Contrary to popular belief, even (especially?) among fellow healthcare workers...

As a former radiologist, I can make the following generalizations about nutrition and the human body:

Serious vegans:

- Arteries: Little to no atherosclerotic plaque

- Visceral fat: Minimal

- Muscle mass: Minimal

Serious carnivores:

- Arteries: Little to no atherosclerotic plaque

- Visceral fat: Minimal

- Muscle mass: Moderate to large

Standard American diet (most patients):

- Arteries: Mild to severe levels of atherosclerotic plaque, often age-dependent

- Visceral fat: Copious

- Muscle mass: Minimal to moderate

--------

You do you, but your body doesn't lie.

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

So by deduction, eat mostly meat and some plants and call it a day?

In general, the lower the processed food consumption, the healthier the body... and vice versa.

Correct. But is there a person on earth who doesn’t inherently know this?

;) Love ya though Dr.Jeff

Actually, no.

If you showed 100 Americans a picture of a steak and a picture of a seed oil-laden protein bar, I’m guessing that at least 80% would choose the protein bar as the healthy option.

Similarly, fried eggs vs a granola bar.

Pseudo-nutrition marketing is extremely powerful and misleading.

It’s self evident that the healthiest food a person can eat is a nature valley bar. I’ve seen the commercials.

lol… same.

Great point. But do people not know processed food is bad or do they struggle to know what foods are processed? I’d bet it’s the latter. People are going to think of a granola bar as a very natural thing. Shoot, didn’t we call heavy REI shoppers and hikers “granolas”. They were so natural the ladies didn’t shave their pits. 🤣 Likewise a lot of what the marketing is doing, is convincing people that processed things are natural. I think if you asked the same cohort what the difference between natural food and processed food is you’d find they think processed foods a just those with obvious chemical sounding ingredients. …things with food dyes and ingredients they can’t pronounce, etc. Throw the word nature on the label and a couple of recognizable words into the ingredients and people will get confused as to whether it’s processed or not.

The inputs into that meat qualify it as processed or not. 99% of meat in the US is coming from perpetually diseased cattle raised on unnatural grain-based diets while hocked up on a cocktail of hormones and antibiotics.

Even so the average person who can't afford better meat is still way better off eating it than processed bull shit

You're not wrong, BUT....there are economical ways to support local ranchers: group buys etc.

Obviously your average NPC won't do jack shit to bring about change, but this is Nostr and this crowd should aim higher. Free market economics are the only way to do so.

It's time to talk about meat in the US as an uber-processed food, anon.

I completely agree, much better to get your meat avoiding the major packers.... BUT, don't imply to the anons that meat is bad to eat vs the shit most people eat because regardless if its not the best meat option its still way better.

Definitely though get your meat from a local rancher if you can or find a source thats close and ships.

Hey Doc, I was eating a meat heavy diet and my Doc is onto me that my cholesterol is too high...I'm not eating processed stuff or seed oils either

Big pharma and fiat doctors want you to believe that cholesterol is "bad" and needs to be as low as possible... preferably through the purchase and consumption of statins.

I used to believe this as well.

But I am not here to give individual medical advice.

I understand Dr Jeff. Thank you for taking the time respond to me though

Would you attribute then the buildup of plaque to all processed foods, such as fats, sugars, and so on?

Out of curiosity what is your diet Dr Ross...?

I eat 85% steak, eggs, raw milk, butter... but I do throw some fruit and potatoes in... no alcohol for nearly 18 years

I guess all alcohol and cheeses need to be considered processed food for that matter

Would add, based on my 25+ yrs of practice (w/o doxing my specialty):

âś… age + activity level matters a ton: young (<30-40s) active humans likely dont benefit from statins or diet restrictions at all

âś… becomes less true in the *elderly* (60s-70s+) depending on your genetic make-up

âś… good habits around exercise in one's youth that u carry-on are essential: both for lowering your overall CV risk + for overall well-being

Fix the money, fix the food, fix the world

What about carnivore + veggies? Is fiber really not needed?

That’s fine.

Fiber is not necessary, contrary to popular opinion.

Fixing our food and nutrition would be the single most impactful thing we could do for our society over the next 50 years, followed closely by bitcoin adoption. I’m hoping to lead by example and help with both causes within my own community. Onward!

Love it. 🤝

If we don't fix people's minds, all we are doing raising healthy, obedience slaves.

I appreciate the this observation is what you observed, based on your personal experience practicing radiology. And it is an interesting observation. Are you aware of any studies that can substantiate it, or better yet point to causation? Or address long term heath outcomes for each diet type?

It’s definitely possible, for example, that serious carnivores also tend to focus on resistance training, while vegans tend to exercise less or focus on lower weight aerobic exercise like running. That alone could explain the differences in muscle mass that you observed between the two groups. Teasing out a confounder like that requires a clinical trial of some sort.

On the other hand, you saw images of bodies and physical effects of diet (and exercise) but what about long term health outcomes? How do those compare across all three groups? What if the bodies look similar, but one diet is more pro-inflammatory or carcinogenic? Those effects would not be so visible on body scans.

It may be misleading to generalize a limited set of nonetheless interesting observations that can’t account for confounders or unintentional biases.

I would argue that, while point-in-time observations can be a starting point, only well-powered, well-designed clinical studies can reliably answer these questions.