VeganLinked retweeted
Farmed chickens have nearly no legal protections from cruelty.
Respect to AG @dananessel and the court for preserving the modest protections for them that animal advocates have won.
Finally people are coming around to the truth!
My questioning of lipids began in PA school in 2016, when a physician gave our class a lecture on evidence-based medicine. He showed us mortality data on statins. When you look at mortality alone, the number needed to treat can look underwhelming. He also explained relative risk reduction in a way that made it feel, to me at the time, like a Big Pharma manipulation of data.
That lecture planted a seed. I adopted the paradigm that LDL elevation was overblown. More importantly, I convinced myself that I was the exception: lean, fit, insulin-sensitive, weight training, eating “clean,” and therefore somehow protected from the overwhelming evidence linking ApoB-containing particles to cardiovascular disease.
After graduation, I kept studying lipids. In 2019, I became fascinated with arguments built around Eskimo, ancestral, and prehistoric populations. Looking back, I can see how selectively I interpreted that material. I focused on evolutionary narratives and ignored the obvious limitation: many of those populations died young, before modern atherosclerotic disease had decades to develop.
Around the same time, I discovered the Quest Diagnostics Cardio IQ panel. It was still early in its life cycle, and I was excited by advanced lipid testing. I became the primary of a patient who found me at the mom and pop urgent care and somehow knew that I was open to alternative thinking and who wanted to use the same test because, like me, he was lean, fit, and a weightlifter. Neither of us wanted to believe that someone who looked metabolically healthy could still be at risk for myocardial infarction, stroke, or vascular disease.
Then came 2020.
During the pandemic, my questioning of medical authority intensified. I studied the disease as it moved through Asia, then Europe, and by the time it reached the United States, I felt prepared. I worked in urgent care and treated thousands of patients. I wrote to local mayors and sheriffs, pleading with them not to lock us down. I became part of the anti-lockdown resistance, protesting on the streets and am proud of that. That period changed how many of us viewed institutions, public health messaging, and medical authority.
But that skepticism came with a cost.
In 2021, I published a YouTube lecture on the Quest Cardio IQ test. At the time, very few clinicians were talking publicly about these advanced lipid panels. The lecture received thousands of views. In 2022, I found the Labcorp NMR panel and made another lecture. That one also reached thousands of people. I was not just studying this material anymore. I was teaching it.
From 2021 through 2024, I listened to nearly every countercultural medical authority I could find. It started with keto physicians like Gary Fettke and low-carb advocates on social media. Then came the carnivore movement, organ-meat influencers, alternative medicine conferences, and the online war between lipid denialists and lipid-lowering advocates. I even met Shawn Baker at an alternative medicine conference in 2023. The movement reached peak absurdity, in my mind, with the rise and fall of Paul Saladino and Liver King. I learned that they both sourced their supplement line from a manufacturer from a businessman in the supplement industry. I had a decision to make. Do I go full in on this and make millions selling supplements and become such an absurd online personality. I recognized for the first time the meaning of grift. The carnivore influencers had capitalized on a growing health conscious and skeptical market with a “natural” supplement. It was fancied as science perhaps with loose inspiration derived from the anthropological studies of a dentist Weston A Price who found less tooth decay in ancestral populations that at a traditional meat based diet.
I started Iron Direct Primary Care in 2021 as an alternative healthcare home for patients who wanted something outside the conventional system. For years, I cared for many patients who did not believe elevated lipids mattered. We ordered everything: MPO, homocysteine, hs-CRP, omega-3 testing, IL-6, Lp-PLA2, and thousands of NMR panels. Desperately searching for an answer to cardiovascular disease other than LDL and APO B burden.
The pattern was always the same.
Patients had elevated LDL particle number and elevated ApoB, and we often kicked the can down the road. We focused instead on insulin sensitivity, clean diet, seed-oil avoidance, exercise, nitric oxide supplements, methylated vitamins, inflammation markers, and metabolic optimization.
On Instagram, X and podcasts, the lipid battle raged. I listened to lipid skeptics like MD Tro and ex-carnivore MD Paul Saladino, some were compelling. Some were charismatic. Some wore white coats and spoke with absolute confidence. I thought some of them were brilliant. I even referred patients into that ecosystem.
