And we're back with another edition of Federalist Radio Hour. I'm trist Injustice.
As always, you can email the show at radio at the Federalist dot com,
follow us on Twitter at fdr LST. Make sure to subscribe wherever you
download your podcast and to the premium version of our website. Today, I'm
joined by Nina T. Colts, the best selling author of Big Fast Surprise,
Why Butter, Meat and Cheese Belonging a Healthy Diet. Nina, thank
you for joining me. Thanks for having me on. I appreciate it.
So I was really excited to talk to you about this latest docu series on
Netflix that came out at the start of the year on veganism. The team
of researchers at Stanford University followed a few pairs of twins over an eight week
period to study the impact of a vegan diet. Now, when I first
started the documentary, I actually thought I'd have a similar reaction to the first,
you know, set of vegan documentaries come on Netflix called The Game Changers.
It was out in twenty eighteen. I watched the documentary under lockdowns and
actually was I mean, I didn't know. I don't even writing about health
and nutrition for a year and a half. But I felt so convinced by
the documentary that actually went vegan for a month. Of course, this was
during lockdowns. You know, I was living alone, no kids, nothing
else to do other than work. I just didn't have so many responsibilities,
and so I gave a shon I was actually a vegan for a month.
I thought I would have a similar reaction to this documentary, but I actually
left more skeptical about the merits of a vegan diet than before. So I'm
curious to hear about what your initial reaction to the docuseries was. Well,
you know, I'm a science journalist and I have been writing about nutrition science
for now like nearly twenty years. So my approach to it was actually didn't
even know about the docuseries. I was interested in the eight week twin study
and where they had looked at They had divided these twins up into two groups.
They had given one a vegan diet and the other an omnivore diet.
And it was by the lead researcher. It's named Christopher Gardner. He's a
Stanford professor. I've known about him for a long time because he himself is
has been vegan for decades, long before he got into research, and I
was curious about this study. I mean, I think the study was problematic
for a bunch of reasons that we can talk about. But then I discovered
that the whole thing had been filmed and was within practically days of the study
coming out, was already and produced for this docuseries. And that really raised
this question in my mind that was what was the study done for science or
was it done as a kind of PR stunt? And I wrote a column
about that that was called science or PR stunt question mark because and I think
that over the course of my investigation into this study and the funding for it,
and the funding for the Netflix study, and looking into Christopher Gardner's background
a little bit, I really came to the conclusion that this was most likely
science masquerading as public relations, and that the whole thing had been done in
order to create a docuseries. Because I think, as we all know,
convincing people with fact sheets and scientific studies is not nearly as successful as persuading
people with a documentary film. I mean, we all know those films are
like what the Health Game Changers. They're very persuasive. They convince people,
and that's more effective than trying to show people to present a bunch of facts
and figures and scientific information and that sort of bewildering to people. So I
think that this was designed to try to convince people to become vegan through a
film that has a kind of a thin vernier of science overlaying it. I'd
say those was probably one of the biggest red flags for me. When you
are conducting a scientific study for the sole purpose of commercializing it for a Netflix
docuseries that clearly came with an agenda. I don't think there's any doubt about
that. Watching through the four episodes where they start going to chicken farms and
talking and really going after the meat industry itself, it was pretty clear to
me that this was not some type of rigorously conducted scientific experiment. It was
clearly a commercialized product as a kind of pr stunt. And of course it
only took you know, I came across your column, and of course it
comes from people who are behind the beyond meat industry, the industry to kind
of create synthetic meat and sell it as real meat, but it's actually a
vegan product of course it's ultra processed and so, but I remember watching The
Game Changers during lockdown, and I remember watching it with a certain enthusiasm of
someone who's going to start writing about health and nutrition, and so I thought,
you know, let's give it a shot. And so I went vegan
for entire month, and I did responsibly. I phased out meat products solely
over the course of a few weeks. I stuck to a strict regiment outlined
in a vegan diet cookbook for athletes because I was doing cross it at the
time. And I remember at the end of that kind of self experiment,
I thought it was going to feel like a monster in the gym. I
thought it was going to feel the best I ever had in a lot of
ways. I did feel really good. But I felt really good because I
cut out all the ultra processed foods in my diet. When I put eggs
back in my diet, I felt, you know, put real eggs back
in my diet. I felt so much better better than I did over the
course of the month long vegan diet. And just to get all the amino
acids you need through through veganism required another full time job. Ended up itself.
