/Forks Over Knives – The Extended Interviews

Forks Over Knives – The Extended Interviews

Video: Forks Over Knives – The Extended Interviews

Subtitles

. PROTEIN WAS DISCOVERED, AS A NUTRIENT, IN 1839 BY A DUTCH CHEMIST. AND AT THAT TIME IT WAS CONSIDERED TO BE A NUTRIENT FROM ANIMAL FLESH, FROM ANIMAL FOOD. IT WAS CONSIDERED TO BE THE VITAL NUTRIENT. AND THIS PROFESSOR MULDER, IN 1839, HAD A STUDENT, QUITE A FAMOUS GUY HIMSELF, LIEBIG, WHO THEN HAD A STUDENT IN GERMANY BY THE NAME OF VOIGT. THEY ACTUALLY TALKED ABOUT THIS AS "THE STUFF OF LIFE ITSELF." AND I'M NOT SURE EXACTLY WHY THEY JUMPED ON THE BANDWAGON QUITE THAT WAY, BUT, YOU KNOW, IT WAS ONE OF THE FIRST NUTRIENTS DISCOVERED, AND, WITHOUT PROTEIN, THE ANIMAL WOULD DIE.

SO IT WAS–IT WAS A LIFE FORCE. SO THE IDEA THAT PLANTS HAD PROTEIN ALSO DIDN'T COME INTO PLAY UNTIL MAYBE THE LATE 1800s, EARLY 1900s, AND THEN IT STRUGGLED THROUGH THE YEARS. AND WHEN IT WAS REALIZED THAT PLANTS ALSO HAD PROTEIN, TOO, THEN IT WAS THIS IDEA THAT CAME INTO PLAY THAT IT WASN'T OF THE SAME QUALITY. THAT ALWAYS HAS BEEN A DOMINANT VIEW, YOU KNOW, OF NUTRITION, EVEN IF IT'S NOT STATED. PROTEIN WAS SO IMPORTANT, IT HAD TO BE IN THE DIET– THE MORE, THE BETTER ALMOST… MEAT-BASED– SO DECISIONS MADE ABOUT THE OTHER NUTRIENTS AS THE YEARS PASSED ALMOST TOOK THAT FOR GRANTED. WE HAD A LOT OF STARVING AND MALNOURISHED CHILDREN IN THE WORLD, MAKING A LOT OF NEWS. OF COURSE, IT WAS TRUE. POOR COUNTRIES HAD A LOT OF THESE KIND OF CHILDREN. AND SO IN MY COMMUNITY, THE NUTRITION COMMUNITY, THERE WERE DISCUSSIONS ABOUT, "WHY SO?" YOU KNOW, WHAT COULD BE DONE.

AND ONE OF THE PROMINENT THOUGHTS WAS TO MAKE SURE THEY GET ENOUGH PROTEIN. I CERTAINLY WENT ALONG WITH THIS VIEW. I MEAN, I WAS YOUNG, AND HADN'T HAD THE OPPORTUNITY OF SEEING THE EVIDENCE WE GOT IN LATER YEARS. AND SO, ONE OF THE FIRST PROJECTS THAT I WORKED ON, AS A PROFESSOR, AND THAT WAS AT VIRGINIA TECH, WAS TO WORK WITH AN OLDER GENTLEMAN– TO WORK WITH HIM IN THE PHILIPPINES TO HELP RESOLVE THIS SORT OF MALNOURISHMENT PROBLEM WITH THE CHILDREN. AND WE WANTED TO MAKE SURE THEY GOT ENOUGH PROTEIN. IN THE PHILIPPINES, OUR TASK, WORKING WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH IN MANILA, OUR TASK WAS TO DEVELOP THESE SO-CALLED LITTLE CLINIC CENTERS– WE CALLED THEM MOTHERCRAFT CENTERS– TO DEVELOP THOSE SPREAD ALL AROUND THE COUNTRY IF POSSIBLE, GO INTO A POOR COMMUNITY WHERE THEY HAD MALNOURISHED CHILDREN, WHERE IT WAS A PARTICULAR PROBLEM, AND THEN HAVE MOTHERS COME INTO THIS CENTER, TEACH THEM A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THE IDEA THAT FOOD COULD ACTUALLY MAKE THEIR CHILDREN WELL, BECAUSE THEY TENDED TO THINK, IN THOSE DAYS, THAT THEIR CHILDREN WERE SICK AND DYING BECAUSE THERE WAS NO DOCTOR. AND SO WE WANTED TO CONVEY THE MESSAGE THAT, HEY, YOUR CHILDREN CAN BE DOING BETTER IF YOU JUST USE THE FOOD THAT'S AVAILABLE.

