Hello, ladies and gents Roberts, excuse a.com, and today I've got
special guest Bart. K on the line, Bart has a
tremendous background in physiology in nutrition, and we
dive deep into what all he's learned over the years.
In studying that subject matter, we talked quite a bit about
metabolism. We talk about
species-appropriate diet, what kind of evolutionary past we as
a species have come from and how that should ideally dictate, the
type of nutrition that we consume to this day.
We talked quite a bit about General, macro.
Oh, nutrient recommendations protein intake, dietary fat
consumption whether or not it makes sense to consume
carbohydrates and behind agree. Fiber, we talked some about some
controversial topics within the keto carnivore space, such as
you know, should fruit and honey be included.
We talk about Dairy a bit. We talked about all kinds of
things. I really enjoy the conversation,
he has a very popular YouTube channel in which he debunks.
Many common myths out there and also I just wanted to bring him
on and pick his own brain as to what he's learned and how he's
applying. That to his own personal
nutrition, and how is optimized it that?
So thoroughly enjoy the conversation.
I've got no doubt that you will take quite a way quite a bit
away from this discussion. So without further delay, sit
back. Relax.
Enjoy podcast with Bart. Kay
And we are live Bart. How I sir?
I'm very well. So, how are you?
I'm doing wonderfully? Well, myself.
So I've been a perusing on your YouTube, your Instagram.
And I'd kind of like to start this off with something a little
bit off topic, like, what is something that you're working on
that? Nobody that watches your YouTube
channel or Instagram would be aware of you working on, like,
what is your interest outside? Side of the nutrition space,
right? Most people that watch me, don't
understand that. What they see on YouTube on the
various different YouTube channels and the various
different YouTube videos that I put out.
Most people don't understand, I'm playing characters.
Mmm, the information I'm giving is correct.
It is valid. It is robust, that is
scientifically good. But what I'm doing is I'm at
educating people by subterfuge because what I found out very
Very early on. Was that people want to be
amused or shocked or offended or surprised in some way, what they
don't want us to be educated. and so I started to put these
characters in play the field Marshal and we bought yellow kid
online, and The cursing in the swearing in the being abrasive
and and who's wrong on the interwebs style videos, all that
kind of stuff. Yeah, all characters in in real
life, I'm a retired scientist. I don't work in Academia anymore
and I've kind of gone back to an earlier version of of regressed
to an earlier version personality.
Where, in my twenties, I used to be all singing and guitar
playing. I played a number of rock bands
in the 80s and all that kind of stuff.
And I kind of spend a lot of my time playing guitar and singing,
another she got a YouTube channel where I do a bit of that
and I'm going to start to post more stuff there as well.
So most people don't know that about me singer guitar player.
There's just one thing I like it, man.
Do you feel like the personalities that you've
created for yourself in the nutrition space online is, like,
does that ever wear on you? Like all the just, I mean, you
get a lot of hate whenever you speak out about whether people
are thinking As pertains to nutrition.
It's very divisive topic. Yeah, I'm sure you get a lot of
hate from that does is that we're on you or you develop
thick enough scam or doesn't even faze anymore.
Its kind of somewhere in the middle.
I mean, for the most part, most of the time I can be doing with
that and I can work with that and I can just do what I'm doing
and I can separate myself the real me, the offline me from the
characters on the YouTubes. Because that's the guy that's
Copland a Backlash. It's not me.
It's nothing to do with me. It's just a character.
I'm playing. But yeah, sometimes depending on
what, you know, the level of of hate that comes through and it's
not so much the level of hate actually, to be fair.
It's more than love stupid. I'm for example if I post a
video about our favorite friend, mr.
Doucet. That generally.
Engenders. Ten, twenty thousand comments
from Greg dusit supporters, which are full of hate, which is
not pleasant, but it's just, they're so stupid.
There's just absolutely no intelligence behind anything
that any of these people have to say, they have no grasp on the
subject matter at hand. Basically.
It's literally like I am the bad.
Chimpanzee for attacking their head chimpanzee and they are
literally taking a dump in their hand and flinging it at me
basically. Yeah.
Go go go, bad ball, pitcher benzio, you know, something like
that. So that can get on top
sometimes. And then when that happens, I
just take a day or two out and I just turn the computer off and I
just go and sit in the Sun or go and do other things.
Play some guitar and take some walks around where I live, which
is a Edible part of the world with Incredible nature and
scenery and all of that. And it's just, you know,
reground to me. That's okay, fine.
You know, I'm okay now. Yeah, and to it.
So yeah, it looks like you got a little homesteading operation to
going on. Like you got chickens and one
looks like it. Well, we live, we live by a
chicken Farmers, a commercial chicken farm, that produces free
range eggs. And that got, oh, I think it's
upwards of 100,000 hens. Yeah, we don't keep chickens
ourselves but we do live on a what's called a farm lot, which
is just a guess, a word for a small farm.
It's a small block of land where there are cows and a couple of
goats and you know, Few other animals here and there a number
of dogs. There are three families that
live on this property at, you know, far enough, just to upset,
you know, we're not on top of each other.
Yeah, it's it's, it's off grid. In terms of water.
We get all our water from a creek that runs down the back of
the property, along the back of the property.
So we have no Municipal Water with all the nonsense that you
get with that. It's rural.
It's 35 minutes from the nearest small town, it's idyllic.
It's perfect. Yeah.
That's that is grounding in and of itself.
We can get some land as well, and we're trying to, we're
fencing things in. We're gonna get some chickens
and pigs and some lamb or something.
And I feel like, you know, just simply having that, like, all
the chaos that's online. You know, you come home, eat
into the animals like that. That's therapeutic and of
itself. Absolutely.
And if you can get the chickens lying, you'll be a millionaire
in. Three weeks at the rate, things
are going for now for sure. Well text me about this man, so
you've got countless videos on your channel.
Kind of debunking myths that other people spew out there and
and I haven't watched them all but I've watched enough to kind
of get a grasp of your stance on nutrition, but rather than
trying to decipher that from what you've debunked from.
Others stances, I'd love to just you know, wipe the Slate clean
and kind of figure out what your own personal stance on nutrition
is Yeah, sure. So the the idea that I'm putting
forward is that The evidence for the optimal diet for any given
human being all human beings because we're all the same
species. We all have the same organ
systems. Our genetic differences between
one person. The next are really very, very
minor. So pretty much one-size-fits-all
at large is actually correct. There are small deviations
between people in terms of Where The Sweet Spot is for that
person on several items if you like, but that's okay.
When we're looking for evidence for what the ideal diet for a
human being is what we need to do is ignore everything that's
inside. The fence of this ring fenced
area of so-called science which is generally referred to as
human nutrition science. And the reason I say that is
because that's not actually not an area of science, it's a ring
fenced area of ideology propaganda spin, doctor, e, and
bought and paid for this entropy the ideas that you'll get from
there. Universally not backed by good
rigorous discipline the science, they are backed by the almighty
dollar. They are bought and paid for.
