This is the full video episode of my conversation with Layne Norton on all things nutrition: the popular new carnivore diet and delusional fear around “plant defence chemicals”, the importance of consuming fiber, seed oil debates, protein, and vitamin and mineral intake.
I listened to this whole interview the other day and he was provably wrong on so many issues it was absurd. I should have known by the first claim that the covid jab "saved millions of lives" that the rest of it would be more of the same. Utter bullshit.
Actually, I just watched Layne's interview and found Layne clearly has a pretty in depth knowledge of nutrition science. Perhaps not surprising given the fact that he does have a PhD in nutrition. I actually started watching the interview when it first was posted thinking he'd be discussing nutrition science and stopped because the first several minutes the discussion was mostly about COVID - a topic he clearly knows not that much about. I actually stopped watching the video right after he claimed the mRNA "vaccines" saved millions on lives". That was pretty naive and almost certainly very wrong. I then went to the comments and had a discussion with Will about nutrition science and other topics that convinced me Will was in no position to evaluate anyone's understanding of diet and disease.
Exactly. He seems to think he's an expert on everything. He strikes me as more motivated by the desire for attention than the desire to actually look at the evidence.
Well no one is an expert on everything and clearly Layne's take on COVID shots is pretty naive. However, after watching the full interview I can tell you Layne knows far more about nutrition that Will does or in all probablity you or "Sweet Mama" does. I'd be interested in what you think Layne said about nutrition science that was BS or u=out of sync with the preponderance of the scientific evidence?
My hat’s off to you for watching the full interview. I tried twice but couldn’t get through it. Layne is so lacking in humility that he inspires little trust.
So to answer your question, let’s take fiber as an example. He seems to be oblivious to the fact that different people do best on different diets. Instead of encouraging people to listen to their bodies or look at their own bloodwork, he insists that we all need tons of fiber. His argument was that since many studies show an association between fiber and good health, that shows us that fiber improves health. My question is what are the confidence intervals in all these observational studies? Unless they’re remarkably high, it doesn’t indicate that fiber improves health. I would sincerely like to see studies that make a convincing argument of this.
Certainly, more fiber is better for some people. But it’s arrogant to say it’s better for everyone.
Actually everything Layne said about dietary fiber was in sync with the proponderance of the more credible evidence. Indeed, his recommendation for at least 20-25g of fiber daily is certainly below the level research appears optimal for health and longevity of the vast majority of people. But taking fiber supplements rather than consuming more whole plant foods makes no sense. Fiber is kind of the opposite of salt. Most people consume far less fiber than research suggests is optimal and reduces the risk of numerous diseases, whereas nearly everyone consumes far more salt than is optimal for health and longevity. Food For Thought [FFT]
When you say you do better without much fiber how are you determining that? Here's one of the best publications showing increasing fiber improves health and longevity: Reynolds A. et al. Lancet. 2019;393:434–445. Here's a brief summary of its findings: “Carbohydrate quality and human health: a series of systematic reviews and meta-analyses.” by Dr. Reynolds, et. al.
Why this is a very convincing study showing more fiber generally improves health? It was a large analysis that included:
It was Outcome‑focused: Examines hard endpoints (all‑cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, coronary heart disease, stroke, type 2 diabetes, colorectal cancer) and not simply biomarkers
Showed a clear Dose‑response based effect: So it Quantifies how much disease risk drops per gram of extra fiber
It was Methodologically rigorous: Commissioned by the WHO to inform global dietary guidelines.
Key Findings
People with the highest fiber intake compared to the lowest had:
15–30% lower all‑cause mortality
15–30% lower cardiovascular mortality
16–24% lower incidence of coronary heart disease, stroke, type 2 diabetes, and colorectal cancer
It showed Dose‑response:
Each additional 8 g/day of fiber led to a 5–27% lower risk for a variety of all too common diseases
Optimal intake:
25–29 g/day minimum for best protection or lowest risk of dying
Benefits continue up to at least 35–40 g Fiber/day
Putting that claim into perspective, 13.6 billion were jabbed. Assuming a guestimate of 2 million "ssved" that's 0.15% which is essentially close enough to zero to be treated as zero.