ANIMAL PROTEIN WAS EXPENSIVE, PRIMARILY, AND SO WE WERE INTERESTED IN SEEING IF WE COULDN'T GET SOMETHING THAT COULD BE USED NOT JUST IN THE PHILIPPINES, BUT IN COUNTRIES AROUND THE WORLD REGARDLESS OF WHAT LATITUDE THEY LIVED IN, AND THE IDEA CAME THAT PEANUTS MIGHT BE PARTICULARLY GOOD, BECAUSE PEANUTS ARE GROWN AROUND THE WORLD. GOOD SOURCE OF PROTEIN. THE FEW FAMILIES THAT WERE CONSUMING THE MOST PROTEIN ALSO WERE CONSUMING THE BEST PROTEIN– THE HIGHEST-QUALITY PROTEIN. ANIMAL-BASED. THEY WERE GETTING THEIR STEAKS AND THEIR THIS AND THAT, YOU KNOW, I MEAN, THAT RICHER PEOPLE GET. AND SO THEY WERE HAVING THESE DIETS– THEIR CHILDREN WERE GROWING FASTER. THEY WERE GROWING AT THE RATE MORE OR LESS WE DO IN THE WEST. SO, FROM THAT PERSPECTIVE, THEY WERE BETTER FED AND HEALTHIER AND SO FORTH AND SO ON, BUT, AT THE SAME TIME, THEY WERE THE ONES MOST LIKELY TO HAVE THE CHILDREN WHO WERE SUSCEPTIBLE TO GETTING LIVER CANCER.

LIVER CANCER TENDS TO OCCUR IN ADULTS AND OLDER. BUT JUST THE MERE FACT THAT THEY OCCURRED IN CHILDREN, SAID, YOU KNOW, THERE'S SOMETHING HERE. THIS IS PRETTY SIGNIFICANT. IN THE PHILIPPINES, I WAS GETTING THE IMPRESSION, OF COURSE, THAT ANIMAL PROTEIN, YOU KNOW, WAS LIKELY TO BE LEADING TO CANCER IN THESE KIDS, PERHAPS, OR JUST PROTEIN IN GENERAL. BUT NOT TERRIBLY CERTAIN ABOUT THAT. IT WAS JUST KIND OF AN IMPRESSION. AND WHEN–IT WAS AT THAT TIME THAT THIS PUBLICATION APPEARED… BY A GROUP IN INDIA, WORKING WITH EXPERIMENTAL ANIMALS, SHOWING THAT, IN EXPERIMENTAL RATS, IN THIS CASE, IF THEY FED PROTEIN AT TWO DIFFERENT LEVELS, THE RECOMMENDED HIGHER LEVELS AND LOWER LEVELS, IN ANIMALS THAT HAD BEEN EXPOSED TO A CHEMICAL CARCINOGEN, THE ANIMALS THAT HAD THE HIGHER LEVELS OF PROTEIN, THOSE CANCERS GREW RATHER WELL. THAT PAPER, WHEN IT APPEARED, IN A FAIRLY OBSCURE JOURNAL FOR THOSE DAYS, WAS CONSISTENT WITH WHAT I THOUGHT I WAS SEEING IN THE CHILDREN. AND THAT'S WHAT ACTUALLY PROMPTED ME TO ORGANIZE AN EFFORT TO DO RESEARCH ON THIS. OUR WORK, FROM THE BEGINNING, WAS DESIGNED TO, IN A SENSE, TO DO TWO MAIN THINGS: ONE–I WANTED TO REPLICATE IF POSSIBLE THE INDIAN WORK BECAUSE IT WAS SO PROVOCATIVE. SECONDLY, IF THIS IS REALLY TRUE, I WANTED TO STUDY HOW DOES IT WORK.