Then reality started to break through.
In 2024 and 2025, I began seeing heart attacks and strokes in my own patient population. That floored me. These were not the stereotypical patients people imagine when they think of cardiovascular risk. These were patients who avoided seed oils, lifted weights, ate clean, took nitric oxide boosters, optimized methylation, and followed the advice of wellness influencers.
Yet they still had events.
There are carnivore FB groups that Carnivorecringe on instagram screenshots and posts revealing a toxic subculture. These self-help groups will gaslight patients who suffer from keto and carnivore with absurd claims like “they weren’t eating enough fats” or “they didn’t give carnivore long enough.”
One patient had a stroke and left my practice to pursue high-priced “natural cardiology” advice form Wolfson for $7,000. Another patient pursued an alternative cardiology path by surgeon Philip Ovadia for also $7,000 and later required triple bypass surgery. These cases forced me to confront something uncomfortable: if I continued to minimize ApoB and LDL particle burden, I might be helping patients feel reassured while their arteries continued accumulating risk.
So I re-read the data.
This time, I looked at the totality of evidence instead of the cherry-picked fragments that confirmed what I wanted to believe. I looked at Mendelian randomization, familial hypercholesterolemia, randomized trials, plaque regression imaging, PCSK9 biology, ezetimibe, statins, and the simple fact that lifetime exposure to ApoB-containing particles is causal in atherosclerosis.
That does not mean inflammation, insulin resistance, blood pressure, smoking, sleep, strength, or diet are irrelevant. They matter. But they do not make ApoB disappear. They do not make LDL particles magically harmless. A lean body and a good fasting insulin do not give the artery immunity from particle exposure.
I have now delisted my older YouTube lectures that were influenced by this lipid-denial ecosystem. I no longer want to contribute to the confusion.
One of the most common patterns I now see online is a medical influencer who has moved away from ordinary patient care, sells supplements, lives in another country (likely to avoid legal consequence) sells expensive diet consults, or gives generalized advice under the protection of “no doctor-patient relationship.” Many of these figures profit from the fear and distrust that exploded during the COVID era. That distrust is real. Some of it was earned. But bad institutional behavior does not make bad science true.
The people most affected by this misinformation are often conservatives. These are my people. They are skeptical of the system, suspicious of pharmaceutical companies, and deeply motivated to take responsibility for their health. I respect that. But skepticism without correction becomes a trap. A recent literature on the political polarization of health outcomes suggests that health and mortality are increasingly diverging along political and ideological lines, favoring better health in liberals.
My mission now is to stop the preventable damage.
I went from lipid denialist to lipid-lowering advocate because my patients, my data, and the broader evidence forced me to change. I still believe in strength training. I still believe in metabolic health. I still believe in nutrition, sleep, sunlight, and personal responsibility. But I no longer believe those things cancel out ApoB.
The new message is simple:
ApoB matters. LDL particle exposure matters. Prevention matters. And changing your mind when the evidence demands it is not weakness. It is clinical maturity.
I was wrong before.
Now I am trying to make it right.
Further readings:
Ference et al., 2017 — “Low-density lipoproteins cause atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease”
This is probably the single best paper for the intellectual foundation of my reversal. It integrates epidemiology, Mendelian randomization, genetic disorders, and randomized trials. The authors conclude that the totality of evidence establishes LDL/ApoB-containing particles as causal in ASCVD, with risk depending heavily on magnitude × duration of exposure.
