Nick Norwitz
speaker
450 appearances
2 recordings
2 series
first heard Apr 2025
last heard Apr 2025
Nick Norwitz’s voice in public audio — every appearance, attributed to the second.
Trend
recordings per month · last 12 monthsNo recordings in the last 12 months.Older appearances are listed below; set an alert to hear about the next one.
Appearances
But that's the reason this isn't, or a reason it's not prescribed is because the studies haven't been done. It doesn't mean it can't really benefit people. Coming to that realization and feeling it's the intellectually honest thing, then abuts against some of the, what I would call intellectual dishonesty I see in the media and the scientific literature around carnivore diets.
I'll give you a case in point. Did you see that JAMA Cardiology case report that came out about the flax on the hands?
Yeah. So there was a report that came out a few weeks ago as we record this. It was in JAMA Cardiology. It was a case report. of an individual who went on a carnivore diet and had, they say, cholesterol oozing from his skin, if people want to Google it. And there's these pictures of, you know, these yellow plaques on his hands from eating presumably a carnivore diet.
Now, you look at the report, and it was word limited, but you look at the report, and the entire description of the patient was a man in his 40s.
was the description didn't even give us the exact age no medical history no family history no genetic history and they described his diet as him eating six to nine pounds of cheese butter and beef daily wow which is actually implausible so this didn't read like a case report this read like a skit from monty python you know what the fat man i'm like this is not plausible how did this get published right i'm all for cautionary tales but this is intellectual dishonesty yeah
And if people actually do read the report, it was worded a little bit vaguely around his diet. The first author did get on the news, I think it was Fox News, and doubled down on the fact that he was reporting six to nine pounds of cheese, beef, and butter intake per day, again, for eight months, implausible. So this isn't a legitimate report.
nine times four oh yeah no i mean when you go to like get a 16 ounce ribeye no bone that's a pound so the least he could eat was six of those per day every day the least for eight months not you know even mentioning the density of cheese and butter wow a human being can't eat this like it not not even like i don't know eddie hall or like the mountain from game of thrones probably eats this one maybe them but you can see his hands it wasn't that person so anyway
this was just one example of what i would call intellectual dishonesty in order to if i were to make the steel man what they're probably trying to do is project a a conservative and cautionary tale in order to dissuade people from doing something that people presume is harmful.
But the fact of the matter is when you have a pattern of reports like these, and there are a pattern, I can go through other examples. What ends up happening is the community of people who have benefited. That is their narrative. You're not going to dissuade them otherwise. If an individual has benefited, they feel they've benefited.
See this for what it is, intellectual dishonesty, double standards, and then trust is lost.
yeah and that is dangerous trust is lost in science and medicine so now why are they going to believe anything else that comes out of jama cardiology because this nonsense came out right and it evidently was nonsense so that's one of the top medical journals so it's not like some happened circulation too with a report where they just basically lied through their teeth and in both these instances there is no actual like good recourse so they don't accept letter to the editors i tried to do one for a circulation report they said
You know, it's a case report. You can't actually do an e-letter. I emailed the journal. I emailed the first author. No responses. I even told the first author in an email on this general cardiology report. I said, like, this report seems deficient. If you have more details, I'm willing to help support you writing in the full case report as a cautionary tale. We want a detailed dietary record.
If you want to get genetic testing, we can do it at my expense. I'm not against N equals one. I'm not against cautionary tales. I'm not against case reports. I'm against intellectual dishonesty. Right. And there is so much when it comes to meat and carnivore diets, and it just pervades the literature.
I was reading a study in neurology about red meat and dementia, and they cited a study where they said saturated fat is bad because it lowers BDNF. And the study was a mouse study where the mice were fed an HFS diet, which stands for high-fat sucrose diet. Yeah. So they were throwing saturated fat under the bus, citing mice eating sugar.
And milkshake is not a steak. Again, relatively diet agnostic, but I do think there's a systemic bias in the media and the scientific literature against red meat and certainly carnivore diets. And I like to call that out.
I don't think there's anything magical about meat. So I wouldn't say it's the meat per se. I would say that it's an elimination diet. But if the universe of foods that is an irritant to you is basically everything but meat, Does it make a difference?
I think it's weak to non-existent. I think most of it comes from large-scale population studies that are skewed by profound health user bias and then mental gymnastics that people do and statistical manipulation to reinforce the narrative that red meat is bad.
i would just to be fair to my own standards point out that for some of the outcomes that you'd be interested in say like a heart attack it'd be really hard to do a randomized controlled trial in humans looking for that outcome where you just have like a very controlled meat intervention despite that i still think the balance of literature is is very weak and you can even see that and you were mentioning you were talking to somebody with you know on or related to the dietary guidelines like i don't know if you read a draft of the
the guidelines or the data behind the guidelines for 2025. But I look through it and they even say they're like how weak and limited the evidence is. Nevertheless, red meat is bad for you just perpetuates as a meme because it's already taken on a life of its own.
To go back to the study that I mentioned before, or was mentioning before about the mice fed the high-fat sugar diet and then having saturated fat thrown under the bus, the broader point of that study was about the media was running with it saying red meat was bad for the brain, when, as a matter of fact, there was tremendous health user bias
Showing 141–160 of 450 · page 8 of 23
← Previous
Next →