Nina Teicholz dismantles decades of dietary dogma in The Big Fat Surprise, revealing how 1950s–60s scientists like Ansel Keys cherry-picked data to blame fat for heart disease, despite trials like the Minnesota Coronary Survey (9,000 participants) showing lowered cholesterol increased heart attack risk. Her nine-year research—10,000 papers—exposes suppressed evidence, industry bias, and flawed guidelines (e.g., salt restrictions lacking long-term support), linking low-fat policies to obesity surges: 34% less beef, 79% less whole milk since 1980. Even vegan health claims fail clinical scrutiny, yet institutions cling to outdated advice, prioritizing profit over science, while historical meat-based diets (like Kenya’s Maasai warriors) prove superior strength and longevity—challenging modern misinformation. [Automatically generated summary]
It was even more controversial when the book came out, which was in 2014. But, you know, we've seen an almost complete sea change on this subject, not at the expert level, but, you know, there's a real groundswell in a change of thinking.
I think, in part, really triggered by my book, which really laid out all the arguments for how do we come to believe that saturated fat is bad for health?
Why do we believe animal fats are bad?
Why do we believe they cause heart disease?
And really tells that whole story of how we started down this path, believing that fat and cholesterol cause heart disease, make you sick, cause cancer, make you fat.
And it's a wild story.
It's just an incredible story.
The politics, the personalities, it really is a story more about politics than about science.
Did you feel vindicated when that New York Times article came out where it showed that the sugar industry had bribed These scientists to lie about data and falsified data that showed that saturated fat was the cause of heart disease instead of sugar?
There's maybe a hundred different documents that you can find where companies are trying to sway the interest.
They're trying to pay off scientists, basically.
There's so much money going into nutrition science.
It's amazing how little people know about how much nutrition science is funded by the food industry.
And that was one small example where Harvard scientists had received money from the sugar industry.
And what this article contended is that that's what I pushed them to blame fat and not sugar for heart disease.
I actually don't believe that that's what happened in that particular case for those Harvard scientists in 1950s because I studied them extensively.
You know, for my book, I read like, well, it took me nine years and I read like 10,000 scientific papers.
So I knew the work of those Harvard scientists.
I knew everything they had written.
One of them is named Mark Hegstead, who is very influential.
And the reality for him and his colleagues was that they truly 100% believe that fat and saturated fat and cholesterol cause heart disease.
And they had believed it for more than a decade before the sugar industry came along with that proposition for them.
They really believed.
Those early scientists were true.
They were not corrupt.
They were actually not corrupted by industry.
They were true believers.
And one of the things that my book explores is this phenomenon that happened then, happened today, where scientists, they come to fall in love with their beliefs.
You know, they fall in love with their own hypothesis.
We believe something and we only see things that confirm it.
And we kind of ignore everything that contradicts it.
Well, in science, what scientists are supposed to do, what they're taught to do is to not behave in a human way.
They're taught to rigorously distrust their beliefs.
They're taught to try to find every way to shoot down their own hypothesis.
That's the job of being a scientist.
That's why they seem so cold and dispassionate to us mere humans.
But in the case of nutrition science, that didn't happen.
They fell in love with their idea.
It was like a favored child.
All they did was try to find evidence to support it.
They cherry-picked the evidence again and again.
And they completely ignored or actively even suppressed any information that contradicted their ideas.
So this scientist, Mark Hexted at Harvard, he and his favorite colleague, Ansel Keys, who is from the University of Minnesota, they would actually bully and kind of stomp on scientists who came up with contradictory information.
They would actually suppress stuff.
And this is still going on today, which is what makes it such an interesting story.
I mean...
Today, it's the same phenomenon in nutrition science.
This is the way nutrition science started, and it's the legacy that continues today, which is that any papers to the contrary, you know, hard to get them published, hard to get them into discussed, hard to get them presented at expert meetings.
And it's been driven by people who are really married to their hypothesis about what a healthy diet is.
So you feel like what happened was the sugar industry came along and they found these people that already had beliefs that aligned up with what they were trying to sell.
And, you know, there was another story out recently about how sugar industry didn't pursue research they had done that seemed to show that sugar caused cancer.
Well, I mean, if you're the sugar industry, like, what is your obligation to...
Keep going.
I mean, I'm not saying that, you know, they're no angels, but we shouldn't expect corporations to be angels.
What you do expect is for your scientists to behave in a principled way, right?
I think if you look at cigarettes, for instance, in the tobacco industry, there's a large market for something we know kills people.
I mean, you don't have to lie about it.
You can have a warning on the label, and it still makes billions of dollars a year.
Tell everybody, hey, this is definitely going to give you cancer.
Keep smoking it.
And they'll go, okay.
And they'll buy it.
They'll keep buying it.
So it's not really that...
You need to lie about things.
You really don't.
I mean, people are more than willing, as long as it hits the right buttons and switches in their brain and their receptors, they're more than willing to put their health in danger for some temporary mouth pleasure.
Yeah, and this kind of goes to the subject that is, you know, debated in the food world, which is, you know, how much should the government be telling people what to eat?
So there are people who say, you know, they believe sugar is like tobacco.
If you eat it, you will probably, if you eat a lot of sugar, you are much more likely to get diabetes and heart disease.
I mean, I think that's, if you had a lot of refined carbohydrates, or maybe even if you eat just too many carbohydrates, period, you're more likely to get diabetes and heart disease and become obese.