And if you want to look for where the evidence really is,
there are two places you can. Look number one, have a look at
public health statistics and Any westernized Nation where this
so-called gold standard advice on nutrition.
Has been prevalent for 80 to 100 years and see how we're doing.
Secondly you look at the actual hard Sciences around human
anatomy, human physiology comparative, anatomy and
physiology with other animals. You look at the end for Paula G
of the development of the human species.
Over the last three hundred and fifty thousand years and
protohumans for four and a half million years before that.
You look, you look at actual hard, discipline, The Sciences
And those are the sciences that all universally would lead us to
a filly inescapable conclusion of what it was that the human
diet has been unequivocally. That means without any question,
that means for sure, for at least 350,000 years and probably
more like four and a half million.
We know what we have eaten and that is the muscle.
Maids largely not so many organs and the associated fat of mostly
large ruminant animals. That's not a question.
That is what that is, definitely what the human diet was.
Then you apply the knowledge of darwinian evolutionary process
which is not a theory, by the way.
It's neither, is it an idea? Neither, is it debunker ball.
It's also hard science with demonstrated at the, you know,
we've seen this happening in other animals.
So why not humans to where you can see in bacteria.
So it's definite. So you add that into the mix and
you go well, okay, if that's what we have been doing for so
many hundred thousand years and probably Millions, Wouldn't it
follow that? Those are the jeans selected for
and that jeans that wouldn't help us with regard to, that
would be the ones selected against and that leads us to an
inescapable conclusion as to how we should probably formulate our
diet today. Given that the change.
From our ancestral species, appropriate and specific diet.
To the one we have now has occurred over the last 10,000
years, which in evolutionary terms is an absolute blink of
the eye of flash-in-the-pan. Our genetics have not reacted to
that, and that's why you then look at the public health
statistics about, you know, since we've instigated this idea
of the standard American the standard Western Stern diet and
told people, this is how they should eat.
This is how you should feed yourself.
Have We Become Slimmer fitter stronger, healthier, we having
less heart attacks. We have unless diabetes, are we
having less cancer and we have enlisted men.
Shh, the answer all of those questions is fundamentally,
absolutely. No.
None of those things are happening, are they looks like
we've got something wrong here? That's really where I'm coming
from. All of that is also superimposed
with an absolute insistence that, anyone who claims there is
science. Within the human nutrition
fraternity field. That proves any of what I've
just said wrong in any way will get dumped on because this
simply is no such science. It does not exist.
So that's kind of the The line, I take the Line in the Sand.
Yeah. And that's, that's the hill on
defending, I guess. And that makes total rational
sense to me like, when I try and dissect everything from a Bare
Bones, basic, you know, approach like that, that doesn't seem to
be too hard to swallow. I mean, it's pretty much how I
eat. Now, I'm certainly not eaten a
raw vegan that banned amines. I try to stick to what is it
ancestrally appropriate diet as a species?
Why do you think there's so much pushback?
In that from people that are not coming from the traditional
academic field not coming from a nutritional Science Background.
Okay. It's a speculation on my part a
bit but it seems to me that for some reason The body of work
that we call the peer-reviewed literature.
The stuff that's in the scientific journals.
Most people that are not. Skilled knowledgeable,
experienced consumers of that material, can absolutely pick
those papers up and read those words.
Most of those words, they might have to go and look up the odd
word or the meaning of the odd concept to follow along.
But they are in no position, whatever to critically evaluate,
the robustness veracity validity of Any Given paper or any
collection of papers. They do not have the training in
statistical inference which is how I give its are made
scientifically. They do not have any experience
running planning their own experiment to work behind them
under their belt. They've never gone through the
process. Of getting a paper peer-reviewed
and published in a journal themselves.
And as such people at large, tend to look at that body of
work and view it as some kind of in Violet Cannon, meaning some
kind of almost biblical. Unchallengeable.
Word of God type material. And you can pick these people
from a mile away because you'll make a comment or an argument
based on asking the person to whom you're commenting to use
their common sense just a bit and think from and their first
comeback is showing me the study.
Yeah, it's the only place that information is derived, as from
studies and that if you've got to study, you are in the right.
And if you don't have a study then you're making something up.
That shows an absolute ignorance of what studies are and what
they can and cannot inform on what the power of a study is or
isn't. and, Yeah, no, I get the frustration and I feel like,
within the nutritional sphere at least online.
There are certainly a demographic of quote-unquote
evidence backed, you know, people that that try to lean
very heavily on these peer reviewed studies.
But it's frustrating because they'll point to studies and
oftentimes those studies are done on a very small sample size
for an incredibly short period of time.
And I see that a lot, especially within the amino, keto low carb
carnivore Community. They're, they're pointing to You
know a degradation in performance over people have
been following the diet for a matter of weeks which is not a
fair study at all. That's also expected.
Yeah. That's exactly what we would
expect to happen. Yes.
Quite right. So small sample sizes, very
small subject pools, very short-term, studies and absolute
distance, shushan of the disciplines of control.
In other words any nutritional study with subjects were left to
free live in their own homes. Under their own recognizance is
totally invalid if you did not watch that person under lock and
key 24/7 and ensure that they indeed did follow the
experimental protocol that you asked them to follow.
You don't know that they did that. and most of the time when
you ask someone to do something different, from what they
normally doing, Even if you tell them how important it is, that
they absolutely stay within the bounds of what they've been
asked to do. It's an imposition and they'll
go a pirate. I'm going to do this that or the
other thing. And I'll just tell the
researches that I was absolutely compliant.
They not hear. They can't see what does it
matter? I'm only one person anyway, and
that destroys the validity of all such studies Another
pointer, which comes to mind immediately is if you have two
sub populations of people population, a and population, be
population, a your control people and population, be your
experimental people, if population a, and population B
are not genetically, identical to one another from the outside.
You don't, we're finished. If you have to randomly selected
groups of people who are not genetically, identical twins,
we're done. because, There are so many degrees of freedom there
are there, that could be covariates.
Confounds: the era teas that it's a lack of control.
You have not eliminated the possibility that the genetic
difference between those two. Populations was the thing that
led to the different outcome more so than your experimental
intervention, whatever that was. So how does one conduct studies
efficacious, studies in nutrition, like should those
studies that are in existence? Like should be put much stock in
them at all. Or should we just take them all
with a grain of salt should be up and view them?
Good question. The short answer is, how do you
conduct such studies effectively correctly with scientific
discipline and such a way as that we could take them
seriously in terms of their outcomes.
The answer is you cannot do those kind of studies. because,
You need a large group of people for statistical power.
They need to be genetically identical at the outset they
need to have had identical life experiences and inputs in their
life. Have the two up to the point
where your experimental protocol begins, you then need to lock
these people in labs for your experimental period, which needs
to be multiple decades. If you want to talk about
long-term Health outcomes as it relates, To any aspect of human
nutrition. You have to control every aspect
of their lives in the in that period of time that they are
locked in those labs hours of daylight exercise, exact
outputs, every other facet of everything down to the smallest,
my new detail any step back from any of those kind of things.