WHAT'S THE MECHANISM? THE LEVEL OF PROTEIN– THE CHANGE IN THE LEVEL OF PROTEIN TO DO THAT WAS MODEST, WITHIN THE REACH OF WHAT WE COULD ACTUALLY CONSUME. GO FROM 5% TO 20% IS WITHIN THE RANGE OF AMERICAN EXPERIENCE. THE REASON THIS IS IMPORTANT IS BECAUSE THE TYPICAL STUDIES ON CHEMICAL CARCINOGENS, CAUSING CANCER, WHICH WE SPEND HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS DOING THAT KIND OF STUFF, THOSE KINDS OF STUDIES ARE TESTING CHEMICALS AT LEVELS MAYBE THREE OR FOUR ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE HIGHER THAN WE EXPERIENCE. AND THEN WE GET IN TROUBLE, TRYING TO EXTRAPOLATE THOSE RESULTS WAY UP HERE DOWN TO THE LEVEL WHERE WE MIGHT BE EXPERIENCING EXPOSURE TO THOSE CHEMICALS. IN THE CASE OF OUR WORK, WHEN WE WERE TESTING PROTEINS, WE WERE TALKING ABOUT LEVELS, NOT UP HERE, BUT RIGHT HERE, WERE AT HAND. THAT WAS IMPORTANT, THAT WAY. SO THAT SWITCHING ON AND OFF WAS REALLY SIGNIFICANT FOR THAT REASON. IT ALSO WAS SIGNIFICANT BECAUSE HERE IT SHOWED WE COULD REVERSE CANCER. EXCITING IDEA, TO SAY THE LEAST.

AND THEN THE SECOND OBJECTIVE THAT WE HAD AN INTEREST IN, REGARDING THE EARLY INDIAN WORK, WAS TO STUDY HOW IT WORKED. EVERY TIME WE'D LOOK FOR "THE EXPLANATORY MECHANISM," AS WE SAY, WE FOUND ONE. IT WAS DISAPPOINTING. IT WAS DISCOURAGING, BECAUSE IN OUR RESEARCH, YOU KNOW, THAT'S THE THING TO DO: FIND OUT HOW SOMETHING WORKS, FIGURE OUT THE MECHANISM. IT'S IMPORTANT, YOU KNOW, FOR THIS KIND OF WORK. AND IT FINALLY OCCURRED TO ME THAT THERE WAS NO SUCH THING AS THE MECHANISM. WHEN YOU START PUTTING ALL THIS TOGETHER, IT TURNS OUT THAT WHAT WE WERE LOOKING AT WAS A SYMPHONY OF MECHANISMS. THAT'S BIOLOGY. THAT'S NUTRITION. AND I HAD TO SAY TO MYSELF, THAT'S A VERY EXCITING IDEA. SO TURNING FRUSTRATION INTO SOMETHING THAT WAS EXCITING, THEN TO COME TO REALIZE, THAT'S THE FOUNDATION. YOU KNOW, A SINGLE MECHANISM, A SINGLE CHEMICAL, A SINGLE RESPONSE– THAT IS THE FUNDAMENTAL FOUNDATION OF AMERICAN MEDICINE.