They do like it, and then there's also people that are on a plant-based diet, like my friend Eddie, who you just met right before you, who's a vegan now.
He's been a vegan, did we say a couple years?
Three years, I think you said?
He has way too many carbohydrates, and he's admitting it and talking about it, not exactly knowing how to fix his cravings and his urges.
If you're on a completely plant-based diet, it's really hard.
To just go all fats and get the proper amount of unsaturated and unsaturated fats in your diet.
Yeah, I mean, so people are on vegan diets for many reasons, and that's their own personal choice.
The reality is that There's a large body of rigorous research, by that I mean randomized controlled clinical trials on thousands of people showing that a diet higher in fat and lower in carbohydrates leads to better outcomes in terms of diabetes, obesity, heart disease.
Those are the biggies, right?
And so lowering carbohydrates is the way to reverse out of those diseases.
If you're on a vegan diet, it's just very hard to do that in a low-carb way.
What do you eat as your source of protein and fat?
There are some plant fats.
You can have a lot of coconut oil and avocado, a lot of avocado, but it just becomes hard.
What do you put on your plate for dinner every night?
If you eat meat, you have a piece of meat.
I mean, that used to be just at the center of the dinner plate, but it's hard on a vegan diet.
The other thing that's very hard on a vegan diet is staying, you need to be really careful about nutritional supplements, because you cannot get all the nutrients that you need naturally from the foods that you're eating, and also some of those nutrients are not as biodigestible.
I mean, your body doesn't absorb them as easily, like iron from spinach is not as absorbable as iron from meat.
So when people do, like, hold up charts that show, hey, you can get a cup of broccoli, and that has the same amount of protein as a cheeseburger, ooh, no, it doesn't.
It really doesn't.
It might on paper.
But in terms of how your body absorbs it, it's not equal.
No, the other thing is that in order to get protein, like if you can get your protein from beans, say, you have to get a complete protein, let's say you have beans and rice.
But in order to get, you know, let's say 100 grams of protein, you need to eat like 1,000 calories of beans and rice versus, say, a couple hundred calories of meat.
Okay, so don't hold me to those numbers, but I'm just telling you, you eat a lot more calories to get the same amount of protein.
So for a day's worth of protein, you're saying, obviously you wouldn't want 100 grams of protein in a single serving, but for a day's worth of protein, you're probably going to eat an exorbitant amount of beans and rice.
But we stopped eating it because it's high in cholesterol.
So these are the consequences of having, what we did was, this is what my book is about, but it's, you know, we started, starting in 1961, we basically, the American Heart Association was the first organization to say, don't eat saturated fat and cholesterol to avoid a heart attack.
And that was based on, at the time, really weak evidence.
You know, something called an observational study can show an association, but not causation.
And, you know, there were just enormous unintended consequences at the time.
So actually, this Harvard scientist, Mark Hegstead, this was, you know, he was one of the people behind this.
And he said, We imagine the benefits will be great, and we cannot imagine that there could be any negative consequences, something like that.
And this is kind of the fundamental tragedy of any kind of policy, especially when it becomes enshrined by a powerful organization like the American Heart Association or, say, our government.
They do what they think.
They kind of make a best guess.
And they can't imagine what would the unintended consequences be.
What would be the unintended consequences of, say, limiting foods with cholesterol in them?
Well, not eating liver, not getting iron, eliminating one of the most nutrient-dense foods on the planet from our diets.
As a vegetarian, you're like, okay, you go to the dining hall in college.
Don't eat the meat.
Don't eat the cheese.
Don't eat this.
Have a salad.
And then you're starving.
So then you're like, okay, get the bag of M&M's.
And that's what people do.
You know, they're starving.
You're starving on that diet.
What is satiating?
What is satiating?
Foods are protein and fat.
I mean, that's actually been shown in scientific experiments where they put stacks of, in one experiment, they put stacks of like pork chops in front of people and they just said, eat, you know, don't stop eating, don't.
And people just could not overeat on that food.
You fill up on fat and protein.
And they discovered that those macronutrients are uniquely satiating.
Whereas carbohydrates, you know, overeating on cookies, crackers, chips.
That your body hasn't gotten what it needs, so there's that craving, but then there's also this incredibly intoxicating carbohydrate thing going on, where as you're eating it in, your sugar levels are getting jacked and you just want to keep going.
Well, the idea that all that burdens you so, where you have this gut or you have this fat all over your body and it depresses you, that literally changed the point of view and the perspective.
Look at that as fuel.
You literally have fuel hanging off your body.
You just have to figure out a way to get your body to access that, and it will literally eat it away.
Did you ever see, Rob Wolf was talking to us about, there was a study where they took a man who was severely obese, and they had him fast, nothing but water and some sort of vitamins, for 300 plus days.
And he wound up losing not just all the fat, but the crazy thing was his skin receded as well, and he didn't have the loose skin that normally is associated with rapid weight loss.
So when you get someone who's incredibly obese and they shrink down to a normal sized person, one of the things they have to deal with routinely is these giant flops of skin because your body's used to being so big.
But apparently, at least in this one case, this guy, as he had gone through this enormous medically controlled fasting, his skin shrank as well.
Like his body ate the fat and recognizes that his body was shrinking.
I mean, I think that this is, you know, one of the theories behind intermittent, I mean, dramatic fasting like that is, just for anybody thinking about it is, you know, that's potentially dangerous.
And so it has to be medically supervised.
But, you know, people, there's intermittent fasting that people do where they fast for, you know, like I do.
