to ask him but i just couldn't i just had a hard time formulating it but i mean with all this information does any of it matter if somebody is we'll say under 20 body fat exercises daily you know has some good habits like do they even have to concern themselves with, oh shit, what kind of seed oils or what kind of, how much saturated, like does it even matter? I don't really, to be perfectly honest, it probably doesn't. Like a big thing in that individual's case that you're talking about, they're healthy. Like, you know, if you're under 20% body fat and you exercise and you have all these things in line, the last thing you're worried

about is which fucking oil am i going to put in my food like it it may matter for some like stan that's why i brought stan up because stan's pretty objective and when he makes a statement about when i have seed oils i sputter the toilet you kind of take it with a little bit more oomph because you know stan's not out here just spitting out right he he's he's not like that. So unlike our guest, I think some anecdotes do matter a bit because they can give the user, they can give the listener something that they can try to apply and see if that N of one works for themselves. And if it makes no difference, okay, it makes no difference. But if it does, you found something that maybe you can change for your variables that will allow you to have better outcomes.

Yeah, I mean we talk about it all the time, the habits that help you to get healthy. Those are the main things and we've talked about so many different things on this show. We've talked about light and how just having electricity and having light on us all day, how that impacts us and how it can impact, you know, our response to when we eat our food and all these different, there's all these like things, right? You can fast real specifically for a certain amount of hours. There's all these like little tiny things that you can mess with and fuck with, but they just, none of them seem to really matter that much. Whether you're kind of a more higher carb person or lower carb person. There doesn't seem to be any like real, I mean, proof is a weird word, but there doesn't

seem to be a lot of evidence that really pins it down to like one thing. It's a series of things like making sure you get sleep. You know, people need to, people need to sleep. People need to figure out ways to mitigate stress. You need to figure out a way to deal with life stresses. And you need to just eat healthy. And you can kind of interpret that whatever way you want. But something that gets you through every single day without overeating.

And then you don't have to worry about, oh, that was number two plastic that my thing was microwaved in. It just doesn't matter. oh, that was number two plastic that my thing was microwaved in, right? It's like it doesn't – it just doesn't matter. And like the taints shrinking and different things that we've heard, it's like how much does that matter? Maybe it does matter, but maybe it's not just from eating plastic. Maybe it's because we – the way that we eat is just a total fucking disaster. I mean, it's just disgusting.

There's no other way to put it. Like, it's gotten to be so out of control. And so if there's even just a little bit more control of that, I bet you that our taints will grow back and be huger than ever. It's going to be amazing. Save the taints. Yeah. Save the taints. Yeah, save the taints.

Feed the taints. I want to see those two talk tucker and our boy how good was that getting like the battle back and forth i love that guy well and it was so funny because it was like uh like playground rules were being set like no no we have to do we have to fight here on this date okay but but you can only you can only bring one friend though okay i thought you said i could bring two hold on wait we got to start all like that's so funny i'll debate you only if we do it oxford style picture like he puts on like a monocle when he says it's so nerdy but it's funny it's like the nerd version of the battle royal ox Oxford style. No, no, no. It's got to be Oxford style. That's fucking awesome.

Oh my God. That was great. But I, like, yeah, I follow Nick because I think, I think it's awesome when somebody is that confident in what they're saying. And I just kind of like those tweets, you know, it's like, he doesn't care about just saying like, this is stupid or, and it makes you look at it, right? We need to hear the other side of stuff, yeah. And he knows how to tweet and get, you know, get you to look at it, you know? So I like, other side of stuff, yeah. And he knows how to tweet and get you to look at it.

So that's sort of why I follow him. Yeah, and so I just wanted to bring up the flip side because I see this all the time in our comments, even on my Instagram. Somebody will say, oh, as soon as I took out carbs, or maybe we'll say seed oils, my pain went away, my back pain went away, or everything got so much better. And then they go really hard when somebody goes against them. So that's, in my opinion,

that's not okay to be like super like, I guess, dogmatic about it. But for somebody that does work, I also think that there's nothing wrong with going hard in the paint for yourself, right? Like there's nothing negative about like, oh, shit, I found something. I'm going to stick with this because like this is actually working, right? I don't want to deter people away from that also. It's hard when the diet really helps you. Like if he came on here and was blasting the carnivore diet, I'm able now to handle that.

But, you know, like a year ago, I probably like would have went at it with him. But now I'm just like, okay, that's just what he thinks. But I know I'm confident in myself and how the shape I got in using this, you know. And so it just takes a little time. I just think, again, it makes sense. Any diet that can help you get through the day without overeating and you're not like undernourished,

you should be good to go. Yeah. Take us on out of here, Andrew. All right. Thank you everybody for checking out today's episode. And the episode that our guests kept bringing up today, I'm going to link that down in the description below. Hopefully I can speak.

And so that way you guys can see everything that he was referencing and then kind of have your take on it as well. Please follow the podcast at Mark Bell's Power Project on Instagram at MB Power Project on TikTok and Twitter. And if you guys are not subscribed right here on YouTube, please do so. And drop us a comment down below on what you guys thought about today. You can follow me at IamAndersy on Instagram and Twitter.

Nseema, where are you at? I am Nseema Inyang on Instagram and YouTube. I am Nseema Yinyang on TikTok and Twitter. Twitter, Chris. I'm at BigStrongFast on Twitter and Instagram. or Chris? I'm at BigStrongFast on Twitter and Instagram and you guys can check out my new podcast, BSF Cast on YouTube or

anywhere you listen to podcasts. Why does BigStrongFast make me think about sex? It's just like that username and it's like BigStrongFast. Oh, yeah, I guess so. I think it's because you're a dirty motherfucker. BBCBSF.

Hey, it's an awesome username. An awesome documentary. Okay. The best. There you go. Oh, is it me? Yep. Is it my turn?

Yeah. It's your turn. Hey, let us know if you guys want to see those two guys debate. We've kind of talked privately. We just don't care that much about the actual the actual subject matter. Cause we feel that we know the answer and the answer is just not to overeat. Do your best to figure that out and you should be fairly healthy exercise. Maybe throw around some weights here and there and go on some walks and you should be good to go.

Strength is never a weakness. Weakness is never a strength. I'm at Mark Smiley bell. Catch y'all later. Bye.