Read the full open-access paper
Borén et al., 2020 — the mechanistic follow-up EAS consensusThis is the one to read for how atherosclerosis happens: entry, retention, and accumulation of ApoB-containing lipoproteins in the arterial intima and the subsequent inflammatory response. It helps resolve the false choice of “cholesterol versus inflammation” both matter, but ApoB particle retention is upstream in the atherosclerotic process.Read the full open-access paper
Cohen et al., NEJM 2006 — PCSK9 loss-of-function mutationsThis is one of the most persuasive natural experiments. Genetically lower LDL from PCSK9 variants produced dramatically lower coronary disease risk. In one population, roughly a 28% lifelong LDL reduction was associated with an 88% reduction in CHD; in another, a ~15% LDL reduction was associated with ~47% lower risk.Read the NEJM paper
Ference et al., JACC 2012 — lifelong genetically lower LDLExtremely important because it explains why short drug trials can make LDL lowering look unimpressive compared with lifelong exposure. Genetic randomization allows us to ask what happens when LDL is lower beginning early in life.Read the PubMed article and access the full text
CTT Collaboration, Lancet 2010 — 170,000 participants / 26 randomized trialsThis is an excellent paper to revisit for objection about statin statistics. Rather than focusing on one mortality NNT, it looks at outcomes per absolute LDL reduction across a huge randomized dataset.Read the complete paper free on PMC
CTT Collaboration, Lancet 2012 — statins even in lower-risk populationsThis one is particularly relevant to “NNT ≈100” arguments. One important distinction: an NNT around that range can describe major vascular events in relatively low-risk people over a limited follow-up period, but it is not a universal “statin mortality NNT.” Absolute benefit necessarily looks smaller when baseline short-term risk is low.Read the paper / abstract
My original skepticism was not irrational—the mistake was extrapolating a modest short-term absolute benefit in low-risk people into the conclusion that lifetime ApoB exposure was unimportant.
FOURIER — Evolocumab cardiovascular outcomes, NEJM 201727,564 patients with ASCVD. PCSK9 inhibition lowered LDL dramatically and reduced cardiovascular events on top of statin therapy. This is important because it dismantles the argument that the benefit is some peculiar “pleiotropic statin effect.” Different mechanism, same direction: reduce ApoB/LDL exposure → fewer events.Read FOURIER in NEJM
ODYSSEY OUTCOMES — Alirocumab, NEJM 2018Another PCSK9 inhibitor, another randomized trial, another reduction in ischemic events. Primary endpoint: 9.5% versus 11.1% after ACS.And yes. Events were lower in the alirocumab arm. Lipid denialists will say mortality wasn’t reduced enough. But these were patients already managed and in the system able to get emergency care to save from death. Primary composite (CHD death, nonfatal MI, ischemic stroke, or unstable angina hospitalization):903 patients (9.5%) vs 1,052 patients (11.1%).All-cause death:334 patients (3.5%) vs 392 patients (4.1%). That is 149 fewer first primary events and 58 fewer deaths over a median 2.8 years. The relative reduction on the primary endpoint was 15% and met the pre-specified significance threshold.Read ODYSSEY OUTCOMES
IMPROVE-IT — Ezetimibe + statin, NEJM 2015Also philosophically important: lower LDL using a nonstatin mechanism, and cardiovascular outcomes improve further. Again, it is difficult to sustain a hypothesis that the benefit is merely a special property of statins.Read IMPROVE-IT
GLAGOV — Evolocumab and actual coronary plaque regressionThis was one is Anti Aging Medicine. We can reverse plaque? That is regenerative medicine!. LDL reached about 36.6 mg/dL; percent atheroma volume fell, and 64.3% of evolocumab patients demonstrated regression versus 47.3% with placebo.Read GLAGOV in JAMA
PACMAN-AMI — Alirocumab, JAMA 2022This is even more visually compelling because multimodality intracoronary imaging showed not only greater plaque regression but changes consistent with plaque stabilization: reduced lipid burden and thicker fibrous caps. Again, this is Anti Aging and Regenerative Medicine.Read PACMAN-AMI in JAMA
ApoB vs LDL-C discordance — JAMA Cardiology 2024It demonstrates how widely ApoB can vary among people with the same LDL-C or non-HDL-C and quantifies clinically important discordance.Read the JAMA Cardiology paper
There is also a 2025 systematic review of 15 discordance studies involving 593,354 people. ApoB outperformed LDL-C in all 9 studies directly comparing the two in the review. That one is particularly relevant to explaining why I moved away from obsessing over LDL subfractions/NMR toward ApoB. Read the ApoB systematic review on PubMed
And REACT is especially important
The REACT study was just published in NEJM on August 29, 2026. It examined almost 17,000 ostensibly healthy adults aged 18–70 in Denmark and Spain. Atherosclerosis was already detectable in the 18–29-year-old group—8.7% of men and 6.7% of women—and plaque prevalence and volume climbed dramatically with age.