I never eat before noon.
So, and people do it for a little bit longer periods of time and it sort of induces this state.
What it does is it kickstarts this ability for your body to get into fat burning mode and to stay in fat burning mode.
And so, you know, what you want to do is you want to, if you have excess fat on your body, you want to live off of that fat.
So it'll disappear.
Instead of taking in food as your fuel source, you want to live off your fat until it's gone or enough of it is gone that you're happy.
And that's what fat burners do.
And the way to do that is to keep carbs low because carbohydrate, the moment you have glucose in your blood system, your body prefers glucose.
It's a quick hit of fuel, right?
Your body will always prefer glucose.
And once you have glucose circulating in your blood, It's like being at a teller's window in a bank.
It's like everything shuts down.
You cannot get to your fat cells.
We're closed now.
You can't get to your fat.
As long as you've got glucose, that's what you're living off of.
I have a 14-hour window at night where I don't eat.
And I think the more people do that, the more they'll understand that your body will burn off way more fat if you just live like that, if you just force yourself to only eat inside of a 10-hour window.
So the key to that is you can't be on a high-carb diet and then fast.
If you're used to eating a lot of carbs, your body will still preferentially need that glucose, and you'll still be on that rollercoaster glucose cycle.
I don't know.
I think it's pretty hard to do fasting when you're on a high-carb diet.
And you're right.
This is all new science.
So if you want a little bit of perspective on this, Really, all this science started in the early 2000s.
And it started, so the long history is, so 1961, American Heart Association tells all of America, stop eating fat and cholesterol so you don't die of a heart attack, right?
That was, heart disease had risen from pretty much out of nowhere in the early 1900s to become the leading Leading killer in America.
President Eisenhower himself is out of the Oval Office for 10 days with a heart attack.
I mean, it's just a huge public health emergency.
And this Ansel Keys, this professor at University of Minnesota, he came up with this idea that he and Mark Hex did, the one from Harvard, said it was saturated fat and cholesterol that caused heart disease.
And so that's when that whole hypothesis was born and it became enshrined as policy.
The federal government gets on board in 1980, and that's the beginning of our dietary guidelines.
So now the whole country is not only avoiding saturated fat and cholesterol, but also at this point, all of fat is suspect.
So it's like just cut back on all fat.
And that was a different reason.
That's because fat is just denser.
It has more calories per gram.
It has about nine calories per gram versus protein and carbohydrate, which have about four or five calories per gram.
So it was just thought prudent.
One way to keep people thin is just to keep their calories down.
And we can do this just by reducing fat, because fat has more calorie-dense.
So now we're all on the low-fat diet, and we're avoiding saturated fat and cholesterol.
And the government is enormously powerful, as I think you know.
And so it's not just that all Americans are given this diet, right?
All doctors, everybody, every health professional on the front line, every dietician, every medical doctor, every nutritionist is...
Pushing this low-fat diet.
But all cattle across the country are bred to be leaner.
The whole food supply changes, right?
All sorts of low-fat foods appear in the supermarkets.
Everything goes low-fat.
And people dramatically change the way they eat.
I mean, just to give you some numbers, we eat 34% less beef than we did in 1970. We eat about 25% less red meat overall.
We eat 79% less whole milk.
We eat, you know, I think about 19% less animal fats all together.
Eggs are down.
I mean, everything, all animal foods came down.
And we dramatically increased grains.
We eat 30% more carbohydrates overall, 40% more grains, almost 90% more vegetable oils.
Because, of course, if you're not eating saturated fats, you're eating polyunsaturated vegetable oils.
So we had this huge change in the way Americans ate.
And 1980 is also, so that's the beginning of the dietary guidelines for all Americans, it's also the beginning of the obesity epidemic.
You see obesity, rates of obesity kind of, it's very slowly, gradually going up until 1980 and then they start, they just take a sharp turn upwards.
And they have, you know, barely stopped.
So in the early 2000s, what happened?
Well, a journalist named Gary Taubes wrote this front page New York Times magazine article saying, you know, what if it's all been a big fat lie?
And basically kind of revives the idea of the Atkins diet.
And says, you know, Atkins, high fat, low carb.
He had promoted his diet from the early 1970s on, but he had really been vilified.
And everybody thought he was a quack.
And at that point, there really was no science to support him.
I mean, he would say, but look, I've healed all these people, and look at all my medical files, go through my drawers, look at my office, and everybody would say, you know, that doesn't matter.
There are no clinical trials.
There's no science behind your diet.
Yeah.
But Gary Taubes came out with this article, and then he came out with a book in 2007, and a lot of people read his work.
I mean, even though he was vilified and attacked, but he was brave.
And a lot of scientists read his work, and a lot of scientists who thought, you know, something is going wrong in America.
You know, our obesity is up, type 2 diabetes is up, none of the explanations that we have are working.
The low-fat diet's not working for it.
Rates continue to rise.
And so scientists, typically not in the field of nutrition, because in the field of nutrition, it's considered heresy still to research the low-carb diet still, but But scientists from different disciplines started to do controlled clinical trials on carb reduction, carbohydrate reduction, the opposite of the low-fat diet, the opposite of what the government was telling people to eat.
And so they started to develop this body of clinical trial research.
And there are now nearly 100 randomized controlled clinical trials on this low-carb diet.
And they, you know, all kinds of different populations.
And they really consistently show that it not only helps people lose weight, and that was always known even in the days of Atkins, right?