I mean, I was someone who's living alone, no kids, and
so this time I was watching this documentary with a little more skepticism as a
someone who's been writing about nutrition for much longer than a year and a half
now, but also with the face with the reality of Okay, this is
a docuseriies produced for television. And also I thought it was incredibly ironic that
at the end of the series a lot of the results actually came back against
a vegan diet. You had participants who went through the study on the meat
diet who actually gained muscle and lost fat, and I just thought that was
amazing that they would present that in a documentary that the other way around it
lost Sorry to interrupt you, but the vegan diet. So let's just talk
about the science of the experiment for a second. So first of all,
an experiment that is two months long is a ridiculously short experiment. You can
learn very very little information from a two month long study. And it's notable
that Christopher Gardner, the lead researcher, he has done one, one,
and I think even two year long studies, and so he knows that you
know, meaningful results in a scientific experiment, especially having to do with weight,
but also with cardiovascular risk factors. They're just not meaningful after only two
months. And then and you're right that there were a number of negative outcomes
on the vegan diet. So they lost I think you got that slightly reversed,
but they lost they lost more muscle and gained fat compared to the omnivore
dieters, who who lost more fat and not as much muscle. There was
also a significant drop I think by seventy nine percent of the vitamin B twelve
which was available to in the in the could be measured in the blood of
the vegan dieters. And that's because vitamin B twelve is only available in animal
foods. It does not come from plant foods. It's an absolutely essential vitamin
for neurological health and all other kind of number of other functions, including lung
function. So that precipitous decline in B twelve was a very worrisome outcome.
The study sort of trumpeted their main outcome, which was a drop in LDL
cholesterol, so that's your supposedly bad cholesterol going down, but it did not.
It sort of squashed the result that the vegan dieters also saw their good
cholesterol drop. You don't want your good cholesterol dropping. You want your good
cholesterol to be going up. Uh so, and that always happens on a
plant based diet, that your good cholesterol will will come down. So best,
it's kind of a wash in terms of the heart disease risk factors.
And again, you just can't know after such a short period of time what
the real heart disease risk is coming out of a study like that. There
were other problems I found in the studies, such as, you know,
the original protocols which you have to register with the National Institutes of Health,
and you do that so that you cannot then subsequently cherry pick your results.
Well, it turned out the protocol that they registered they abandoned without filing any
paperwork, and they did then cherry pick their outcome data to look better for
the study. And so in all I think it's a it's a pretty weak
study, short term and with very very mixed results. So then when you
go and you look into the to the conflicts of interest, you're like,
well, what is this study for. I mean, here's here's someone who
knows how to do a long and rigorous uncle trial and now he's doing like
a really quick short trial. So you start to look into his you know,
what are his motivations. Well, that the study itself was funded by
the Vote Foundation. I'm not sure I'm pronouncing that correctly, but Vogt Carl
Vote is a he's one of the so called vegan mafia, or is called
by some members of the press, a very very committed animal rights activist.
All of his foundations, expenses and over the course of years have been entirely
in the field of animal rights. And he funded the Game Changers movie,
so he has and he funded this movie. He funded both the study,
and he funded the production company that made this current Netflix series. So what
emerges, I think is a picture of you know, interests and animal rights
interest funding a steady study, a scientific study that will ultimately get people not
to hope. The idea is to try to get people to avoid meat,
but not somebody in terms of this foundation has no record of funding any scientific
research. I mean, they are clearly an advocacy a vegan advocacy organization.
So that creates a whole other agenda behind this film, which is, you
know, they want to find veganism better because they have animal rights interests.
There is also the fact that the entire center, this Stanford Center where Christopher
Gardner works, is underwritten with a five year grant by Beyond Meat, as
you said, which is a fake meat company and ultra processed food. The
whole center is underwritten by Beyond Meat, and Christopher Gardner, when in his
own interviews and his own conversation, says he is he does not even talk
about health in his classes. What he talks about and what he's concerned about
are animal rights issues, labor issues having to do with labor on an animal
livestock production, and he's worried about environmental concerns of livestock. Those are all
completely valid concerns. But he's a professor at Stanford Medical School, and presumably
his job is to answer questions about health. People who come to the medical
school are seeking advice about health, and that is his uh, that would
presumably be his you know, his you know, his metier, that would
be what what his profession is designed to address. And instead he has these
other social justice issues that may be appropriate in some other department at Stanford,
but certainly do not seem appropriate at the Stanford Medical School, and so I
mean, ultimately you're seeing a kind of conflation of agendas that confuses the study
and I think is not transparent to people who are just reading reading the science.