Read the new REACT paper in NEJM
“I am young, lean and fit, therefore these lipid numbers probably do not apply to me.” REACT shows why that reasoning is dangerous: subclinical disease can already exist decades before the person looks or feels like a cardiovascular patient.
The conservative-vs-liberal mortality paper
Elder & O’Brian, Nature Human Behaviour, May 14, 2026 — “The political polarization of health outcomes in the USA.” They found that conservatives in their cohort experienced worsening health during the 2010s and higher mortality in the early 2020s, particularly from internal causes such as heart disease, cancer, and stroke.
Read the full Nature Human Behaviour article
The authors found a mortality divergence associated with political identity; they also found that changing socioeconomic composition of the coalitions, including education, income, and insurance, explained part of the difference
Does a low calcium score mean you are in the clear? No. Test your ApoB.
I have been seeing a massive trend in the keto and carnivore communities lately, and we need to have a serious reality check. A lot of people on these elimination diets are walking around with a false sense of security. They get a Coronary Artery Calcium scan, see a big fat zero, and think they are completely bulletproof.
Here is the dangerous trap so many are falling into. When you switch to these extreme diets, you lose weight. Losing weight is almost always the exact thing that results in feeling great, and it causes some of these short-term biomarkers to improve. But a person can lose weight in all kinds of ways that may or may not actually be healthy in the long run.
For instance, when you completely cut out carbohydrates, both the processed junk and the healthy, unprocessed ones, your blood sugar spikes disappear and your hemoglobin A-one-C levels dramatically improve. It looks amazing on paper. But here is the catch. Dropping your blood sugar by simply removing the trigger does not mean you actually resolved your underlying insulin resistance. You have essentially just hidden the problem behind the weight loss. It is incredibly easy to overgeneralize that transient win, and falsely assume that because some things look great, the massive spike in your LDL or ApoB does not matter.
But it does matter. Independent risk factors do not just cancel each other out. If a person really cares about their long-term health, they need to look to what the totality of evidence says across the entire hierarchy of nutritional science, instead of following bad fad diets that get stereotypical, short-lived results.
Look at the data from the recent Keto C-T-A study. They tracked 100 people on low-carb diets. At the start, 57 percent had a perfect calcium score of zero. A year later, nearly all of them still had low risk calcium scores. Sounds great, right?
Except it was not. When they did a more advanced coronary C-T angiography scan to look at soft plaque, they found that non-calcified soft plaque shot up by a median of 37 percent in just one year.
Why? Because a calcium score only measures hard, calcified plaque. It is completely blind to the soft, fatty plaque building up underneath. And that soft plaque is exactly what triggers sudden heart attacks.
Just because you feel amazing on a certain diet does not eclipse reality. You cannot feel plaque accumulating in your arteries. You cannot feel the low-grade systemic inflammation or the metabolic shifts that take decades to brew. Chronic illnesses, whether we are talking about cardiometabolic diseases or certain cancers, develop silently over 10, 20, or 30 years.
Feeling good today is great, but do not let it blind you to what is actually happening under the hood. If your ApoB is sky-high, your body is driving plaque into your arterial walls, no matter what your weight, blood sugar, or calcium score says.
Instead of choosing extreme elimination diets, consider the overwhelming evidence across the entire hierarchy of science. That evidence points clearly toward a well-planned, whole-food, plant-based diet with no animal products as a much better solution. This approach also gets fast results, but it does so while actively reducing your risk for various cancers and cardiometabolic diseases over the long term.
If you have had difficulties knowing how to transition to this way of eating, and you genuinely want to get guidance, consult a physician, registered dietitian, or nutritionist who practices lifestyle medicine. Lifestyle medicine is an evidence-based approach that puts solid science first, while also respecting your individual values.
Stop guessing based on how you feel. Get a comprehensive lipid panel, test your ApoB, and look at the whole picture before it is too late.
What are the ingredients of a heart-healthy diet?
Pomegranate is a powerful antioxidant that can help keep your arteries clear and protect your heart. Some folks love its tart flavor, but if it's not for you and you want to take a supplement, check with your doctor. wb.md/4rlkAft
This post is a great example of a very persuasive genre, so it's worth walking through carefully, because the wins in it are real and the conclusion still doesn't follow.