But people always thought, oh, yeah, I'll get my waistline, but, you know, I'll pay for it with a heart attack down the line.
It'll just kill my heart because of the cholesterol.
But it turns out that...
The diet is also the best way to control your blood glucose for diabetes.
There's actually an experiment out now showing that it reverses diabetes, I mean completely eliminates that supposedly incurable disease, and that it improves most of the risk factors for heart disease.
So there's a lot of debate over which risk factors best predict your likelihood of getting a heart attack.
But for the ones that I think are the most reliable, including your triglycerides, your HDL over your triglyceride ratio, which we don't have to get into that, but for the most reliable heart disease risk factors that best predict heart attacks, the low-carb diet also best improves those risk factors.
So what was it that made this so taboo in the food industry or in food research?
So like if health researchers today wanted to research low carb diet and you're saying that it's taboo, what's causing that?
With all this body of evidence that you discussed, all these clinical trials, obviously not just Gary Taubes, but so many people have talked about this.
Dom D'Agostino has done a lot of research on it.
It's very public.
A lot of people have talked about this.
So with all that data, where's the resistance coming from?
Well, you know, So if the low-carb diet works and is a healthier diet, that means the government's diet, the low-fat diet, is making people sick and fat, right?
So the entire establishment—I'm not just the government— Every university with all their professors who have been endorsing this diet and their entire careers.
All of the pharmaceutical companies that depend on lowering your cholesterol.
I mean, there's a huge set of interests that are invested for any number of reasons for keeping this establishment diet, for not backing off this diet that they have prescribed to the American people for 50 years.
It's just a huge set of interests.
It's all the companies that benefit from the diet, vegetable oil companies, all the companies that produce all the grains.
I mean, 80% of things on supermarket shelves are basically made out of vegetable oils and grains of some formulation or another and salt.
And so, you know, all those companies, all the universities and their entire nutrition departments who've been publishing for 30 years about the benefits of this diet, the federal government and all the medical professional associations who've been prescribing this diet to their patients and their, you know, their publics.
The American Heart Association.
I mean, it's just, we're in a situation where we just made a gigantic mistake.
Wasn't there a recent, very, very controversial and Not just controversial, but very flawed piece by the American Heart Association where they were talking about the dangers of coconut oils and saturated fats and all those researchers that have been studying this stuff over the last decade are like, what are you talking about?
Well, yeah, I mean, right now in the nutrition world, you have people like me who are challenging the status quo, and you have the sort of the conventional wisdom, the defenders of the conventional wisdom, you know, doubling down to defend their position.
Remember, the American Heart Association launched this whole thing in 1961, right?
They're the original authors.
So just last year, they came out with the Presidential Advisory on Saturated Fats, where they said, please ignore all those confusing, you know, internet crazies.
I mean, basically referring to people like me and Gary Taubes, you know, about saturated fats.
We just want to set the record straight on saturated fats.
And, you know, here's our latest affirmation of our belief that saturated fats cause heart disease.
So, I won't get too much into the weeds on it all, but you know, they had, the way that the American Heart Association all these years has sustained their position that saturated fats cause heart disease is they have relied purely on this weak kind of evidence called epidemiology, right?
And the government knew that that was not strong enough evidence.
So in epidemiology are these big studies where they observe people.
They observe like tens of thousands of people for a really long period of time.
They just give these people a food frequency questionnaire and they ask you, okay, how many pears did you eat over the last six months?
And how many prunes did you eat?
And how much of this did you eat?
And how much of that?
And then you're supposed to write this all down, like as if any of us can remember what we ate yesterday.
And you're supposed to make accurate assessments about what you've eaten on, like they asked 250, the most famous one is out of Harvard, asked 250 questions about what you've eaten over the past six months.
Now, when they try to go and verify to see if those food frequency questionnaires are accurate, they come up basically as very poor accuracy by their own measures.
But still, they use that data, and then they follow these people over 10, 20, 30 years, and they figure out who has a heart attack, who dies, who gets cancer.
And then they try to make these correlations.
Oh, you know...
The people who died tended to eat more meat.
So they'll say it's meat that caused...
What they can really only say is there's a correlation there.
But it's not causation.
You can never establish causation, which is to say that meat caused that death.
Well, yeah, I mean, like, who eats red meat other than paleo people now?
I mean, who's been eating red meat for the last 50 years?
The people who ignore everything their doctor tells them, right?
So not only are they eating more red meat, but they're eating a lot of other junk.
They're probably, you know, they're probably...
And this has actually been shown.
They don't exercise as much.
They tend to not eat as well.
They don't visit their doctors.
They don't take their pills.
I mean, they're not what we would call compliers, right?
They're people who just do not listen to the advice they're given.
And any number of those things may have caused the heart attacks.
We don't know if it's the meat.
We don't know if it's the non-complying.
We don't know if it's the lack of exercise.
We don't know if it's the fact that they, you know, they drink too much beer or whatever.
We just don't know.
So those kinds of studies, these epidemiological studies, are really just, they only establish associations and they were designed to suggest hypotheses that could then actually be tested in a kind of science called a clinical trial where you actually, you know, you divide a group up into two parts and you get like a drug trial.
You give half people the drug and half people placebo.
And only that kind of experiment, which is called a controlled experiment, can you actually establish cause and effect.
So if you really want to know if meat causes cancer, you've got to do a clinical trial.
Give half people, make them just red meat all day long, and the other half can be on the vegan diet and see who gets cancer.
See which group gets cancer.
Then you're testing.