I mean, I think it's pretty clear in the film that it's got
multiple agendas going on, but yeah, the science. It's disturbing when science
is being used towards these other ends, because that, of course is that's
science in service of advocacy, and that is not what science is supposed to
do. Right, You've got to hear about this game changing product that people
are using before a night out with some drinks. It's called z Biotics.
Z Biotics pre alcohol probiotic drink is the world's first genetically engineered probiotic. It
was invented by PhD scientists to tackle those rough mornings after drinking. So here's
how it works. When you drink, alcohol gets converted into a toxic byproduct
in the gut. It's this byproduct, not dehype that's actually to blame for
your rough next day. Zbiotics produces an enzyme to break this byproduct down.
Just remember to make z biotics your first drink of the night. Drink responsibly,
and then you'll feel your best tomorrow. Now, Super Bowl Sunday is
right around the corner. Because of z Biotics, I'm confident that you guys
can go enjoy the game without worrying about how productive you'll be at work come
Monday morning, and that Monday morning comes real fast. Go do zbiotics dot
com slash Federalist to get fifteen percent off your first order when you use Federalist
at checkout. Zbiotics is backed with one hundred percent money back guarantee, so
if you are unsatisfied for any reason, they'll refund your money, no questions
asked. Now, remember to head to zbiotics dot com slash federalist and use
the code Federalist at checkout for fifteen percent off. Thank you z Biotics for
sponsoring this episode and for all the good times. Yeah, I'm ba,
I'm glad I did me speak earlier. I'm glad you caught me on that
it was the vegan dieters who were losing muscle, and it was the meat
eaters who were of course having outcomes that or beneficial. But it kind of
brings me into my next question. Your note about the different kind of complating
agendas throughout the document series. Why do you think nutrition has become so politicized
in the last decade? Is it about health or is it these other issues
that surround climate change? Is there a spiritual battle going on? Why do
you think it's become so political in recent years? Well, that is a
very big question, I'm afraid. I think what we have seen is the
growth from the nineteen sixties and seventies onwards of a move towards a plant based
vegetarian diet that has that came about originally in the seventies with Francis Morlapay's book
Diet for a Small Planet, and the whole idea was, we cannot afford
to feed the burgeoning number of people on the planet. We we have to
we have to shift our diet, you know, And she famously said,
you know, a pound of plants is takes much, many fewer resources to
produce than a pound of meat, So we should all switch to eating plants
in order to be resource protective. The vegetarian that idea has really gained a
lot of momentum, and it has been joined by other interests or advocacy agendas.
One of those is animal rights, which has grown to be very very
strong, I think since the seventies. Also, there's a very extremely strong
animal rights movement. It's not always obvious that they're operating. For instance,
there's a pretty well known known group that is quoted by mainstream newspapers called the
PCRs, the Physician Center for Responsible Medicine, led by Neil Bernard. Neil
Bernard is an animal rights activist who is also a doctor, but he's got
his group of I don't know, fifteen thousand members is mainly or mainly not
doctors. They're mainly animal rights activists and that's the source of their motivations.
So there are sort of an animal rights movement that is clad in white doctor's
codes, but that movement is very, very strong. And then there is
another strand which has to do with climate change that has come in, which
is probably we don't want to get to go into all of that, but
I think there's a lot of very bad science that is blaming cows for a
big chunk of global warming. And so there are people who don't want to
eat meat in order to save the planet, and I feel like that's the
most important contribution people can make. And then behind all of that are the
vast enormous interests of the food and I would add the pharmaceutical industries, and
all these interests converge and are intertwined with each other. So the food industries
have been extremely active. And I'm talking about the multiprocessed food industries. You're
talking about Nestley, Unilever, Kelloggs, the big giant multinational corporations that mainly
make ultra processed foods. Most ultraprocessed foods are made up of three ingredients vegetable
oils, grain and sugar of some kind in different proportions. That's your cookies,
crackers, chips, cereals, everything, almost everything is made from those
basic ingredients. They see meat as competing for the central place on the dinner
plate. They would like to get rid of meat. Instead of meat,
you're having pasta and grains. And because meat has always occupied the center spot,
the prize spot on the American dinner plate for centuries. So these companies
have in fact worked very hard to promote that climate narrative that meat is bad
for health. And I mean, I can tell you about Gorilla Pasta,
which which spent hundreds of millions of dollars promoting the idea of that meat is
bad for health. Back in the mid twenty fifteen sixteen, they successfully kind
of launched that idea because Berrilla Pasca Brilla Pasta is the biggest pasta maker in
the world and they would like you to eat their pasta rather than meat.