Start with what's genuinely true, because there's a lot of it here. Losing significant weight, dropping blood pressure 30 points out of the pre-hypertensive range, and pulling an A1C back from prediabetes are real improvements. They lower cardiovascular risk on their own, and they explain most of why someone feels this much better. None of that should be dismissed. Cutting ultra-processed food, added sugar, and constant snacking is itself an intervention, and weight loss flatters almost every marker a person can feel or see.
Now the factual error the whole argument rests on. The post claims the AHA's ASCVD risk calculator is built around inflammation. It isn't. There is no CRP, no inflammatory marker of any kind in it. Its inputs are age, sex, race, total cholesterol, HDL, systolic blood pressure, blood pressure treatment, diabetes, and smoking status. That's the entire list, and anyone can pull up the equation and read it. So the claim that the AHA designed it around inflammation "because they know that's the underlying cause" is simply not true, and the entire argument is built on top of that false premise.
Here's what actually happened mechanically. The risk score is a weighted average of those inputs. A low-carb diet with real weight loss improves most of them at once: blood pressure down, A1C down, triglycerides down, HDL up. Those improvements pushed the score down far enough to outweigh the single input that got worse, the LDL. The number dropped. But a risk score is a prediction, not a measurement of anyone's arteries. It was validated on people with normal cholesterol handling, so feeding it a rising LDL and getting a reassuring output doesn't mean plaque isn't forming. It means the tool is being used outside the conditions it was built for.
This is the part that generalizes, and it's why the post is worth addressing rather than ignoring. Feeling good, and even scoring well on a risk estimator, does not rule out atherosclerosis. Plaque builds silently for decades with no symptoms at all, until the day it produces a very large one. The disease isn't "how you feel" or "your risk percentage." It's the physical accumulation of cholesterol-carrying particles in the artery wall. The number that best tracks that is ApoB, the count of those particles, and on a meat-heavy, high-saturated-fat diet ApoB typically rises right along with LDL. That's the one number this way of eating reliably worsens, and it's the one the calculator underweights.
The HDL claim needs its own correction, because it's everywhere. The story that HDL is "good cholesterol" that carries excess cholesterol back to the liver, so more is always protective, is the part of the model modern evidence has walked back hardest. People born with lifelong high HDL don't get less heart disease. Every drug built specifically to raise HDL failed to cut cardiovascular events. A high HDL is a decent marker of metabolic health, but it doesn't neutralize a high LDL or ApoB. A doubled HDL is a good sign about someone's metabolism. It is not a shield around their arteries.
And to be fair in the other direction: low triglycerides on low-carb are expected, and mostly reflect carb restriction and weight loss rather than proof the arteries are fine. Good news on the markers weight loss can move doesn't cancel bad news on the ones it can't.
We actually have direct evidence on this exact scenario. When the low-carb community itself funded a CT imaging study of lean, fit people with great numbers on everything except sky-high LDL, the goal was to prove the LDL was harmless in that context. The soft, rupture-prone plaque went up over a single year, by a median of 37%. The first paper spinning it the other way was retracted at the authors' own request. That's the strongest test the movement has run on itself, and it didn't cooperate.
So the honest takeaway is two parts. The metabolic wins here are real and worth having, by whatever route someone reaches them. But "my risk score dropped" and "my arteries are safe" are different claims, and when a diet drives ApoB up, a reassuring score can be hiding the one process that actually does the damage. If you want to know rather than estimate, don't argue about the calculator. Ask for an ApoB, ask once in your life for a lipoprotein(a), and if you really want to settle it, get imaging that can see soft plaque. Those look at the artery directly, instead of predicting it from a formula that was never built for the diet in question.
Anyone wanting to get legitimate evidence based assistance first and foremost that respects your values consult a physician, dietitian or nutritionist that practices lifestyle medicine. Visit LifestyleTelemedicine.com or rochesterlifestylemedicine.o… @roclifemed
I have eaten red meat and eggs, cooked with butter, added sea salt to all of my food, every single day for 3 years and 3 months now.
And my risk of heart attack or stroke has decreased by 66%.