You're doing an actual test.
So the government, just back to this idea of saturated fat, and then I'll get back to that presidential advisory.
The government actually did do a whole bunch of really big, expensive, randomized controlled clinical trials on saturated fat and cholesterol.
They did this on tens of thousands of people.
And they tested to see if giving the people who ate saturated fat and cholesterol more of that would die faster or get a heart attack faster.
And none of those clinical trials could actually show that the people who ate more saturated fat and cholesterol died at any higher rates of heart disease.
So the government actually did a bunch of randomized controlled clinical trials on tens of thousands of people testing to see if saturated fat and cholesterol caused heart disease.
They actually took groups of people and they did this in mental hospitals where they totally controlled what people ate.
And half the people they gave, you know, meat, butter, cheese, regular high saturated fat and cholesterol diet, and half the people they, you know, gave them soy-filled cheese and margarine instead of butter and, you know, and soy-filled meat.
And in those randomized, those rigorous experiments on tens of thousands of people, They could not show that the people eating the meat and the butter and the cheese died faster from heart disease, died at higher rates from heart disease.
In fact, they showed in one of the most famous experiments called the Minnesota Coronary Survey on 9,000 men and women over four and a half years, they found the more the men lowered their cholesterol, the more likely they were to die of a heart attack.
So what happened to all those experiments?
That particular experiment wasn't published for 16 years.
Other experiments I found sat in NIH, National Institute of Health basement, never published, ignored, not included in literature reviews, not included, just ignored or suppressed.
And so this latest presidential advisory was their attempt, because my book We've listed all these clinical trials.
And Gary's book did earlier, too.
But people have now been talking about them a lot more and saying, like, how can you ignore that?
The government spent a billion dollars, more than a billion dollars, testing this hypothesis and could not show it to be true.
And why did you ignore these experiments for all these years?
So this presidential advisory was an effort to reckon with those long-ignored clinical trials that had been funded by the government.
And they did it in a way that I think was just totally disingenuous.
And I wrote a response to it where I kind of rebutted it in Medscape.
And I also wrote a piece in the LA Times about it.
And, you know, we're at this point where...
These esteemed public health institutions are defending their long-standing yet erroneous positions about a healthy diet.
And then there's people like me on the outside saying, and not just me, there's now a whole chorus of scientists around the world who are saying the same thing, saying these recommendations are based on flawed evidence, our guidelines are not evidence-based, our national guidelines are not based on good evidence.
So there's this growing chorus around the world and I'm one of the voices, I'm probably one of the more prominent voices now, but we just have national guidance that's just not based on good evidence.
There's that and then there's a lot of people that get really confused by ideologically based documentaries and things that are trying to push people like What the Health and things along those lines.
They're trying to make some really unsubstantiated correlations between meat consumption and diabetes and a bunch of other really weird ones that I've never heard before that I hear repeated by people.
I'm like, wait, where the fuck did you hear that?
And they'll tell me without doubt this one documentary.
Yeah, I wrote a rebuttal to that too, which I'm happy to post if you want on your website.
And so, okay, so that's a perfect example.
Like, one of them was, you know, eating an egg or two a day is like smoking five cigarettes.
Like, crazy stuff, right?
So all of that is based on that really weak epidemiological evidence.
None of it has been, either it's not been tested in clinical trials or the clinical trials do not support those statements.
I went through every single scientific claim in that movie.
I was in Greece on holiday and everybody's like, why aren't you at the beach?
I'm like, because I have to go through every single scientific claim of what the health and show that it's based on this really weak, unsubstantiated evidence.
I think that one of the reasons that they made that film was that We live in very confusing times for science, right?
You make a film, you pull at somebody's heartstrings.
That film is very scary.
You feel like, oh my god, there's poison in the milk, and now there's poison in my pregnant belly, and it's going to be in my child.
I mean, it's really effective as a piece of a movie.
But I think that what you have is people pushing this diet for ideological reasons, as you said.
The people behind that film are two very, very well-known animal welfare activists who just don't want animals killed.
And Those are their motivations.
There are other people who have practices or empires, like Dean Ornish has a whole empire based on his plant-based diet.
There's whole business commercial empires that are based on this diet.
So there's a whole combination of reasons.
Now there's a...
Part of the environmental movement really believes that cows cause global warming.
So there's like this whole confluence of interests.
But if you just look at the health claims, there are no randomized controlled clinical trials.
There's no rigorous evidence to show that that diet is safe or can fight disease.
And a few of these vegan diet doctors have actually done clinical trials.
And where they put people on a vegan diet.
And they were overseen by the vegan diet doctor himself.
So John McDougall did one of these.
He's here in California.
So, I mean, the most biased possible person overseeing this experiment, right?
He wants his diet to look good.
But even then, those studies could not show that the vegans were healthier at the end of a year of eating that diet.
So maybe it's a healthy diet, but it cannot be shown to be true.
And so it's fine to eat it for whatever reason that you want to, but health, there's no evidence to show that that diet will be a good option for health.
So they want to live a life where they have as small footprint as possible and don't harm things.
One of the things that disturbs people to no end is when I describe the process of collecting green in a combine.
And how vultures will circle over fields right after the combine rolls over because those indiscriminate gigantic machines that might be a football field wide are just chewing up everything in front of them, including ground nesting birds and squirrels and rodents and occasionally deer fawns and anything else that gets caught up in the middle of it.
And I think that there's also, you know, a deep discomfort with the fact that, you know, for many people, any sentient person that being human has, you know, that we evolved eating meat, right?