And then there's another whole contingent of companies that are invested in also replacing meat.
But these are the new fangled ultra processed fake food companies. So beyond
meat impossible Burger, the fake mill, the fate, there's now fake seafood,
fake eggs, and they may be bubble companies, but there are still
in a sense that they may not be successful in that industry because it seems
that there's not a lot of consumer interest in those products, but there are
still companies. They go through their bubble periods with a lot of run up
investment and they still make investors quite a lot of money. And then there
of course the people invested in bugs. But there's a lot of investment money
that is going into replacing meat. So and all of these financial agendas are
are mixed in with the ideological or advocacy agendas. You really never know quite
what is behind any advocacy agenda, whether there's financial interest there or whether they
are genuinely concerned citizens. It's a very confusing field. I'll just add one
other factor which is actually not minor, but the Seventh day Adventist Church is
famously known for the Seventh Day Adventist studies we're purported to show that vegetarians live
longer. They believe as the most important matter of their faith that everybody should
follow a vegan diet because if the whole world is not following a vegan diet,
then there will not be a second coming Jesus Christ will not return to
save us. And so they have an extremely active outreach program through hospitals and
clinics all over the world to try to move people towards a vegan diet.
They own the Blue Zones franchise, and some of the members of their university,
which is called Low Molinda University, are very high level nutrition scientists who
participated in the most influential nutrition committees that guide government policy. So they are
actually, surprisingly, i mean, i would say shockingly, a major player
in this field, and their motivation is religious. So there you have a
very bizarre constellation of different interests involved. In nutrition. It makes your head
spin. I'm sure it seems like every time I watch something like this Netflix
docu series, or I'm listening to a lecture about how we need to be
living on a plant based diet, my mind always goes to, well,
we already are living on a plant based diet. I mean, the majority
of the food in our country is plant based. Cheerios and oreos are plant
based foods. It just happens to be ultra processed, which of course we
know is linked with BCD, chronic disease, and all kinds of health problems
that we're seeing across the country. Today, I want to talk about this
paper from Harvard University that really sent the media haywire last fall, talking link
apparently linking red meat with diabetes. It drew all kinds of headlines from the
Washington Post, the New York Times, but of course, taking you know,
a few minutes just to look at how the study was conducted. They're
lying on recall questionnaires, which of course we know are notoriously unreliable because people
often can't remember what they had for lunch the day before. But also on
a practical level, it doesn't make a lot of sense considering how red meat
has actually very little impact on blood sugar levels. So just on a practical
level, it doesn't make sense. It just I think it's really testimony to
how we've not just institutionalized the wrong diet of a low fat, high carb
diet, but we've industrialized it to the point where we are living on a
plant based site. It just happens to be one based on ultra processed foods.
Yeah, I mean, I'll just to give you some statistics that to
confirm what you're saying. We have increased our consumption of grains since from nineteen
seventy to twenty thirteen by forty percent, So we eat more grains as we've
been told, I mean we and we eat twenty to thirty five percent more
fruits and vegetables as well, So we're eating we're going in the right direction
on a plant based diet. And I put right in air quotes because we
are going in the direction that we've been told is that a healthier diet.
Well, I think the evidence shows that, especially for grains and sugars and
startsy vegetables, even that those foods do not do not promote metabolic health or
are actively bad for people who have metabolic diseases. So we are, but
we are on a high plant based diet already, and that has not been
consistent or been associated with improving health in America at all. It's been just
the reverse. And in the same period of time, we have decreased our
consumption of red meat by twenty eight percent and of beef by thirty five percent,
and that so you're talking about consumption of meat dropping quite significantly during the
same period that the type two diabetes epidemic has just skyrocketed out of control.