It is a compromise on the validity repeatability
robustness scientifically of those findings.
As such you are never ever going to get ethics to run such a
study. Yeah, ever.
Secondly, it's totally impractical.
To run such a multi-decade or study with such a degree of
control over everything anyway. And see, where's the money
coming from for this? so instead what we do is we rely
on this other, Ring fenced area of not even science.
It's actually it's not even pseudoscience.
It's actually anti-science it's nonsense and it's called
nutritional epidemiology. We're what we do is we go it's
too hard to run a disciplined robust study and control all of
our confounds. in the first instance, before we collect our
data, so here's what we're going to do, instead, we're going to
collect a bunch of data on outcomes of people that we
follow is what they call it. We followed these people, which
means we will ask them once at the outset of the study, what
their diet looks like. Now, I'll make something up
because people tell lies, basically, all right, down what
I said and believe them. Absolutely.
Then we'll just keep tabs on those people.
So, 5 10, 20 years, whatever it is.
And we'll see how many of them have developed XYZ health
condition, or how many of them have died or whatever.
The outcome of the study is that Looking at and then we'll take
that out comes to cystic and we'll write it down on a piece
of paper. Then we'll screw that piece of
paper up, throw it over our shoulder into the ash can and
make up a different number on the basis of what we believe it
would have been had. We bothered to control all the
things that we didn't control in the first place.
And then we'll report that number.
But it also report that number in such a way as to make it look
really important. When actually in absolute terms,
the difference between populations a b c and d is
usually so minuscule as to make no difference whatsoever to the
meaningful. Likelihood of any outcome for
anyone given individual over a 100 Year life span.
And as such to any one given person, the utility of those
studies is none. There are only useful to public
policy, Setters. I guess.
If those public policy centers are.
So ill educated us believe that such studies can inform on cause
and effect risk or Hazard anyway, which they can't.
So, that's what we rely on. For all our ideas about
long-term outcomes of health or longevity in humans as it
relates to nutrition as such. That's where my stance come from
that, there is no science here. Yeah, Point what we need to do
is be honest with people and stop saying we have all the
signs piles of evidence. We have you'll hear a lot of
these Charlotte and say converging lines of evidence.
They'll say compelling evidence, they'll say to which my response
is always great site it for us because that's clearly something
that Heather to I've been unaware of, you know, in 25
years of following this area of literature as a member of
Academia working in Academia undertaking, and In publishing
studies in my own right somehow, I've been too busy doing that to
miss this work. So, please site that for us this
compelling pile of converging lines of evidence and, you know,
universally people that say that got all this evidence and all
the science behind them, generally that people with no
science background of their own in fact and invariably the pile
of convergent and compelling evidence.
They've got is actually nothing more than a pile of horse
manure. What was the and, and the bunk
within minutes. Sorry, Don what was the point
at? Which you were doing your
research in the academic setting where you just totally decided
to deviate from the status quo and break free of that system?
Like at what point were you like this is just not the trajectory
that I can fully get behind. in terms of as an experimental
scientist, when I was conducting research and Publishing in
journals, there are six, this is set pattern for how you do that.
There's a set way that you play in your studies and execute them
and communicate about what you've done to the editors of
the journals that you want those journals to publish your work
and nobody in that field would deign to try and exercise any
kind of censorship. So long, as your work meets the
criteria and no cure Huge fault can be found with.
What you're saying? They need to get your work
published. That's fine.
And so I as a publishing scientist was always On the, the
contrary, no sign of just about every argument.
That was being put forward, just about every piece of so-called
perceived or established wisdom. Other two.
I was like, well, let's look at it from this direction.
And here are some empirical evidence, I've collected to show
that. So, that was fun.
It was difficult because it was harder to get work published,
but you can still get it through the real problem for me in
Academia, reared, its head when Standing up in front of groups
of students to deliver a course in some aspect of nutrition or
physiology or whatever it was, I was teaching.
It's an interesting one. Because you go for an interview
for an academic posting at any given University, if you want to
go and work there, it's like any other job.
You, you send a new CV, you send a new list of Publications, your
background academically, all that kind of stuff, things
you've achieved. Consultancies research, funding
that you've pulled, all of that and if you're in the, the top
bracket of the people, they want to look at they call you in for
an interview just like any other job.
And you go and sit in front of a panel of people that work there
and they invariably ask a number of questions.
But the one question that always came up every single time was.
Okay, so what makes you special, what makes you different as an
academic? What can you offer our students
that nobody else can? To which my answer was always
the same and it was while I'm never going to stand up in front
of a group of paying students and tell them lies or things
that I do not believe to be robust or scientifically.
Correct. I am always going to point to
where I think the floors and foibles are and I'm never going
to walk the line of status quo. Hmm.
And that would all go like Furious notes down and you know,
variably if I was offered the job which was more often than
not I would then go there and start working there and start
teaching. Exactly, according to all the
way I said I would do in the interview and then word gets
back to the dean several weeks after I started teaching are
that, I'm saying this that and the other thing to students and
then that Dean would call me into their office in say so I
heard just you've said X y&z to students.
Yes. As I said I would Well you can't
do that. And I'm like are you stoned?
Because number one I told you unequivocally absolutely that
this is what I was going to do. I told you that's what makes me
different from every other trained monkey that you could
have hired off that list, you chose the one that was different
and said that they would stand up to this.
And number two, there is a law in every developed, Western
Nation, academically. That stage words to the effect
of an academic working in an academic environment, teaching,
students is free to hold and espouse any opinion.
They should see fit for any reason whether that's popular or
not. It's a First Amendment style
academic protection specifically in that field for freedom of
speech on there. Gimmicks.
So, if you want to tell me what I can, and can't say, two groups
of students, you are in breach of the law.
Keep going Charlie Brown and I'll see you in court,
basically. So I spent 25 years running that
Gambit and like anything else that wears you down and frankly
for a celery, As a new starting academic of around. 50 to 70,000
heading up to a maximum salary as an academic that I could
command of, you know, low circular low.
Sort of six figures Thrift. Yeah.
Six figures. You know, there comes a point
where you go, actually, this, this is, you know, there are
better things I could do with my life and with my energy.
And so, it was at that point after a, particularly nasty
running with my last employer along.
Exactly the lines. I'm talking about here where I
went actually, you know what, I am at this point, going to cut
these open ties. I am going to step away from
Academia. I am going to turn my back on a
nibble. To return.
And I am going to sit up my own business and run my own thing
walk, my own path as a social-media influencer, and
obviously, the first Three years or so of that were pretty lean
because it takes a while to get momentum and to get known and to
get things going. But in my fourth year of doing
that I had replaced my academic salary, plus a little bit.
Now, by no means am I now absolutely creamy it and making
my Millions doing this. I'd like to that would be great
and I'll continue to work towards that but it is a viable
career path. For someone who is of a certain
personality type does have a certain level of thickness of
skin and is prepared to put themselves out there.
It's A Hard Road but no harder than having a job.
Yeah. Oh yeah.