In fact, in the early experiments that they did on omnivore animals, they did that on All kinds of omnivore animals in the 19s, 20s, and 30s.
And they tried to see if they could get an omnivore animal to survive purely on plants, grains, seeds.
And they found it incredibly difficult to keep those, you know, whether rats or pigs, alive.
And even when they could keep them alive, they live shorter lives and their offspring live shorter lives.
You know, we have, I think, you know, we're ethical beings and so we have a discomfort with killing other animals as well as we should.
But, you know, that is why I think humans evolved all kinds of ways of dealing with the need to kill animals, basically just to survive, right?
All the rituals, the asking of forgiveness, And of course, when it was your own animals, we all raised, our own people raised, lived on farms and raised their own animals.
There were ways, you know, that it was much more sort of a part of the holistic experience of being a farmer and living on the land.
And now we're all so devoured.
We live in cities.
We're thousands of miles away from where animals are raised.
I think an ethical solution for this is probably going to be this sort of laboratory created meat that seems to be a flourishing industry right now.
They're trying to get off the ground with this stuff and it's very expensive at the moment but they foresee that in the next several years it'll be economically feasible for people to buy meat from an animal that never really existed as a living thing.
But then there's also the issue of what happens if we completely stop eating cows and chickens and pigs and what happens to all those animals?
Who manages that?
Who stops them from overbreeding?
Who controls their population?
How do we do that?
We've put ourselves into a corner here.
We've put ourselves into a corner if we choose to never eat these animals again.
How do we sustain their populations and what financial reward do people get for sustaining them?
If they're not going to profit from them whatsoever, they're going to have to spend an exorbitant amount of money or let them roam free, which people, if people don't realize, that's happened in parts of the world.
Bulls revert to a very strange form.
Wild cows do.
In Australia, they call them scrub bulls, meaning, you know, they live in the scrubs, and that these scrub bulls are incredibly aggressive, enormous, weird-looking cow things that they now hunt.
And they have a problem with them in certain parts of Australia because they'll break into these confined areas where they have domestic cattle and screw up the genes of these cattle with these wild cattle strains.
These bulls are incredibly aggressive and they're just roaming loose.
And, you know, is that what we're going to do?
We're going to have wild cows everywhere?
Like, okay, so what happens if the wild cow populations get out of control?
You know, this is something I'm not an expert in, but I know people, you know, there's a whole school of thought.
You really need large animals.
You know, they're part of an ecosystem to have a healthy ecosystem on Earth.
You know, you need animals as part of, you know, they return manure to the Earth, and that's part of the cycle of life, and that, you know, plants can't survive without them, and you need animals actually as part of a healthy ecosystem.
Healthy environment.
So, you know, that's not something that I'm an expert in, but I think it is, you know, I guess I would say like the kind of really simplistic, it's just simplistic thinking to say that we should get rid of all animals or, you know, get rid of all domesticated animals.
I mean, I just think that's a kind of simplistic vision.
I think a lot of we're dealing with simplistic visions, right?
We're dealing with An incredibly complicated situation that we find ourselves in in the 21st century.
You didn't ask for it.
I didn't ask for it.
This is just the place we were born and raised.
So then we look around at the landscape and we go, okay, what do I have to do for this meat vehicle?
What do I have to do to keep this thing optimized?
And then what do I have to do for my mind that I don't feel terrible about eating some horrifying factory-farmed food where I have to watch some PETA video on how this thing was created and realize I'm a monster?
And I think that is the motivation for a lot of people to go towards veganism.
And I think it's a good motivation.
Their motivations are noble and just, if that's what they are.
But somewhere along the way, you get roped into an ideology, and you get boxed into these very rigid ways of thinking.
And out of those rigid ways of thinking, you get a documentary like What the Health.
Well, I also think in the same way that we're a divided nation politically, we are a divided nation in terms of the way we think in urban cities, centers, and where I've always lived my whole life, and out in the areas of the country, the red states where they have cattle and the dairy farms are.
We actually have no idea For the most part, what goes on there.
We just see the horrifying videos shot by some undercover person.
One of the things that was surprising and a really beautiful experience for me after my book came out was that I was invited to speak all over the country.
I'm your classic flyover person.
I grew up in Berkeley, California.
And then, I mean, I lived various places in the world, but then I settled in New York City.
So, you know, I'm like, as urban, progressive, liberal as they come, and all of a sudden, I'm giving speeches in Oklahoma and Texas and, you know, Illinois.
I mean, really, it was, it was really...
A shock to me.
But it was truly eye-opening.
Like, I met all the people who, you know, all these people in the cowboy hats were like, oh, I would have, you know, I would have been one of the ones protesting throwing kale at these guys, you know, in my previous life.
And now I'm, you know, standing in front of 800 of them talking about saturated fat, you know, the findings in my book.
That's what I, you know, here's what I found.
And You know, I can't say that I did any kind of in-depth reporting, but really the kinds of conversations that they're having about how to best take care of their animals, how to treat them humanely, how to raise fewer cattle and then produce more.
I mean, they were really just not the demons that I thought they were.
And I don't pretend to really know what goes on in animal agriculture across the country, but I just want to say it made me realize In the same way that we have this polarized conversation going on now in the country politically, this is one issue where that plays out.
We have such a lack of understanding and real conversation and understanding between those of us on the coast and the people who are actually raising the food in the middle of the country.
