Dr. McCullough - I've been watching you for the past 6 years and can't say how much I respect you. However, I have to say that in this video, you're acting a lot more defensive and I've ever seen you before--interrupting constantly, forcing your point about measuring in grams at the beginning of the conversation when it prevented her from getting to her main points, etc.. You're generally so open-minded; what happened in this case? Still love you, but I think you owe Dr. Teicholz either another opportunity to make her point without constant interruption or an apology. Your subscribers wanted to hear what she had to say--sheesh!
Well said. I too hail Dr McCullough. But this interview goes to show that Dr McCullough is only too human too (and that is a good thing). This interview is an opportunity for not only reflection on the data (and what is driving this particular interview style) but also self reflection to recognise one’s own shibboleths.
I was thrilled to see that Dr. McCullough had agreed to this interview with Nina Teicholz and agree with the other comments. When I read A Big Fat Surprise a few months ago, I was so impressed with Dr. Teicholz' research. I am a Registered Dietitian and have had my eyes opened over the years by what I have learned. I now feel that my formal education had been a sham! (I rarely find another dietitian with whom I can exchange information and ideas!) I encourage everyone to read Dr. Teicholz' book and I am so impressed that she obtained her PhD in Nutrition after she wrote the book.
How did mankind survive for millenniums without the benefit of current knowledge? The only answer" Natural unprocessed, pesticide-free, nutrient-rich food from pristine soil. There is no nutrition school that I know of that isn't financially-supported by the Food Industry. The Food Industry gives its research to the schools for nutrition students...so the. future R.Ds will promote Food Industry products. Doctors really have to do their own nutrition research and not follow information coming from the Food Industry. They must study healthy people, in order to help their patients. Studying diseases, sick people, drugs, and treatments is not the way to go.
I have been eating organic from the grocery store for several years but didn't notice much change and recently started buying from a local farmer that claims to not use chemicals. Their food tastes much better and my body seems to feel better. I feel more like when I was young with more energy. It makes me wonder what kind of organic produce the grocery stores are getting.
I have a lot of respect for Dr. McCullough. This interview was disrespectful to say the least. The egotistical side started to rear its head.
My background is Nutritional Science and my father died of heart disease at 53 yo. So this subject has always hit close to home. I worked at a hospital for 20 years and now work in a local convalescent facility. We have doctors putting 95 year olds on low fat, low cholesterol diets. So people must understand where the expertise lies, when it comes to food and nutrition.
Thank you for having Dr. Teicholz on your podcast- I’m very excited to read her book. From my point of view she definitely won this debate.
Generally a good talk but I agree with others that Dr. McCullough was unnecessarily aggressive. Especially shocking was his opening salvo essentially asking Dr. Teicholz, if she was a hypocrite. Maybe he should have first announced to everyone that HE was NOT a hypocrite!
I wish Dr Teicholz would have been allowed uninterrupted time to explain how she went from being a vegetarian to changing her stance on saturated fat. She is obviously incredibly well educated in this nutritional field. It appeared she was up against an entrenched nutritional narrative rather than open-minded curiosity.
There was a peer reviewed paper I read in just the last few years (but I can't find it right now- will look), However it showed a U-shaped effect of LDL cholesterol with higher mortality at both ends, too high and too low, and the ideal at 130 which conventional medical thinking considers dangerously high. I was hoping one of you would mention it because I found it fascinating. See link in reply
The studies mentioned seem to have major flaws and convoluted data. Removing naturally occurring saturated fat from red meat, replacing it with highly processed vegetable oils that are rich in omega-6 fatty acids (which are carcinogenic and highly inflammatory)... is a seriously flawed study design.
I have doubts about recommended levels of LDL, HDL, and total cholesterol as being independent predictors of longevity and vitality. If those recommendations are based on convoluted data, they should be re-examined, and current recommendations should cite their fundamental limitations.
We need animal studies (provided we have appropriate biological similarities). That would remove a lot of the confounding factors that come from inconsistent dietary adherence and environmental factors.
I work with a community of people who have chronic mercury poisoning (usually from their teeth although there are plenty of other ways to get poisoned). There are more than 250 different symptoms for this and people show up with various constellations of these that sometimes get a label and sometimes not.