And I would advise and I would imagine your ability to make a
lasting impact. On many people's lives is
Amplified via the approach you're taking now.
I'm and I come from many people, my family are college professors
academics and you know they all speak of their desire to
positively influence, the youth with their teachings, which has
a very commendable, you know, career path.
But I would, I would assume that The amount of people you've been
able to reach just off of your social media, presence and
YouTube channel is significantly higher than you would ever been
able to reach in the classroom setting. potentially so yes, I
mean I did probably teach In my career, possibly maybe 50,000
students at various times in various different institutes
around the world and different places that I taught and they're
different years. Now, I have a social media
following that is roughly the same sort of number, but these
are people who don't just have me for a semester.
These are people that some of them have followed me for the
whole time. I've been a social-media
influencer like nearly five years.
Some of them are now consider a likely to end up being lifelong
friends. From that point forward.
That's it. I know I have several lifelong
friends that I gained who were Her ex colleagues and or X
students of mine, some of whom I taught 20 years ago, for
example. So they're just different
environments of working really. I guess if anything the
electronic World gives me an ability to access and Influence
People in vastly diverse geographical locations and time
zones and things all simultaneously pretty much,
which I could never do teaching physically and person I guess.
Yeah, so that, that would be where the powers.
Yeah. That's more scalable and that
regard for sure. Absolutely.
Yes. Because you can only teach so
many classes and have so many students in each class of It
physically, right? Yeah, when it comes to nutrition
kind of switch gears back to that.
Have you found there to be a lot of like if you if you base all
your nutritional protocol and advice on what you're
personally, doing yourself off of that foundational, pillar of
doing things in line with our evolutionary past, an ancestral
appropriate diet. Where do you find controversy as
far as that protocol? Because, you know, some people
will argue that yes we are. Predominantly large ruminant
animals, but we also consumed, you know, vegetation whenever
possible should vegetation make up a reasonable percentage of
our day-to-day die. Like where do you stand on
topics like that? Well, in terms of that one in
specific in particular, it seems like the level of vegetation
that was consumed by humans in our evolutionary past.
Before The Agrarian Revolution is what I mean.
So 10,000 years ago, And longer ago than that, right up to the
beginning of our species that plant material has been
identified as being largely if not entirely Roots, tuba style
things. From various plants that were
almost entirely fibrous contain very little starch relative to
the kind of roots and tubers that you'll find in the
supermarket or greengrocer today.
You need to understand that those vastly starch Laden and
big robust, tubers potatoes, sweet potatoes, those kind of
things that you'll find today have been selectively bred for
by humans. Ins for multiple generations to
make them what they are today. They are not as designed by
Nature. The things that humans ate were
like these long thin spindly almost entirely starch during
lacking fibrous things that had to be boiled for hours and hours
and hours, and the nutrition that we gain from.
Those was a very small amount of short chain fatty acids as a
function of a very inefficient human ability.
T to host bacteria that will break down some of that fiber
and produce those fatty acids. So still our intakes were
basically 100%. Animal protein and fatty acids
the, the carbohydrate intake was to all intents and purposes 0.
That is a fact. Yeah, it was an unequivocal
fact. That's a scientific fact.
The human beings started to consume any amount of plant
material to speak of whatsoever at around about the time of the
Uber and Revolution about 10,000 years ago.
And it was largely at first, it was largely the seeds of
grasses. Grains basically, and then we
branched out from there and we selectively bred all sorts of
plants to produce to produce produce, which we would find
more appealing and more disturbing but we didn't deal
with most of the problems of eating plants.
We didn't change our genetics hugely because it's been an
absolute genetic flash-in-the-pan of course.
So that's that. One.
There's been a big within the carnivore space.
There seems to be this growing interest in incorporating, you
know, fruits and honey. And you know from my perspective
that obviously wasn't in line with our evolutionary past.
I don't function well with fruits and honey, I don't
incorporate them personally. Some people argue that, you
know. Yeah we didn't have those
throughout our past but from a optimization standpoint you
could probably benefit from having them now, Now, which to
me, just doesn't make much rational sense.
Either what's your take on this fruit?
And honey Trend that that fruit and honey thing that's quite
popular in there that a number of people are being basically
we've fooled by and sucked into is an ideology that's being
pushed by one bloke in particular, who is kind of the
head of that ideology? He's an ex-con of Aarhus Still
has the word carnivore, and who's in his name that he uses
online, which is at best disingenuous and at worst
outright deceptive. Actually carnivores, do not run
around eating fruit and honey. Yeah.
Now what we need to understand about that bloke, first and
foremost, is that he is, an MD who has specialized post MD
training in the field of psychiatry Not nutrition.
Not human metabolism. And certainly not how to read
science papers. Secondly that bloke has in his
life apparently not done one single day's work as a physician
in any field. He's a bloke like Michael Greger
who has the qualification, Indy, but has never practiced
medicine. That is my understanding of that
blokes professional background. Certainly, if you do a Google
Scholar search on his publication record, you will
come up blank, not one in his life.
He's one of these blokes that thinks because you can pick up a
paper and read the words that that makes him competent to
actually interpret the thing and gauge judge its scientific
veracity and deliver tea, and he's using that to fool people
who are even stupider than he He has to believe that he's got a
point. Do you think there's anything to
be gained from a physiological standpoint with the addition of
fruits into the diet now from like a hormonal optimization or
performance standpoint at all? Not at all.
No. Nothing is to be gained by
adding exoticness carbohydrate from any Source into the human
diet because it is absolutely contraindicated for a number of
reasons. And be one of the worst if not
the worst form of carbohydrate, you can possibly pour down your
near. Because fructose the reason I
say that is because it is seven to ten times more damaging, at
high concentrations to body tissues than is glucose.
Yeah, I mean, I agree toxin a lot of fructose and it's really
obvious when you look at them, look at a picture taken of that
bloke, free years ago, and a picture taken of that blow this
month, it will knock your socks off.
Yeah, I agree. I mean, I get a lot of pushback
in the bodybuilding circles, as which is kind of my wheelhouse
from, you know, not to consuming carbohydrates, not consuming
glucose and been able to perform at a high level, and there's
just so much pushback in that. And I think a lot of it just
stems from the dogmatic thinking towards that is the primary fuel
source to begin with. But when people start looking
into, you know, the ancestral upbringing, there's there's not
really much argument to be had in that regard.
Now, there's an end. And also the idea that a power
athlete, or a strength athlete, would require a high level of
carbohydrate in their diet, to subserve, their ability to
perform in their chosen sport or activity.
That is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of exercise.
Physiology in the first instance, a lot of the other
thing about me that a lot of people don't necessarily
understand. And that is that I have three
Advanced research to varies over the years because I kept
changing my field of specialization.
The first one was on exercise physiology.
After that I went to human nutrition.
And in the latter years of my academic career, I then went to
cardiovascular pathophysiology. And then I suppose my fourth
area of expertise that over pins are overarches, all three of the
of those degrees is an understanding of statistical
inference and research design. So that's the kind of thing that
allows me to have this breadth of authority in these areas.