My colleagues, my, you know, liberal journalists, I mean, there's like the way, the kind of digs that they will take at rural white people is like, you know, we, if that was something about a person of color or a woman, I mean, that person would be kicked out of their jaw.
I mean, it's just amazing the level of sort of the accepted kind of stereotyping that goes on in the media towards these people who...
You know, again, that would have been me, except that I just had this experience.
Well, people love to, like, pick a side and then use any means necessary to attack the other side.
I mean, you see this in not an unrelated way with the way they make fun of Trump's hands.
You're mocking this man's body.
He didn't do anything to have smaller or bigger hands.
Talk about his hair.
Talk about his ego.
Talk about the preposterous way he behaves.
But you're talking about his hands?
You're just saying the gloves are off and you can do anything you want.
And you can just be a cruel person and body shame this guy for something he has absolutely no control over.
There's plenty of things he's done wrong that you can make fun of.
But what about all the other people that are reading about his tiny little hands and they look down at their own tiny little hands and they have to feel like shit?
You know?
That's a weird thing that people do.
And you see that To tie it all together, you really see that in the vegan community.
There are a lot of vegans who are really kind people.
And then there's a lot of vegans that always say that their only reason why they're vegans is because Scientology didn't find them first.
These motherfuckers would have joined the Taliban if they took the wrong flight.
They found a group and they went with it and now they are all in.
And you see that with...
A lot of different ideologies, but with vegans, especially online, they're so vicious and the attacks are so ruthless and they gang up.
They get together and it's like part of the fun of being on this gang is attacking people that disagree.
You know, I have, I am sympathetic in the sense that people are so worried about their health, and there's so much conflicting information out there, and they don't know how to make sense of it.
And then there's a kind of, and we eat, you know, you have to eat two or three times a day.
So this thing is staring you in the face.
You cannot avoid it.
and good and pure and right.
And you want, and it becomes, and to be a vegan requires a lot of work, right?
You have to, I know 'cause when I was a vegetarian, I was like constantly chopping and dicing and roasting and it's like a lot of work, it's a lot harder.
I realized when I started eating meat, you could just put a piece of meat on the stove and that was it.
But in any case, people become very passionate about their choices, and especially a choice that involves food.
It's very hard to, you know, to acknowledge that that may not have been a good choice for you or for your kids.
And so, you know, I think it's...
But it's, yeah, it's become a kind of, I mean, one of the things that I think has happened is that, you know, we live in post-ideological times, right?
I mean, you joke about Scientology, but we live in times where people are no longer members of, not as many people are members of, are religious, right, in any kind of traditional way.
And food is one thing that people become religious about.
And the food movement, I mean, if you follow Michael Pollan and Mark Bittman, they encourage you to think about it as a movement, as something you can join, be a part of, be in a community.
I try to really stick to the science on what makes people healthy.
So if you want to be a vegan, but if that diet comes with, for most people, If it comes with diabetes and obesity or ill health or the failure to thrive of their children or whatever, I mean, that's their choice.
But what you can't say is that that diet has any evidence to show that it provides good health.
Yeah, processed food, preservatives, just eating nonsense and garbage and candy and just that kind of stuff.
If you can be conscious and proactive about the healthy foods you choose and just try to get as much healthy nutrients as you can, you're going to feel better.
But the question is, what's the best way to optimize your health?
Yeah, and just going back to those animal experiments that I was telling you about in the 1920s and 30s, you know, what leads to your long life and the long life and health of your children, right?
That's the way we used to think about survival of health, fitness of an animal, was how long did you survive and how long do your offspring survive, right?
And that was the ultimate measure.
That's always been the ultimate measure, evolutionarily.
So, you know, if a vegan diet were to support that, that would be the optimal diet.
But that was just not what the science showed.
So, you know, I mean, there's also a whole kind of evolutionary issue here, which is you have to bring in evolutionary science to understand, you know, how did humans evolve?
I mean, we're in a kind of ironic position where there's so many enlightened, progressive thinkers who are almost like...
Who are denying our evolutionary history, right?
They're almost like creationists.
I mean, our evolutionary history, if you read the science, is about evolving with meat.
That's just our reality.
So you can't really deny that and say, you know, we did not spring.
Out of, you know, out of the side of Athena or, you know, whatever.
We evolved because we ate meat.
There are many evolutionary theorists who believe we evolved only because we ate meat.
Yeah, the doubling of the human brain size, which is one of the biggest mysteries in the fossil record.
Over a period of two million years, a human brain doubled.
And one of the primary ideas is that cooking meat and figuring out a way to hunt these animals made us stimulate our brains.
And there's a couple other more outlandish theories, one of them involving psilocybin mushrooms.
It's pretty interesting.
But it's called the stoned ape theory, if you want to look it up.
But the idea that we are herbivores, And you hear this tossed around a lot and you'll literally see like vegan memes that show our teeth versus a primates teeth or a rather a Carnivores teeth and showing that we have teeth to grind up stuff But these are teeth that have evolved for people that eat cooked food, right?
I mean, this is where it's disingenuous like know that first of all we do have the teeth of an omnivore and And second of all, we have the teeth of an omnivore that has been cooking food.
We don't need the same kind of teeth we used to need to tear apart raw meat like we did 200,000 years ago or whatever it was.
One of the things that I explore in my book is the way that meat has been valued through human history and it was valued as the food of warriors and that, you know, like the Maasai warriors who were studied by a biochemist out of the University of Vanderbilt in the late 1970s called the Maasai warriors in Kenya.