It seems just that alone would tell you that it's just nearly impossible for red
meat to be a driver of diabetes. And as you said, there's no
sugar in meat, and sugar is what drives blood sugar and an insulin response,
and so with that, red meat just doesn't contain the nutrient, namely
glucose, which causes diabetes or which fuels diabetes. So I also did a
column on that study and on general on the tremendous anti meat bias at Harvard
and what that's due to. And I also looked into the significant conflicts of
interest that are president at Harvard as well. Yeah, it's it's I mean,
it's it is astonishing that there is science that is just really flatly wrong
or just doesn't even make sense from you know, a very basic kind of
intuitive perspective, and yet this is a kind of runaway concept, this idea
that we should not eat meat embraced plant based diet despite all the evidence to
the contrary. That's where you realize this is not really about science. It's
about these other agendas that people have, and you know, not just agendas,
but belief systems that are that are pushing them in this direction. I
mean, you know, it's interesting. Just listening to an interview with Christopher
Gardner again from Stanford. He was saying how that it was career changing,
life changing for him to get involved in the vegan movement. It was a
tribe of people that embraced him. He loved a feeling of being involved in
a kind of a social justice issue. It made him feel good about his
work. It was I think it made give an elevated feeling about his sense
of purpose in his work. And of course anybody could be sympathetic to that.
Of course, it's nice to have that feeling that you are maybe helping
humanity on some larger levels saving the planet. I know that's what Walter Willett
is inspired by two at Harvard, but that's not their job. Their job
is to be a dispassionate scientist to try to answer questions about what nutrition or
diet produces good health. Mean, that's really what their jobs are, and
they've traveled far from that original you know that that original scientific pursuit. I
think you bring up such an interesting and really under reported point about how these
different diets have become so central to activists identity. We talk about how this
is I think this has kind of become the latest ring on the social justice
hierarchy, of social justice, of identity politics. I've done a lot of
coverage on body positivity movement and how they're trying to claim obese people as the
latest marginalized group that's entitled to specific, uh uh, specific guarantees from society,
whether it's three airplane seats or or other aspects that have kind of become
popular in these different social justice movements. And so I think it's interesting how
Gardner talked about how this movement has become so central to to his identity moving
forward. But I wanted to kind of dive into your book a little bit.
I think it was interesting at the beginning of the book you talk about
how two hundred years ago, Lewis and Clark on their expedition, would actually
be disappointed when they would shoe any type of wildlife for consumption but had not
enough fat on it to make it even worth cooking. And so, you
know, fast forward two hundred years now they're telling us read meat is instinctally
bad for us, and so I'm just kind of curious. I really think
your book has really kind of broken the dam on this issue. I think
more and more people are starting in the latest In the last few years,
I've seen people embrace a higher fat diet. But I'm wondering how hard you
think the grip of a low fat diet remains on the scientific community and the
general public, and how long you think it'll be until people finally abandon it.
That's a great question. I grew up in the height of the low
fat mania in the eighties, when everything had to be, you know,
low fat, and people were trying to convince themselves that salad with just vinegar
on it was yummy, delicious, where your mouth is being like turning,
getting puckered from because there's just like it's so tart in your mouth. But
the low fat diet just you know, historically, it was introduced in the
early sixties by the American Heart Association and told people to cut back on fat
because fat has as a macronut there are three macronutrients, fat, protein,
and carbohydrate, and fat has about nine calories program versus four to five calories
program found in protein or carbohydrates. So the thinking was, we'll just consume
fewer calories if we consume less fat. It was an untested hypothesis, that
is to say, no clinicals on that hypothesis at all when the low fat
diet was unleashed on the American population. So we were all just guinea pigs
in that experiment, and that is when that became official government advice in the
form of the US Dietary Guidelines in nineteen eighty. That is the exact inflection
point that obesity turns sharply upwards in America, like a very strong inflection up
because those dietary guidelines are hugely influential, and all meat was bred to be
leaner, all packaged foods changed. You had some that maybe famous maybe known
to your readers the snack well phenomenon, where you could eat low fat cookies
all day long. That's fine as long as they didn't have the fat.
So people then gobbled up grains and sugars and felt that was fine. So
the low fat diet, this may be a surprise to your listeners, but
the low fat diet is no longer recommended since two thousand and fifteen. Really,
both the American Heart Association and the US Dietary Guidelines, those are the
two major nutrition policies that exist in our country. They both backed off any
low fat language. You cannot find if you search the words low fat,
you cannot find it on their websites at all. So and they've kind of
welcomed back into the fold things like avocados and salmon and walnuts and almonds.
I mean, those are now considered okay, somewhat fatty things to eat.