So what I can Show strength athletes, hypertrophy athlete's
body, builders sprinters, team sport athletes that all believe
you need a huge amount of exoticness carbohydrate in your
diet in order to perform. Well, I can assure you.
That is absolute nonsense. I wholeheartedly agree, their
absolute nonsense. Another how you have a
performance decrease short-term, right while you transition to a
species appropriate species specific Should you ever get
your heads to point where you can find the courage to do?
So? Absolutely.
There will be a trough in your performance while your body
re-equilibrate itself to the appropriate diet.
But you need to understand They're human beings have a part
of their metabolic process called gluconeogenesis.
And what that is, is an ability to produce all the glucose you
require for all purposes. By making that Sugar from
non-sugar precursors mostly, the glycerol.
Backbone is a fat molecules. Actually, some of it comes from
protein. Some of it comes from other mono
carboxylate symptoms such as Lactaid, but mostly it's fat
there that you can make sugar from.
So to say, okay, a lot of carbohydrate is being
metabolized. During these activities through
go, you should eat a lot. It's just there's no logical
connection there because you can make all the sugar.
You need yourself. Totally.
Yeah, I completely agree there in, in regards to macronutrient
distribution, if we're keeping total carbs at a very minimal
intake, if if not zero, another point of contention,
interestingly enough in the keto corner, For space right now is
the amount of dietary fat that one consumes and I've kind of
defaulted towards consuming pretty high degree of data if
and if that's where my primary energy source is coming from, it
stands to reason that that would need to be relatively high as a
percentage of total calories. But there's been a lot of push
against higher fat, protocols, even within the keto carnivore
space. And I feel like, it's
interesting. I mean, protein is obviously
very important but I feel like the pendulum has swung Um, so
far the opposite direction. You know, few years ago, was
everybody was fearful of too much protein.
Now, everyone's giving protein a Halo to the extent of not
consuming. Ample dietary fat?
Have you noticed that Trend as well?
Yeah, I think there are people who have personality types
whereby, they feel some, I'm going to call it pathological
need. To be special in some way to be
part of a sect in some way that is better in their mind.
And what everyone else is doing it's a sort of form of
self-aggrandizement, I guess. And they're the kind of people
that will gravitate towards pretty much any idea.
Good bad or indifferent. So long as it's in the minority
and clearly different from what everyone else is saying, And
they will gravitate to that and they will defend that hill to
the death often without necessarily understanding
anything about it. Or listening to the high priest
of whatever that sectors saying and mindlessly, regurgitating,
those words again, usually without actually understanding
them at all. There is an ideal.
Ratio for your Macros for your fat and your protein that most
human beings will set a tour around about, as I was talking
about earlier, there are slight genetic differences between
individuals but they're not huge.
I usually find that it's your five percent.
Either way, I usually, if someone comes to me for
consolidation and they don't know how to sit there macros up,
I will start that person, generally, at a 75/25 ratio.
Who else being equal? That means, 75% of the so-called
calories are in the form of fats, and 25 is protein.
Now, we know that that's not an accurate.
Determination of actual energy being taken and used in any way
shape or form the whole calories in calories out idea has been
debunked thoroughly by myself, as well as others to the point
where, you know, anyone that still doesn't grasp that
obviously hasn't watched those videos carefully and they need
to frankly. So when I'm talking 75/25 that
By so-called calories so called on the label.
So in the way that we will sit someone's total and takes up
again, all things being equal, as you would say, okay, one
point 75 grams of protein intake, Per kg of Ideal or lean
body mass is the starting point for a person who is active.
But not An athlete sort of thing. and you would adjust Up
and Down based on the hunger satiety, signaling that that
person will get over the first few weeks and until we Garland
this sweet spot and obviously the rest of the diet is made up
with fats which are sort of Approximated to being 3/4.
Of the total so-called caloric intake over and above that
protein. So I sit someone's protein.
Level up first. And that was one point seven,
five grams per pound per kilogram.
You said the kilogram of lean or ideal Mass gotcha.
So if you've got someone, who is carrying a lot of extra weight
or is very underway, what you would do is you would reverse
engineer from the BMI calculation, And say what would
this person way if there? BMI was. 22.5, which would be
the ideal number right in the middle of the healthy range.
And then you would use that weight as their calculator, ball
lean or ideal body mass obviously.
A hypertrophy athlete. A bodybuilder is going to have a
BMI, which is vastly above that, if they are at all successful in
their body building Endeavors, right?
That person you would use their actual mass because those guys,
and those girls, don't usually tend to carry a lot of body fat.
So you can just take their weight as their lean weight and
that's what would use to subserve.
The protein intake. That's solid.
Most there when it comes to metabolism and calories, we kind
of touched on that a little bit. There's been a lot of people in
the nutrition space. You probably know who I might be
referring to that point to, you know, if people are not losing
weight, then by definition, they're simply not in a deficit
and I understand where they're coming from there, but I've
definitely noticed. A lot of people who have
chronically under nourish themselves for an extended
period. The time the metabolism down
regulates and they have a hard time, preserving any degree of
lean tissue and, you know, hormone function down regulates
everything just seems to, you know, become depressed.
How does one go about? You know, improving that
situation? Like if someone is trying to
lose body fat but they have chronically under eaten?
Are they not losing body fat or how is that situation in your
mind if you're looking at it from a non calories in, calories
out, you know? Mechanical system.
Yeah, on a case-by-case basis. I may or may not with any given
client used the following. There is a procedure which has
been put together not by myself by others.
I've checked it out. I've done it myself.
It worked. It worked incredibly well, in
fact and it's called priming. It was put together by a bloke.
I know called Raymond neighs on Coach Raymond who Who is part of
the steak and butter gang, which is run by Bella the steak and
butter girl and they have a coaching program that they're
running through with people. And one of the tools in their
share of tools is this thing called priming and priming works
really. Well for someone who is in a
situation where everything was sluggish, everything's messed up
hormone Ali. They can't seem to shed excess
weight or indeed gain weight of the vastly.
The weight, whatever. And this whole thing is designed
around, resetting, their hormonal levels, their endocrine
system, their ability to function as a human being.
Again usually these people have gone through yo-yo, dieting in
the so-called caloric restriction diet for years and
at that mess themselves up that way and they need to be put,
right? So here's what priming is.
Three solid meals a day. Of.
The so-called of of an amount sort of around about the
so-called caloric intake that a person would intake.
Across an entire day. Hmm.
So there's you know, three times, your caloric intake, your
normal, caloric intake, all the normal, what the normal caloric
intake should be Plus snacks in between those three meals and
every single meal, the idea is to fill yourself to the point of
rifting to absolutely pokin every last ounce of food that
you can possibly get in consistent with food being the
muscle Meats. And Associated fats of large
ruminant animals. No plant material whatsoever or
anything. Derived from a plant or any of
that kind of nonsense. So basically you eat until you
feel like I'm literally going to burst here and the weight your
four hours or so in you repeat that process and you do that for
two weeks silent. Your total caloric intake.