And he found that they ate nothing but meat and blood and milk.
And that was the warrior class, and that was what was considered that made men strong.
The women were allowed a more diverse diet, but the men who had to be strong and had to hunt, they had this just purely meat and blood diet.
And there's another interesting story about how that same tribe was compared to, they actually had a kind of vegetarian tribe nearby, and that when they were both called, when both these tribes were called up for the Boer War, the English tested their strength to see whom they could hire to fight for them.
And the vegetarian men from this one tribe, this neighboring tribe, they had no strength.
They tested them to see how that device, use your hand to clench, see how strong they were.
They found them completely unfit and unable to do work, and they weren't strong.
They didn't have the same kind of muscle mass, literally.
So they couldn't use the men from that tribe.
And then there's just a rich history in literature about how meat was really the food that made you strong.
And meat was a food that was craved, always craved, that humans craved above all else.
Yeah, and the dirty secret in the vegan bodybuilder community is steroids.
And steroids will allow you to get away with a lot of stuff.
And obviously that's the dirty secret in all the bodybuilding communities, but the vegan ones, they want to just pretend everything, oh look, on a plant-based diet, look at my amazing body.
What have you, out of all this research and all this analyzing this and, you know, the publishing of your book and the way it's been received, how has this changed the way you think about the way people approach not just diet but all sort of conflicts in life?
Major ways this profoundly, this whole research changed my thinking.
One, so one was really that I, it changed my thinking about, changed my political views quite a bit.
I think you're a libertarian or at least that's what I was reading about you.
I was always, I mean I grew up in Berkeley and was a real I'm a liberal Democrat and still am on most issues.
But here I found an issue where the government had started this program of telling Americans how to eat and just made this huge, giant mistake.
And spent hundreds and hundreds and billions of dollars on this program that You know, we have quite a bit of evidence now, I think, to make a pretty good case that the government made America, started the obesity and diabetes epidemics, and continue, and don't back down from their recommendations, even though they continue to do this.
And so, you know, this is the one government program that I have researched in great depth.
I haven't really looked into anything else in the kind of incredible level of detail that I have this one.
And it made me much more I'm cautious about supporting big government programs.
Not because I don't believe in government.
I do.
I mean, I believe that humans need to govern themselves wisely, and it shouldn't just be, you know, we shouldn't have government.
The potential to make mistakes, the power of government once it adopts a hypothesis or an idea of some kind, and then the incredible institutional entrenchment that happens when you adopt a certain view, right?
And then it's so hard to reverse out of that particular chosen line of thinking.
It becomes almost impossible.
You know, these institutions are not built for that.
They're not really built for science.
Science is supposed to be, as I said earlier, self-doubting, self-questioning.
You have new observations, so you change your course.
That's what science is supposed to be.
You test things and they don't work out, and then you move on to another idea.
But an institution, it's almost like institutional science is like an oxymoron because an institution is meant to not flip-flop on their publics, not to change their views, not to allow people to lose faith in them.
So it's the wrong kind of body to do science.
So it's made me much more cautious about how much I want our government to do.
Because if I've just turned over this one little leaf and found this huge disastrous program, you know, I just wonder if I turn over any other leaf, what else would I find?
So it's changed my political thinking quite a bit.
And then I think it's also, you know, when I see the way that the scientific debate is played out, and I know the science so intimately now, you know, I know I've read every single nutrition experiment that has really been done since the mid-50s.
And, you know, when I see the way the debate plays out in public, you know, I see that American Heart Association presidential advisory, which I just see as a, you know, it's not honest science.
Or our last Dietary Guidelines Expert Committee in their report saying, you know, we should all eat a plant-based diet.
And, you know, I can see how bad that science is.
And so, you know, I see that I can see now so much better the way that PR firms spin messages and the way those messages are echoed all over.
You know, it's just the way it's what's happening in our politics.
It's happening in our science.
It makes me somewhat despair about our ability to have good science rise to the top.
Because when you have institutions like Harvard and Tufts and all of our top institutions are so deeply invested in this wrong hypothesis, I don't know where people should turn to how do we sort ourselves out of this mess.
So yeah, nutrition science is in bad shape and it's changed my faith in expert advice.
Maybe that's the bottom line.
I really don't trust expert advice because I see the way it is manipulated by financial interests and professional interests and intellectual conflicts of interest.
And so, you know, even little tiny things like anything, a warning label on a bottle, like, you know, careful of this plastic or this or that.
I'm like, I don't believe anything unless I go back to the original science and read it all myself, which I can never do.
So, my book is called The Big Fat Surprise, and it's available on Amazon.
I have, my main website is ninateischels.com, which is, you'll never be able to spell, but if you look up The Big Fat Surprise, you'll get to Nina Teischels.
And I also started a group called the Nutrition Coalition, which is nutritioncoalition.us.
That is a group that is backed by scientists, PhDs, MDs, The odd journalists like me.
We are basically, the work of that group is to try to ensure that our nutrition policy is evidence-based, right?
Trying to unearth that suppressed science, get those studies out of the NIH basement, that kind of thing, just to ensure that if the government is going to tell Americans what to eat, It needs to be evidence-based.
So we're doing work in Washington.
And you can read about...
I mean, it's not just on fat and carbohydrates that they've got.
They've got it wrong on salt.
You know, the advice to get aerobic exercise from 45 minutes to an hour every day.
None of that is based on good science.
So we just want...
The goal of this group is to work towards evidence-based...