How can that be when prior to carnivore, I was eating a diet that I thought was healthy full of vegetables and fruits, whole grains, oats, rice, potatoes, lean meats, egg whites, low-fat dairy, almond milk, fig/oat/nut bars, supplements and protein powders?
And changing my diet to low/no carb caused my body to use more fat for energy, so my liver increased my LDL & HDL output?
People always assume that cholesterol is the #1 cause of heart disease, but it's actually inflammation that causes heart disease.
So, why has my risk actually dropped?
Because the ASCVD (atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease) risk developed by the AHA doesn't just use cholesterol and LDL in its calculation because they know that the underlying cause is inflammation.
So they use:
- Weight/BMI - mine dropped significantly after changing my diet
- Blood pressure - mine dropped 30 points, I'm no longer pre-hypertensive
- A1C, Diabetes history - A1C has dropped, no longer at risk of prediabetes
- HDL - my HDL has doubled
- Smoking History - I have never smoked
So, although my LDL has increased, it's only a very small portion of the bigger picture.
Eating this way has not only given me the ability to be more active, drop weight and BMI, but my BP is the lowest it's ever been in my life!
Also, my HDL used to be considered low in the 40s, but now it's in the 90s.
HDL is what brings unused cholesterol back to the liver. So, an increase in LDL with an increase in HDL is completely healthy and normal. Plus, my triglycerides have dropped significantly.
I'd say that changing my diet and prioritizing foods that I have always been told will give me a heart attack is what has helped reduce my risk of heart disease. Go figure 🤷♀️
I noticed there's been a lot of talk lately, esp. on X, about the blue zones And of course that snowballs into the Adventist health studies. And all this chitter chatter is coming from so called carnivores and meat eaters in general. I already debunked the Blue zone debunkings by Saul. But today I noticed Baker chiming in a little late on the subject. So I thought I would hone in on the Adventist health in particular, especially after noticing one of my favorite doctors, Roger Seheult, honed in on those studies in particular. The nitty gritty breakdown can be found on my website which I'll link in the comments below.
In short, the Adventist Health Study 2, vegans had the lowest body weight, the lowest diabetes risk, the lowest blood pressure, the least metabolic syndrome, the lowest cholesterol, and the largest reduction in overall cancer incidence of any dietary group studied.
Here's what makes that remarkable: the study never measured B12 status. It never separated whole-food vegans from mock-meat vegans. And it never accounted for how recently anyone had gone vegan — in a cohort where lifetime vegans were about 1% and late-life conversion, sometimes prompted by a scary diagnosis, was the norm.
Every one of those gaps would be expected to make the vegan results look worse than reality.
They won anyway. I wrote up what all three Adventist studies actually found, link is in the comments below.
We're told eating animals is natural, healthy, even virtuous. The carnivore influencers say to pile your plate with liver, cook everything in tallow, gnaw the marrow like our ancestors did. What they don't tell you is what's actually concentrated in those exact parts — or what it cost to put them there.
Start with what's true and inconvenient: the heaviest pesticide load in our entire food system isn't on produce. It's on the corn, soy, alfalfa, and hay grown to feed livestock. This is federal law, not opinion — the EPA allows up to 4,000 times more glyphosate on animal feed crops than on the vegetables we eat (40 CFR § 180.364). Feed gets sprayed the hardest because the whole plant is drenched, drying concentrates it, and nobody rinses a bale of hay.
Then the animal eats it. Constantly. For its whole life.
The residue mostly stays out of muscle meat — but it doesn't vanish. It collects in the liver, the kidneys, the fat. The persistent poisons, the banned ones that never break down, build up in animal fat over years. The World Health Organization says more than 90% of human dioxin exposure comes through food, overwhelmingly from animal fat and dairy. So the "superfoods" of the carnivore movement are, chemically speaking, the collection points. They're telling people to eat the filter.
And every bite carries a body count that has nothing to do with chemistry. An animal who didn't want to die. Add to that the field animals killed growing the feed — several pounds of it for every pound of flesh — and the math turns on its head. Eating plants directly is the option that kills the fewest, sprays the least, and spares the most. When someone says "but crop farming harms animals too," remember the animals ate those crops first, by the truckload, and then were killed on top of it.