If you were counting calories, would be quite enormous over
those two weeks in my case. My usual normal so-called
caloric intake. If I was counting, those things
would be in the 1800 to 2000. K, calories range.
I personally on my priming journey, I was consuming six and
a half thousand calories. Give or take about 250 every
single day for 14 days. Solid, as a lot of food.
It's a lot of food and a lot of people think her are.this is
fantastic. I can eat all I want and then
some what you'll understand within about the first seven
days is this is not fun. This is not great.
This is torturous. It's really unpleasant.
It's really hard to do. It's nasty.
It's I can't describe how awful it is to do to force food into
your body in that way. What it does though, is it gives
your body the signal that plenty is here.
We are in a time of Plenty, I can absorb all the nutrients
are, my body's been lacking, I can reignite those, those fires.
If you like that, have been basically quashed down over the
years. Is I can replace my body stores,
all these nutrients by hormonal system can return to normal,
everything's great. And that's generally what
happens. And then after that two weeks of
priming, you go on to a more sensible program of one meal a
day at the required intake level to maintain, where you're going
to be some times. When you prime, you might put
on, 1015 pounds sometimes a little bit more than that during
that two weeks sometimes during priming, you stay absolutely
stable. In fact, despite consuming three
and four times the calories, you normally would sometimes as
happened with myself, you actually lose weight while
consuming vastly more calories than you normally would.
How does that work? It's about the hormonal system.
It's about the endocrine system. It's about the inflamed has own.
It's about water retention as well or not.
It absolutely clearly shows that your body composition at her go,
you'll wait on a weighing scale. Is vastly hugely affected?
Not just by the amount of so-called energy units that
you're consuming. and so called extending, but also due to your
metabolic set up, the gearing that your body is undertaking
the retention or elimination of the excess water, for example,
or excess fat, for example, hormones, the endocrine system,
the in phlegm has owned all Have huge impact on that.
All things that these calories in calories out.
Buffoons either don't understand or choose to ignore as having an
effect. Yeah.
It's so it's kind of like a reverse diet but done in an
incredibly condensed window of nearly two weeks.
Yes. Yeah, I think that is hugely
beneficial. Like, whenever I'm doing a prep,
the prep itself will last anywhere from four to six
months, but so many people do that prep.
They do that cut and they don't ever transition to a period of
Of surplus. And that's what really screws
them over. Yeah.
So I mean, the exact mechanism
I've been challenged on this, a number of times by calories in
calories out bathrooms. That believe that what I'm
saying is physiologic physiologically end against the
laws of physics of The Impossible on lying about what
I've related in terms of my weight loss.
So far as the accuracy of a home-based electrical impedance
scale as capable. They're not that accurate but
they're pretty, you know they're reasonable.
That's the piece of Kit. I used to gauge my body
composition as well as weight during that two weeks and what
happened and I can tell you that in 14 days of consuming on
average six and a half thousand calories a day, I personally
lost 15 pounds That £15 consisted of 12 and a half
pounds of water. And the rest was fat, my
muscularity protein levels, all of that remained, absolutely
rock solid as it were, of course, because I wasn't
exercising, training or doing anything at all.
I was just existing. So a lot of people would say,
well, eliminate the 12 and a half pounds of water, and just
tell people you lost, you know, the amount of fat, I say, well,
okay, great. Let's do that using your
calories and calories out mentality and the fact that the
vast majority of those six and a half thousand calories, where in
the form of fat, how did I lose Yeah, two and a half pounds of
fat in 14 days. Doing that.
How does that work? Still?
Yeah, it does not cannot work. According to calories in
calories out Kenneth yeah. That puts them in quite the
stupor, for sure. Yeah.
That stops them dead because I don't have an answer for that
and I'll tell you what the answer is.
The answer is my inflammation. My chronic systemic inflammation
was ameliorated to such a level that my body stopped hanging
onto all that water, and all that inflammatory process and
flushed, all that water out. Where did the fat loss come
from? It came from oxidizing fat and
my brown adipose tissue to produce.
Metabolic water to keep my Baseline homeostatic, minimum
water level where it needed to be because I also wasn't
consuming vast amounts of fluid or anything like that.
While I was doing these, this six and a half thousand calorie
intake. So what we had is basically non
metabolic Oxidization of fat in the brain, adipose tissue
because that's not coupled to ATP production.
As such again. That I'm couples to calories in
calories out thing, as yet another mechanism by which there
can be uncoupled. You can also achieve the same
thing using thermogenesis as an approach to burning fat.
Coldwater immersion doesn't same thing Brown, adipose tissue.
Uncoupled respiration that oxidized and that case for heat,
rather than for water, and then the excess water produced dust
Lee is excreted of the kidneys. Yeah, because that's what
happened. The calories in calories out
debate. It's interesting.
It's interesting that rages as hot as it does.
I mean, I think there is certainly a place for, you know,
tracking macronutrients being mindful of your quote unquote,
caloric intake. And expenditure.
But recognizing that it's impossible to quantify that with
any degree of extreme accuracy, especially when it comes to the
expenditure part. Like any of these wearable, you
got people in 50%. Yeah, it's horrendous.
You know, like I'm all about tracking my intake.
When I have a specific goal of reaching, you know, 4% body fat
for a show but that's not something that people should
have to rely on. I think, if people just simply
return to a species appropriate, that that would likely solve 90%
of their issues, Great. Yeah, the most accurate gauge of
how much food you should eat. Once you've been fully carnivore
for six months or more and everything.
Settle down the, most accurate gauge is your hunger signaling
and your satiety signaling. Mmm.
Total darkness when you feel hungry and these second, you get
that message or I feel quite full.
Now, stop eating, even if there are two mouthfuls of meat left
on your plate, if you've got that signal, if your brain says
that's enough. Now, stop Put that in the
fridge. Eat it.
Next time, hungry. If you trust your body, if you
because your your hunger and satiety signaling is hugely
accurate, your body knows what it needs and it knows when it's
got it, it's accurate when you're eating real food.
When it's exactly that. That's why I say, you need to
have been fully Carnival for six months to let everything settle
and let your body relearn, Andre, trust itself.
Totally. Because one thing that will
throw all the signaling out as carbohydrates and plant toxins.
What about Dairy with with, if we're looking at things from a
species appropriate diet. You know, we're weaned as a
mammalian species, pretty early on, is that something that we
should incorporate later in life, or no?
Dairy. For me is one of those divisive
an emotive issues. There are a lot of people that
swear by Dairy and especially there is a sect of people that
say, oh, it's got to be real though, ruled areas to go and
all of this kind of stuff you. Hit the nail on the head
already. Once we are weaned from mother's
milk as a mammal. We are not designed by natural
selection to either seek out nor to consume any amount of milk
and certainly not the milk of another species.
Yeah. That said, am I against milk?