A diet that works for one person may not work out for their equally toxic neighbor. And as a person lowers their metal burden, what diet they tolerate or what diet makes them sick may change. A good example of this is the fact that about a third of people who are toxic with mercury react badly to high thiol (a form of sulphur) foods, another third need MORE of these to feel well, and for the remaining third it makes no difference.
I tolerate just about everything other than sugar. I like the advice of the Weston A. Price foundation. I cook with ghee, butter, tallow, coconut oil and olive oil. I eat a lot of butter. I get uncomfortable if there is no butter in the house!
This is a very contentious issue. People get all religious and angry about it, I don't know exactly why but I remember noticing this way back in the day when the macrobiotic diet was a thing. I applaud Dr. M. for having this conversation although I think it made him pretty uncomfortable.
Dr McCullough, we can all hone our skills; so it is in this regard I share Brett Weinstein’s interview with Nina Teicholz in the hope that you will find inspiration to hone your interviewing skills (as well as learn more of Ms Teicholz’s work). I look forward to you interviewing her again.
AI overview says: At the time of the American Civil War, the U.S. life expectancy at birth was around 40-44 years, significantly lower than today due to high rates of infant and child mortality. People who survived childhood lived longer, with a life expectancy for adults being closer to what it is now, around 68–70 years. (me talking now): In spite of the vaxmongers taking credit for the entire reduction in child mortality, about 90% of the reduction occurred before the vaccines were introduced, and for several diseases that never had vaccines developed, the mortality rate declined just like the diseases for which vaccines were developed. Several studies estimated the contribution of vaccines to child mortality decline as between 0% to at most 6%. Are you implying that pre-1900 people were dying of heart attacks from eating meat?
I am not religious, but when anyone claims that people in the past died young, I like to quote a famous old book, The Bible: “The days of our years are threescore years and ten; and if by reason of strength they be fourscore years…”
I make that 70 or 80 years old. Presumably it wouldn't be in there if this wasn't a typical lifespan.
Dr. McCullough - I've been watching you for the past 6 years and can't say how much I respect you. However, I have to say that in this video, you're acting a lot more defensive and I've ever seen you before--interrupting constantly, forcing your point about measuring in grams at the beginning of the conversation when it prevented her from getting to her main points, etc.. You're generally so open-minded; what happened in this case? Still love you, but I think you owe Dr. Teicholz either another opportunity to make her point without constant interruption or an apology. Your subscribers wanted to hear what she had to say--sheesh!
Well said. I too hail Dr McCullough. But this interview goes to show that Dr McCullough is only too human too (and that is a good thing). This interview is an opportunity for not only reflection on the data (and what is driving this particular interview style) but also self reflection to recognise one’s own shibboleths.
I was thrilled to see that Dr. McCullough had agreed to this interview with Nina Teicholz and agree with the other comments. When I read A Big Fat Surprise a few months ago, I was so impressed with Dr. Teicholz' research. I am a Registered Dietitian and have had my eyes opened over the years by what I have learned. I now feel that my formal education had been a sham! (I rarely find another dietitian with whom I can exchange information and ideas!) I encourage everyone to read Dr. Teicholz' book and I am so impressed that she obtained her PhD in Nutrition after she wrote the book.
I concur
How did mankind survive for millenniums without the benefit of current knowledge? The only answer" Natural unprocessed, pesticide-free, nutrient-rich food from pristine soil. There is no nutrition school that I know of that isn't financially-supported by the Food Industry. The Food Industry gives its research to the schools for nutrition students...so the. future R.Ds will promote Food Industry products. Doctors really have to do their own nutrition research and not follow information coming from the Food Industry. They must study healthy people, in order to help their patients. Studying diseases, sick people, drugs, and treatments is not the way to go.
I have been eating organic from the grocery store for several years but didn't notice much change and recently started buying from a local farmer that claims to not use chemicals. Their food tastes much better and my body seems to feel better. I feel more like when I was young with more energy. It makes me wonder what kind of organic produce the grocery stores are getting.
I have a lot of respect for Dr. McCullough. This interview was disrespectful to say the least. The egotistical side started to rear its head.
My background is Nutritional Science and my father died of heart disease at 53 yo. So this subject has always hit close to home. I worked at a hospital for 20 years and now work in a local convalescent facility. We have doctors putting 95 year olds on low fat, low cholesterol diets. So people must understand where the expertise lies, when it comes to food and nutrition.