That is a pretty weak argument. Here's a better one. If the mRNA shots were truely "safe and effective" and net-net saved "millions of lives" then we would have expected to see a significant reduction in total mortality and especially "deaths with COVID" in the year following most high risk people getting these shots. In reality even the CDC data demonstrate that total mortality INCREASED in 2021 compared to 2020. Even worse, "deaths with COVID" also increased in 2021 vs 2020. In the second year of a pandemic that already contributed to the deaths of a pretty big chunk of the oldest and sickest Americans living in assisted living facilities we generally see fewer deaths from infections in year two of a pandemic. Given that reality Layne's parroting that "mainstream medical perspective" narrative was pretty naive IMO. FFT
Oh BTW, we don't run RCT's on seat belt wearing for the same reasons we don't run RCT's on jumping off a 100 foot cliff to see if it's safe to do so. 😅
No claim was made about taking or not taking a particular drug intervention. The comment was narrowly limited to pointing out the real effect size was for practical purposes unmeasurable.
You have this absurd habit of being unable to actually address what was written, so you then go on to put words in the mouth of the person you're unhappy about, like you're an angry 15 year old.
You seem to have these massive reading comprehension problems. Didn't you tell me you had a monstrous IQ?
What I did was explain the maths. Over 10 billion vaxed. Relative to the claim "millions saved" the effect size is so small, it would be unmeasurable. The point made is that "millions saved" sounds impressive when taken out of context, but given the scale of the intervention, "zero saved" is within the same ballpark.
Well if it were true the COVID shots actually saved a few million people from dying from SARS-CoV2 that would suggests the benefits far outweighed the risk. So in your mind saving few million lives is not worth the risk of getting the shot, because the odds are fairly small it would have saved the lives of most who got the shot? Using that same logic one should not wear seat belts because odds are high it will not save your life!??!?!
I joined a carnivore community to observe & check it out before eventually trying it myself. Layne Norton is uninformed & ignoring the hundreds of people who have healed significant health issues and no longer require medication to poorly manage symptoms. There is currently a grassroots funded study underway regarding carnivore and arthritis. There exists a small but growing body of research that demonstrates the carnivore diet is healthy & resolves chronic desease.
Let's say at least, is you have specific chronic conditions you're struggling with, then it may be very helpful. If you have food addiction issues and can cope with a restricted diet, then it may be better to do it than not do it. But I would be cautious about generalising this to assert it's an optimal diet for everyone.
There is no good proof for any of the claims. They're based on food surveys, mostly, hence lack reliability and are heavily confounded. Which is why nutrition is a rich field for bullshit artists to spin tales.
I listened to this whole interview the other day and he was provably wrong on so many issues it was absurd. I should have known by the first claim that the covid jab "saved millions of lives" that the rest of it would be more of the same. Utter bullshit.
Actually, I just watched Layne's interview and found Layne clearly has a pretty in depth knowledge of nutrition science. Perhaps not surprising given the fact that he does have a PhD in nutrition. I actually started watching the interview when it first was posted thinking he'd be discussing nutrition science and stopped because the first several minutes the discussion was mostly about COVID - a topic he clearly knows not that much about. I actually stopped watching the video right after he claimed the mRNA "vaccines" saved millions on lives". That was pretty naive and almost certainly very wrong. I then went to the comments and had a discussion with Will about nutrition science and other topics that convinced me Will was in no position to evaluate anyone's understanding of diet and disease.
Exactly. He seems to think he's an expert on everything. He strikes me as more motivated by the desire for attention than the desire to actually look at the evidence.
Well no one is an expert on everything and clearly Layne's take on COVID shots is pretty naive. However, after watching the full interview I can tell you Layne knows far more about nutrition that Will does or in all probablity you or "Sweet Mama" does. I'd be interested in what you think Layne said about nutrition science that was BS or u=out of sync with the preponderance of the scientific evidence?
My hat’s off to you for watching the full interview. I tried twice but couldn’t get through it. Layne is so lacking in humility that he inspires little trust.
So to answer your question, let’s take fiber as an example. He seems to be oblivious to the fact that different people do best on different diets. Instead of encouraging people to listen to their bodies or look at their own bloodwork, he insists that we all need tons of fiber. His argument was that since many studies show an association between fiber and good health, that shows us that fiber improves health. My question is what are the confidence intervals in all these observational studies? Unless they’re remarkably high, it doesn’t indicate that fiber improves health. I would sincerely like to see studies that make a convincing argument of this.
Certainly, more fiber is better for some people. But it’s arrogant to say it’s better for everyone.
Actually everything Layne said about dietary fiber was in sync with the proponderance of the more credible evidence. Indeed, his recommendation for at least 20-25g of fiber daily is certainly below the level research appears optimal for health and longevity of the vast majority of people. But taking fiber supplements rather than consuming more whole plant foods makes no sense. Fiber is kind of the opposite of salt. Most people consume far less fiber than research suggests is optimal and reduces the risk of numerous diseases, whereas nearly everyone consumes far more salt than is optimal for health and longevity. Food For Thought [FFT]
I would love to see the studies that show that.