No. Because it's an individual
choice in the same way that I'm not going to tell anybody what
they can and can't do. I'm not going to ask for anybody
to return their Carnival card or say, you know, except for that
one psychiatrist, Blake. I like to throw this Limelight
because it's funny. You did it wrong, you know. if
somebody feels that Dairy is, Useful to them.
If they feel they do better with Gary in their life, then without
if there is no obvious negative reaction to the dairy, then it's
one of those things. It's not broken probably doesn't
need fixing and that individual, what I say to a person that will
boy you need some dairy in your life will know.
That that's not part of our heritage.
Yeah, except post agrarian Revolution, when we, when we
started to keep animals, We started to have fields of wheat.
For example, thus, we needed oxygen to pull the plows, Etc.
And do the heavy lifting Etc. Then we figured out.
Oh, I wonder if we can do well by consuming the milk of these
animals. Yeah, you're not a lot of other
for that. What about want to be respectful
of your time already in our end? But I got one more controversial
topic within the keto carnivore space.
I'm sure you've got an opinion on.
And that is the topic of organ meats and this is quite the rage
right now, you know, from an evolutionary standpoint.
I'm sure we consumed all that we could from these large ruminant
animals that we had killed, but a lot of people on the
understanding that organ meats are going to be there.
Saving Grace, which is also little bit too far swing that
pendulum One Direction there. Yeah.
Again, it's a sectarian group of folks.
It's quite a large group within the carnival Community, who
absolutely Square. By organs and say you must have
organs you going to be deficient if you don't consume organs.
That's another idea that is demonstrably false?
Yeah, I am now the best part of eight years into my Carnival
Journey. I have not consumed.
Basically any organs at all during that time?
And I am exhibiting, no deficiencies of any kind.
There is no clinical symptomatology.
You could point to and say you are deficient in such-and-such
with me. You're not avoiding them Percy.
Just don't prefer them. Well, I am IA.
Gangster, organs. No, am I drawn to eating organs
know? My instinct is not to eat those.
They are. They do not appeal to me and I
trust my instincts. Yeah, and that Not others have
an instinct where I go, you know, I feel like I want to eat
almonds a great and, you know, get your face in their sort of
thing final power to you. If that's the way you think.
In terms of how humans have fed themselves, there is an argument
to suggest that we actually didn't consume a lot of organs,
at least for a large part of that period of time because it
actually looks like mostly humans weren't so much fun
together. As In the first instance until
we got good at hunting, well actually scavengers.
What we would often do is groups of human beings is Drive,
predatory animals, like lions off their kill scare them away.
Using Fire Sticks, Stones, Etc, and overwhelming numbers and
take possession of those carcasses and eat what was left.
Now, when a lion takes down an antelope, the first thing it
will do is rip that antelope open an EV entrails.
By the time, humans arrived to drive them off.
Once the lines of head, the entrails, they'll go.
Is it worth dying over this muscle meat knocks?
It's not so good for us as lions.
Yeah, so they'll walk away, the real fine, have it and even if
we had the entire kill, the organ makes make up a very small
percentage of that entire episode in terms of problematics
or potential problematics for my way of thinking.
There's really only one organ that is really potentially
problematic in the human diet. And that's liver.
It is my steadfast opinion that liver should be absolutely
minimized in the human diet. If you're going to consume any
at all and there are simple mechanistic speculations around
the hell, it might be that liver could cause you more more damage
than good if you consume more than what would be a naturally
existing ratio. So think of it this way.
A casual Beast. Would have.
Sometimes 600 kilos of muscle meat on it.
How much does a kettle beasts live away?
Got a couple pounds. I don't know, three or four
pounds so that's the ratio and within your diet in which liver
should be, if it's going to be the at all, it doesn't have to
be. There is no requirement for
liver are all. But if you're determined that
you're going to eat some lover for some reason either, you like
it, or you think, for some reason that it will be some kind
of insurance against some kind of deficiency which doesn't
exist. Anyway, but that's for another
day. Then what I would suggest to you
is keep your liver and take proportionate.
To the rest of your muscle meat intake at about that level that
makes sense. And for those that are consuming
way in surplus of that, they run the risk of with a vitamin A
toxicity, probably being born the mix, that's one potential
but I think that's probably the least likely problem.
The more likely problem is a problem associated with copper
and zinc. Mismatched misspelt lunch, which
then has a bunch of knock-on effects which Actually quickly,
destroy your health and all sorts of ways and lead you to a
situation where you are unable to maintain electrolyte balance
has of all sorts. And it will also tend to lead
you towards a propensity to have too much iron in your diet as
well and your body I should say. copper is highly highly toxic in
an amount above the requirement, which is minuscule and human and
That's to be avoided in my mind for that reason.
Never mind the vitamin A Thing. Yeah.
Plus.
I mean, shoot a ribeye tastes better than deliver any day of
the week, anyway, God. And again, that's just my
personal Instinct, my personal, you know, visceral, excuse the
pun, visceral reaction. You put a plate of liver in
front of me and I'm going to say, no, thank you.
Yeah, but a plate of steak in front of me, and I'm going to
Young that down. No total, totally agree with you
there. Totally agree with you.
We'll shoot man. We're already past an hour in
and I'd love to keep chatting because you, you're just a
wealth of knowledge but I'm going to end with one final
question. Which is simply what's got you
excited? Now, as far as the nutritional
aspect of things is concerned, I mean, we we can, I know you're
excited about continuing to make music play the guitar, which is
awesome. But as far as the nutritional
realm, what is the what's on? What's on your mind, right now,
right? Okay, so, in terms of the
messaging around the species-appropriate
species-specific ancestrally 2.4 human beings.
My message has been consistent for the last five years.
There are very few commentators out there who have been.
As consistent as me, whose message has not changed and it's
because the facts have not changed.
So I'm excited about continuing to spread the word continuing to
tell the truth continuing with that message unchanged because
it is not going to change. I have done the research already
all of it and I am absolutely clear and unequivocal and I
agree with myself entirely as to what that should be.
So I'm going to continue to spread that message as long as I
have energy to do it and I'm going to continue to call out
people who say stupid things on the internet and point out where
they're wrong. I'm going to continue to have
fun with these different characters, like the field,
Marshal, and yellow tip and all of that and excetera.
Also I have had a thing. I'm excited about mostly at the
moment and ongoingly as I've had a 12 12 and a half year
association with a supplement company that promotes a
nutraceutical product line. So this is not even particularly
nutritional supplementation which is really not necessary.
If you're on a species appropriate diet, you don't need
to supplement with anything nutrition wise.
It's all there. This is a nutraceutical.
Which has specific effect medicinal effect.
If you like it's an extract from a Bluegreen bacteria so I enter
back. Do that lives in this one Lake
in the u.s. happens to be an upper Klamath Lake in Oregon
where it lives and there's a there's a chemical substance
that they've found in this thing that they've extracted cleaned
up filtered activated into a into a working. during product,
if you like and they've been selling the stuff for about 30
years now, various companies have had sway over the thing and
various different iterations and stuff the current Company that
markets, this product has been around for about six years.