That was not true, you know, fifteen years ago. So they have
backed off the low fat diet. When they made that big change, they,
of course there was no press to release to the public. They didn't
really tell anybody that policy had major policy, a key pillar of nutrition policy
of decades was changing so I think a lot of Americans remain confused because our
authorities really have not been straight with us in letting everybody know that the low
fat diet is over. And I would say it is still somewhat confusing because
because we're still told to eat lean meat and low fat dairy and one percent
milk. And that's because there's still are caps on saturated fats, which are
the kind of fats that are found mostly in animal foods, and so that's
why we're still told to avoid red meat, or that that was the original
reason we were told to avoid red meat, and why we're not allowed to
serve whole milk and schools, and why we're still told to eat to avoid
butter and eat whatever plant based version there is as an alternative. So how
long will that last? I think? I think the low fat diet is
over. It just needs to be recognized as such. I think the caps
unsaturated fat, which really is the main focus of my book, that those
saturated fats were unfairly villainized, and it's a pretty amazing story about how that
happened. There has been there's been a huge change in the way that scientists
all over the globe now think about saturated fats. I would I have to
say, I think in part or largely because of my work on this,
Like I really a lot of scientists read my book and there's now many papers
that agree with me. But in terms of official policy, it is so
hard to roll back that particular policy. And in fact, the World Health
Organization just came out and said, we believe you should keep caps on saturated
fat for the That's the first time they've issued any dietary recommendation on that.
And our government is not budging on saturate facts for a bunch of reasons.
But it's not about the science. Once again, not about the science.
And I think it's interesting. Last in December, there is even legislation to
allow whole milky serve in schools. Finally, of course, Senate Democrats that
shot that down. It's not it's not clear why, but you had that
the Senate Agriculture Committee sair Woman w Stavna from Michigan talk about go on the
Senate floor and talk about how high fat dairy products are still not recommended by
the dietary guidelines for schools, and so it just feels like it's feel like
pulling teeth, trying to trying to, I guess, change government guidelines on
this issue, when when the evidence is so clear at this point, even
even without digging into the scientific research here, I think you can Americans can
plainly see that the level of product disease and obesity in this country since the
sixties and seventies is really unprecedented. And of course it coincides with a clear
change in diet and so but I'm curious it just in case any of our
listeners are curious too. As a nutrition journalist who's been covering this for about
twenty years, do you still pay attention to how much fat you're eating in
your diet? Do you worry about do you count how many grams of thatt
you're eating per day? Or what are kind of some of the limits that
you might follow for your own in your own life. Well, I do
not count calories. I think that's completely pointless. One of the great freeing
things of moving from the low fat diet which I was on for decades.
I was also a vegetarian for twenty five years, but moving away from that
to a diet that is low in carbohydrates, So I donate sugars or grains,
and I have some berries is fruit, but otherwise I really don't eat
much fruit. And I eat a lot of animal proteins and I'm not afraid
of them, and I eat them with they're fat. So I don't have
lean meats. I have meat with the fat that comes with it, and
eggs and fish and chicken. And I think so one of the things that
fat and protein do in your diet is they satiate you. So when we
were avoiding fat, we didn't realize, oh, but maybe that fat has
more calories program but fat is uniquely satiating. In other words, you just
fill up, you feel full, and that stops you from overeating. You
don't eat too many calories. If you stick to fats and proteins mostly in
your diet, you naturally do not overeat. And that liberates anybody. But
I mean, I felt very liberated from I'm counting calories, counting carbs,
counting anything. I just eat until I'm full and then or a little even
more than full, and then I don't snack, and then I wait till
the next meal, and then I eat until I'm full again. And I
usually have two meals a day. I skip breakfast which is a little fasting,
but that just works really well. I'm twenty five pounds less than I
was when I was in my twenties, and it's completely effortless for me to
maintain my weight doing this, and it's very freeing not to have to think
about food, worry about food count any kind of macronutrients or anything. And
so I highly recommend it as a way to eat, and I think it's
safe and effective for it's also effective for reversing a number of metabolic conditions and
chronic diseases. Surprising things like I had a skin condition on my face that
just disappeared. I had sinus infections that went away. I mean, I
had no idea any of that was related to diet, but now I understand
why that's true. But people see remarkable improvements in a number of ways by
cutting out sugars and starches, no grains, no sugar, and then really
not being afraid to have protein and fat. Well, I definitely think many
of our listeners would welcome that message on Why Butter, Meat and Cheese Blog
and a Healthy Diet. Nina, thank you for joining us. Thanks so
much for having me. It was great talking to you you've been listening to
another edition of Federalist Radio Hour. I'm interested Justice. We'll be back soon
with more. Until then, be lovers of freedom and anxious for the pray