There's a gentler truth underneath all of this. You don't need any of it. Every nutrient in liver is available from plants and fortified foods, without the suffering and without the contaminant load. You can cook, and thrive, and feed your family, without a body having to be raised, sprayed, and slaughtered for it.
The healthiest, kindest, cleanest place to eat is the same place: lower down, closer to the plants. The animals never needed to be on the plate. We were just never encouraged to ask.
🌱 The full science, the sources, and the whole argument in the comment below
"86% of livestock feed is inedible to humans!" You may have seen that chart. The number's even real, straight from an FAO study. But turn the page and things change.
Feed 100 crop calories to an animal. You get about 12 back as food. The other 88 are gone; burned as body heat, locked in bones you don't eat. That's not an opinion you can argue with. It's thermodynamics. Every time you route food through an animal first, most of it disappears.
Now scale that up: animal agriculture uses 83% of the world's farmland and delivers 18% of its calories. Plants use 17% and deliver 82%.
So how does the meme get to "86% inedible"? It measures feed by WEIGHT. Grass and straw are heavy and bulky, so of course they dominate a scale. Weigh it by calories or protein, the things that actually feed people, and the trick falls apart.
Things don't stop getting interesting. The same study the meme cites says livestock eat a third of the world's grain, that 1 kg of meat costs about 3 kg of human-edible feed, and its authors call for grain feeding to be REDUCED. And that's before you count the soy, 77% of the world's soybeans go to feeding animals, not people. "By-product" is doing a lot of lying there.
Then there's the trick hiding in the word "inedible" itself. Inedible doesn't mean free. Nearly 40% of the world's cropland grows animal feed; land, water, and fertilizer that could grow food for people or go back to forest. A field of feed corn you can't digest still ate the acre.
And here's the part that gets me: this was effectively settled in 2017, by the FAO's own researchers; the very people the meme quotes. The numbers that sink it were printed on the same pages that gave it the "86%." Nearly a decade later, people still share the chart as if that second half was never written.
(The website on the original graphic gone meme? Marketing for a pro-meat book and film. It's an ad.)
I broke the whole thing down. 8 problems with the meme, every number sourced to the primary literature: FAO, Oxford, Science, PNAS. Link in comments. 📷
IF I DON'T RESPOND TO YOUR COMMENT IT'S LIKELY BECAUSE IT WAS ALREADY DEBUNKED.
Posting stuff like this accomplishes nothing Meaningful really. So why am I doing it?
I've noticed the pattern with the carnivore movement. Since the beginning they've been mirroring the vegan movement. But the vegan movement drifts far beyond agitating. And the irony of it all is there's actually a place for agitating.
Social movements require agitation. However they also require more people on the ground meeting people where they are at and facilitating movement. And this is where I see the vegan movement failing. I just finished writing a book on this that solves the problem. More on that later...
The fascinating thing about agitation though as it functionally appears in social movements, the more we understand it the it effectively applies to veganism and backfires for the carnivore movement. Because on the other side of the agitator equation is the potential to meet people where they are at and facilitate movement toward developing an ethical anchor and effectively closing the gap of cognitive dissonance. This is something only the vegan movement can do.
The carnivore movement can't do this. Because innately humane humans, which comprise about 99 to 96% of the population, do not possess any sort of significant subconscious desire to needlessly harm others. This leaves the carnivore influencers empty handed as agitators.
The point of being an purpose driven agitator is to move people toward actualizing their utmost potential to be humane humans. Think Martin Luther King, Nelson Mandela, Henry David Thoreau, Susan B. Anthony, etc... These people weren't agitating people out of precontemplation so they could think about how to be more violent. The cards in their hand were non violence. And of course there were active resistors to those social movements.
So the vegan movement logically, inevitably would result in having what I call in my book a reverse transtheoretical model of social change comprised of active resistors, and what other social frameworks call laggards. And this is the Carnivore movement.
Anybody objectively looking at the carnivore influencers make will easily ascertain that they are operating empty handed. Especially juxtaposed to the Vegan Influencers.