Thank you for having Dr. Teicholz on your podcast- I’m very excited to read her book. From my point of view she definitely won this debate.
💯
Dr. McCullough - Excellent points above. Why not allow Dr. Teicholz to address them in a future video?
Generally a good talk but I agree with others that Dr. McCullough was unnecessarily aggressive. Especially shocking was his opening salvo essentially asking Dr. Teicholz, if she was a hypocrite. Maybe he should have first announced to everyone that HE was NOT a hypocrite!
Exactly
I wish Dr Teicholz would have been allowed uninterrupted time to explain how she went from being a vegetarian to changing her stance on saturated fat. She is obviously incredibly well educated in this nutritional field. It appeared she was up against an entrenched nutritional narrative rather than open-minded curiosity.
There was a peer reviewed paper I read in just the last few years (but I can't find it right now- will look), However it showed a U-shaped effect of LDL cholesterol with higher mortality at both ends, too high and too low, and the ideal at 130 which conventional medical thinking considers dangerously high. I was hoping one of you would mention it because I found it fascinating. See link in reply
https://www.jwatch.org/na52959/2020/12/30/baseline-ldl-cholesterol-has-u-shaped-association-with-all. This is the citation from 2020 on U-shaped cholesterol LDL
The studies mentioned seem to have major flaws and convoluted data. Removing naturally occurring saturated fat from red meat, replacing it with highly processed vegetable oils that are rich in omega-6 fatty acids (which are carcinogenic and highly inflammatory)... is a seriously flawed study design.
I have doubts about recommended levels of LDL, HDL, and total cholesterol as being independent predictors of longevity and vitality. If those recommendations are based on convoluted data, they should be re-examined, and current recommendations should cite their fundamental limitations.
We need animal studies (provided we have appropriate biological similarities). That would remove a lot of the confounding factors that come from inconsistent dietary adherence and environmental factors.
I work with a community of people who have chronic mercury poisoning (usually from their teeth although there are plenty of other ways to get poisoned). There are more than 250 different symptoms for this and people show up with various constellations of these that sometimes get a label and sometimes not.
A diet that works for one person may not work out for their equally toxic neighbor. And as a person lowers their metal burden, what diet they tolerate or what diet makes them sick may change. A good example of this is the fact that about a third of people who are toxic with mercury react badly to high thiol (a form of sulphur) foods, another third need MORE of these to feel well, and for the remaining third it makes no difference.
I tolerate just about everything other than sugar. I like the advice of the Weston A. Price foundation. I cook with ghee, butter, tallow, coconut oil and olive oil. I eat a lot of butter. I get uncomfortable if there is no butter in the house!
This is a very contentious issue. People get all religious and angry about it, I don't know exactly why but I remember noticing this way back in the day when the macrobiotic diet was a thing. I applaud Dr. M. for having this conversation although I think it made him pretty uncomfortable.
Dr McCullough, we can all hone our skills; so it is in this regard I share Brett Weinstein’s interview with Nina Teicholz in the hope that you will find inspiration to hone your interviewing skills (as well as learn more of Ms Teicholz’s work). I look forward to you interviewing her again.
https://youtu.be/ikp36sjCfsg?si=olWYDK09T_SH9D3k
US Life expectancy at the time of the Civil War was 35 years
AI overview says: At the time of the American Civil War, the U.S. life expectancy at birth was around 40-44 years, significantly lower than today due to high rates of infant and child mortality. People who survived childhood lived longer, with a life expectancy for adults being closer to what it is now, around 68–70 years. (me talking now): In spite of the vaxmongers taking credit for the entire reduction in child mortality, about 90% of the reduction occurred before the vaccines were introduced, and for several diseases that never had vaccines developed, the mortality rate declined just like the diseases for which vaccines were developed. Several studies estimated the contribution of vaccines to child mortality decline as between 0% to at most 6%. Are you implying that pre-1900 people were dying of heart attacks from eating meat?
I am not religious, but when anyone claims that people in the past died young, I like to quote a famous old book, The Bible: “The days of our years are threescore years and ten; and if by reason of strength they be fourscore years…”
I make that 70 or 80 years old. Presumably it wouldn't be in there if this wasn't a typical lifespan.