I've been a retail customer of this stuff for about what I was
for about 10 years, buying the stuff retail and then About
three or four years ago, I got an opportunity to be an
affiliate marketer of the product.
And I figured well I, you know, the stuff makes sense.
It does exactly what it says it does.
Here's the peer-reviewed literature that says it does
what it says it does. It's changed my life.
I believe completely and for the better and here's an opportunity
for me to spread that word around.
So that's what I'm spending a lot of energy doing.
These days and people who want to find out more about that can
have a look at a video that I posted on my YouTube channel.
I think it was on the 30th of January of two thousand twenty
three and it's an interview with a naturopath called Linda ha
guard. Who is the woman who introduced
me to this particular company and product about 12 years ago?
And for those who want to know what it is, it's a product that
encourages your bone marrow, to release your adult stem cells
into your bloodstream. And then those adult stem cells
will run around your body and they will identify tissues and
cells in need of renewal or repair.
They will bind to those tissues dissolve, the old cells, and
replace them with brand new ones.
Incredibly powerful and now suggest someone said someone use
this. If they have a particular
ailment or uses like prophylactically, it says I
would suggest that all adult human beings anywhere around the
world that can possibly access this product, it's available in
about 60, different countries and territories around the
world. Currently I would suggest that
anyone that can should get their hands on this product and use it
on a daily basis. Reason, being that every year
that you are on this crazy Rock going around, the Son your
ability to release your own adult stem cells goes down.
It drops by the year. It's one of the reasons we age
and die. It's not the only one, but it's
an important one. What this product does,
basically, is it removes that blockade to releasing those
adult stem cells, it sets the clock back to when you're in
your Prime and means that your ability to have the circulating
stem cell resources to renew repair, replace tissues as more
like what it was when you were kind of an 18 year old kid, What
did you notice? When you started taking it on a
consistent basis? My particular story is that when
I was 39 years of age, I was diagnosed with Advanced wet
macular degeneration which is a condition which invariably leads
a person to lose their sight. Hmm.
Within a five-year period from the onset of the disease process
to the point of legal blindness. You can still see cut color, you
can still see light but you will no longer be able to resolve
shape. You can see movement.
But legally, you'll be blind, you won't be able to read.
You won't be able to drive all of those things will be a thing
of the past. Some people lose their sight to
the point where they actually lose their sight entirely they
go completely black as well. I was told at 39 years of age
that I had this condition and that the eye specialist that was
looking at my eyes said I've never seen a case as advanced as
this in a man. Your age usually happens around
about 70 years of age, if it's going to happen.
And he said, love this. I'm sorry, but there's no hope
there's nothing we can do here. And you're just going to have to
prepare yourself for this blindness, basically.
And it was around about serendipitously was around about
that time that I came across this company, this product, and
I started to take the product immediately and within six
months, my vision returned to normal vision for a man, my age
at that time. Any analyst response at all?
No, no not at all. It's a really clean product
that's been filtered and activated and and there are
probably a handful of people that have had any kind of
adverse reaction to it over 30 year existence of this thing.
Certainly no fatalities. And these are people that might
have got a rash or might have got loose stool for a week or
two while their body adjusted to the stuff.
But mostly people notice no negative side effects at all,
and whatever it is that needs. Renewing and repairing in their
body as per the The body decide what the stem cells will be used
for as such. We are not allowed to make any
therapeutic climb. So I am not claiming this
product fixed my eyesight. I'm saying my eyesight, which I
was told, could not be repaired. By any means.
Known to Medical Science, somehow has been repaired.
It is associated with my taken of this product, but I am not
claiming this product caused it. I'm not allowed to.
Yeah, you fill in the blanks for yourself.
Yeah. So what he was going on for you,
whatever. Your body decides is something
that needs fixing. If you have an increased level
of adult stem cells in your blood stream to achieve it, it's
more likely that your body will achieve that.
And what is your affiliate link or what is the best way for
people to dive deeper into that product.
It very, very simple, Gobi kar-wai nutrition, all one word,
all lowercase, dot, some rule, which is CER, you Ellie.
E.com, there's a lot of information there.
There's also a bunch of videos about all of this on my YouTube
channel under a playlist called adult stem cell related videos
or something like that. Or you can drop me an email and
you'll find my email address on the about tab on the front page
of my YouTube channel and you can drop me an email and ask me
your questions about it. The final thing I will say about
this product and then I'll shut up about it.
Is that when an adult stem cell differentiates into a brand-new
cell of whatever kind that your body requires it to be, I say
brand-new selling, I really mean brand-new because that new cell
has a A full-length telomere. Now, telomeres every time a cell
divides the telomeres get shorter and shorter to the point
where it gets to a level where it gets so short that the DNA
phrase forced to B and that cell line dies off.
So when your skin cells divide for example, the age of those
skin cells is partly, largely determined by the length of the
telomeres. At the time of that cell
division, If you could encourage your skin cells for example to
release skin cells stem cells, and bring those forward, rather
than having to Old skin cells, you'll have one brand new one
which can then divided into two brand-new ones Etc.
In other words, might this be some sort of Fountain of Youth.
Perhaps again, that's not a therapeutic claim, it's just
another pointer to the power of this product.
Well, it certainly didn't seem like it would hurt and if you're
pairing that with a speech is appropriate that you're really
setting yourself up for success. I would have all my thoughts.
Oh yes. Well I will certainly linked
accounts to that. I'm curious to dive a little bit
deeper, learn more myself and your YouTube channel.
What is it called? If people want to search that
drug guy. So I have about five or six
YouTube channels that I run the main one and I call it the main
one purely because it's the one with the highest subscriber
count. The main one is called Bart k
nutrition. Science.
And or what you can just do is go youtube.com forward.
Slash at Bart, hyphen kaay and you'll find it all my other
channels. Some of which are also related
to health and nutrition and some of which are not like one of
them is my singing guitar channel.
One of them's in New Zealand nature channel, for example, but
every single one of those channels, as you link underneath
all the videos on my main channel.
So you can find it every one of my YouTube channels from there.
Well, I'm definitely have to check out.
You riffing on the guitar for sure.
It's tough. Well, the thing is, when I was,
when I was, when I was young, I wanted to be, you know, a guitar
player so badly, and I succeeded, I really am a very
average guitar player, but check it out, nonetheless.
Yeah, no, I'll definitely check it out, man.
I can't thank you enough for taking the time above all else.
I appreciate you. Having a message of consistency.
I feel like one of the things that I'm most proud of is that I
consider myself to be very open-minded.
I'm want to experiment, try things.
See how my body responds, but as a whole, my messaging in the
space has been pretty much consistent for the eight years
that I've been putting out content.
So when I meet other people that are consistent in their
messaging, that holds a hell of a lot more weight in my book,
than all these other flash in the pan influencers that are
always just moving to the next big hype.
So, I appreciate that more than anything.
That's my absolute pleasure, and it's been my privilege to spend
this time with you. Thank you so much.
Handsome, go. Well, thank you.
So, take care and talk soon from right?
See you later. See you later.