There is no carnivore equivalent to the American College of Lifestyle Medicine, Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine, NutritionFacts.org, T. Colin Campbell Center for Nutrition Studies, True North, Hippocrates Wellness, etc... There is no carnivore equivalent of support even from the largest leading health organizations in our country and essentially all developed countries around the world. Sure we have a government that is heavily persuaded by industry influence and this is easy to trace and prove and has been already. But that's the extent of the cards they hold.
There Is no carnivore equivalent to endless decades of significant anecdotes corroborated by science either. We have better influencers that actually showcase evidence and debunk carnivores consistently year after year, more influencers, etc. Even my channel, VeganLinked on YouTube, is better than any carnivore channel.
Where does this leave Carnivore influencers? Well we see it constantly. The reason why I made this meme was in response to a meme I stumbled on today that one of the Carnivore influencers posted showing a person dumpster diving titled Vegan Grocery Shopping. It made me think about how their core influencer Dr Shawn Baker constantly since he hit the scene at the advent of the current movement, which is only like 6 years now, constantly seems to be fixated on vegans and spreading misinformation or never showcases any empirical evidence to support his way.
Instead they depend on ad hominem attacks, misinformation, and shallow dissemination of science at best that doesn't go beyond the abstract. They literally couldn't have a more pathetic movement.
The sad thing is after they've been debunked so many times, even when they fail like Paul Saladino, Frank Tufano, Jordan Peterson, etc. they still cling on as long as they can and continue exploiting vulnerable people that either want good news about bad habits or genuinely are struggling to make sense of nutrition noise.
Making this meme seems like a contradiction if you really know what I've been working on lately, creating an entire framework and pedagogy around moving people forward. There is a place for agitation in the vegan movement. It doesn't require the same shallow carnivore tactics. Sure it gets engagement. But what's important is what we do with that engagement. And ideally we wouldn't have to resort to those tactics because if we don't know what to do with that engagement we may actually be pushing people further away and ultimately a disservice to the movement. And this is quintessentially the thesis of my book.
And in that post that galvanized this it's clear it was counterproductive to their movement with comments like these:
"I thought we were leaving the insulting nonsensical low post to the vegans, but here we are
You are an insult to the rest of us."
"So, you've given up in any kind of intellectual debate because you always lose them; and have decided to just post baseless memes instead. Reeks of desperation."
"Good try moving the goalpost"
"Go look for some roadkill and eat it raw"
"Im glad this page exists. It makes carnivore “keto” crowd look so retarded with these dumb pointless posts.
I swear its a 200 IQ vegan running this page sometimes 📷"
"A carnivore coach...
At what point did you decide to teach people such a boring lifestyle?"
"This account is fighting so hard for the lowest IQ award."
Meanwhile, If you go to my channel I've got over 500 Vegans with probably around 500 hours a verbiage that maybe mentions the carnivore movement for a total of 15 minutes. And there's tens of thousands of vegan influencers simply just showcasing how beautiful our food is, how compassionate it is, how successful they've been, and how scientifically based it is. The difference is so fascinating and telling...
Why do some people say they feel better going "carnivore"?
At Vibrant Vegan Fest, the plant-based dietitians behind Married to Health explain why that experience doesn’t necessarily mean plants were the problem.
For someone struggling with gut dysbiosis or other digestive issues, removing fiber-rich and fermentable plant foods can sometimes reduce symptoms. But feeling better after eliminating foods is not necessarily the same thing as identifying — or correcting — the underlying problem.
Their message: gut issues don’t automatically mean you need to give up plants or start eating animals. There may be another explanation — and another path forward.
🎥 Watch the full Married to Health presentation from Vibrant Vegan Fest on VeganLinked. Full video in comments
Vegans got 40% more bowel cancer, so much for meat" is making the rounds. It falls apart inside its own source.
Same study, same table: pescatarians — who cut red & processed meat but kept fish and dairy — had 15% LOWER colorectal cancer risk. Cut the actual implicated foods, risk drops.
The vegan stat is 93 cases. No data on how long anyone was vegan, why, or what they ate (fries are vegan). It lost significance in sensitivity analysis. The authors blame low calcium — not meat.
Every level of evidence above it — dose-response cohorts, Mendelian randomization, RCTs, lifelong vegetarian populations — points the other way.
Full breakdown, every study linked below
🤖 Made with AI