Personally, I do best on less fiber. Then again, maybe I'm not the vast majority of people.
When you say you do better without much fiber how are you determining that? Here's one of the best publications showing increasing fiber improves health and longevity: Reynolds A. et al. Lancet. 2019;393:434–445. Here's a brief summary of its findings: “Carbohydrate quality and human health: a series of systematic reviews and meta-analyses.” by Dr. Reynolds, et. al.
Why this is a very convincing study showing more fiber generally improves health? It was a large analysis that included:
185 prospective cohort studies + 58 clinical trials
It was Outcome‑focused: Examines hard endpoints (all‑cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, coronary heart disease, stroke, type 2 diabetes, colorectal cancer) and not simply biomarkers
Showed a clear Dose‑response based effect: So it Quantifies how much disease risk drops per gram of extra fiber
It was Methodologically rigorous: Commissioned by the WHO to inform global dietary guidelines.
Key Findings
People with the highest fiber intake compared to the lowest had:
15–30% lower all‑cause mortality
15–30% lower cardiovascular mortality
16–24% lower incidence of coronary heart disease, stroke, type 2 diabetes, and colorectal cancer
It showed Dose‑response:
Each additional 8 g/day of fiber led to a 5–27% lower risk for a variety of all too common diseases
Optimal intake:
25–29 g/day minimum for best protection or lowest risk of dying
Benefits continue up to at least 35–40 g Fiber/day
Putting that claim into perspective, 13.6 billion were jabbed. Assuming a guestimate of 2 million "ssved" that's 0.15% which is essentially close enough to zero to be treated as zero.
That is a pretty weak argument. Here's a better one. If the mRNA shots were truely "safe and effective" and net-net saved "millions of lives" then we would have expected to see a significant reduction in total mortality and especially "deaths with COVID" in the year following most high risk people getting these shots. In reality even the CDC data demonstrate that total mortality INCREASED in 2021 compared to 2020. Even worse, "deaths with COVID" also increased in 2021 vs 2020. In the second year of a pandemic that already contributed to the deaths of a pretty big chunk of the oldest and sickest Americans living in assisted living facilities we generally see fewer deaths from infections in year two of a pandemic. Given that reality Layne's parroting that "mainstream medical perspective" narrative was pretty naive IMO. FFT
Oh BTW, we don't run RCT's on seat belt wearing for the same reasons we don't run RCT's on jumping off a 100 foot cliff to see if it's safe to do so. 😅
What I find scary is you claim to have a PhD.
No claim was made about taking or not taking a particular drug intervention. The comment was narrowly limited to pointing out the real effect size was for practical purposes unmeasurable.
You have this absurd habit of being unable to actually address what was written, so you then go on to put words in the mouth of the person you're unhappy about, like you're an angry 15 year old.
You seem to have these massive reading comprehension problems. Didn't you tell me you had a monstrous IQ?
What I did was explain the maths. Over 10 billion vaxed. Relative to the claim "millions saved" the effect size is so small, it would be unmeasurable. The point made is that "millions saved" sounds impressive when taken out of context, but given the scale of the intervention, "zero saved" is within the same ballpark.
Well if it were true the COVID shots actually saved a few million people from dying from SARS-CoV2 that would suggests the benefits far outweighed the risk. So in your mind saving few million lives is not worth the risk of getting the shot, because the odds are fairly small it would have saved the lives of most who got the shot? Using that same logic one should not wear seat belts because odds are high it will not save your life!??!?!
Norton doesn't dismantle anything because he's just another wellness guru idiot.
He's like the worst of the wellness guru idiots, with none of the charisma.
I joined a carnivore community to observe & check it out before eventually trying it myself. Layne Norton is uninformed & ignoring the hundreds of people who have healed significant health issues and no longer require medication to poorly manage symptoms. There is currently a grassroots funded study underway regarding carnivore and arthritis. There exists a small but growing body of research that demonstrates the carnivore diet is healthy & resolves chronic desease.
Let's say at least, is you have specific chronic conditions you're struggling with, then it may be very helpful. If you have food addiction issues and can cope with a restricted diet, then it may be better to do it than not do it. But I would be cautious about generalising this to assert it's an optimal diet for everyone.
Definitely. I don't think she meant it was for everyone, though. I think she was objecting to the mandate that everyone eat more fiber.
🎯
I would love to see the research he claims that fiber lengthens lifespans. It's probably all observational.
There is no good proof for any of the claims. They're based on food surveys, mostly, hence lack reliability and are heavily confounded. Which is why nutrition is a rich field for bullshit artists to spin tales.