AND THAT'S ITS FUNDAMENTAL FATAL FLAW. THE PROTEIN THAT WE WERE USING IN OUR EXPERIMENTS WAS THE SAME PROTEIN THAT MOST RESEARCHERS WERE USING AT THAT TIME WHEN THEY WANTED TO HAVE PROTEIN FOR FEEDING PURPOSES. AND THAT PROTEIN WAS CASEIN, WHICH REPRESENTS 87% OF ALL THE PROTEIN IN COW'S MILK. WE WERE USING THAT PROTEIN JUST BECAUSE IT WAS PROTEIN. I MEAN, I PAID NO ATTENTION, REALLY– I DIDN'T HAVE TO PAY IT ANY ATTENTION BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT EVERYBODY WAS USING. WELL, THE RESULTS WERE SO SPECTACULAR, AND WE WERE DISCOVERING ALL THESE UNUSUAL EFFECTS. AND I REALIZED, OF COURSE, WE WERE USING A SINGLE KIND OF PROTEIN, AND SO LET'S LOOK ELSEWHERE, AND SO I CHOSE A COUPLE OF PLANT PROTEINS: SOY PROTEIN AND GLUTEN, WHICH IS A WHEAT PROTEIN, TO COMPARE. THEY DIDN'T DO THAT. THEY DIDN'T TURN ON THE CANCER LIKE THE CASEIN DID, EVEN WHEN IT WAS FED AT THE HIGHER LEVELS.

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR PROTEIN FIRST WERE MADE, FORMALLY AT LEAST, IN 1943. AND THE RECOMMENDATION WAS EXPRESSED IN THE QUANTITY OF PROTEIN PER UNIT OF BODY WEIGHT, BUT IN TERMS OF PERCENT OF TOTAL CALORIES, IT WAS AROUND 8% TO 10% RECOMMENDED, 5% OR 6% ABSOLUTELY REQUIRED, BUT AS THE YEARS PASSED, BECAUSE OF THIS ENORMOUS EMPHASIS GIVEN TO THE PROTEIN, IMPORTANCE OF PROTEIN, EVEN SCIENTISTS STARTED REFERRING TO THIS 10% LEVEL, WHICH WAS REALLY A RECOMMENDED LEVEL, AS THE REQUIREMENT, INSTEAD OF THE 5 OR 6%. SO ALL OF A SUDDEN, THIS IS A REQUIREMENT. NOW, ALL OF A SUDDEN, EVERYBODY'S THINKING ABOUT, "OH, THIS IS THE BOTTOM LEVEL. I DON'T WANNA BE THERE." SO SUBLIMINALLY ALMOST, PEOPLE STARTED CONSUMING HIGHER AND HIGHER LEVELS. NATURE'S WORKED AT IT QUITE NICELY, THAT THE AMOUNT OF NUTRIENTS WE ACTUALLY NEED– AND THIS IS STEPPING, JUST JUMPING AHEAD– THE AMOUNT OF NUTRIENTS WE ACTUALLY NEED FOR GOOD HEALTH IS THE LEVEL THAT WE MORE OR LESS FIND IN PLANT-BASED FOODS.

AND WHAT HAPPENS WHEN WE CONSUME ANIMAL-BASED FOODS, WE TEND TO CONSUME IN EXCESS OF THE AMOUNT THAT'S REALLY NEEDED. CANCER IS DIVIDED INTO STAGES. FIRST, THERE'S WHAT WE CALL AN INITIATION EVENT, STARTING WITH GENES. CANCER STARTS WITH GENES. IT MIGHT BE GENES WE'RE BORN WITH. IT MIGHT BE GENES THAT ARE ACTUALLY CHANGED BY A CHEMICAL. SO THOSE GENES BECOME CAPABLE OF PRODUCING CANCER CELLS, AS THEY DIVIDE INTO THE FUTURE. I CALL THAT LIKE THE SEED. WE'RE PLANTING SEEDS. THAT'S THE FIRST STAGE OF CANCER. IT CAN HAPPEN VERY QUICKLY– FROM THE POINT OF CONCEPTION OR SOME CHEMICALS OR WHATEVER. THEN THE LONG STAGE GOES FROM THAT POINT TO THE POINT WHERE WE ACTUALLY SEE WE HAVE CANCER. THAT MAY TAKE YEARS. AND THAT'S GROWING THESE SEEDS. IT'S PROMOTING THEIR GROWTH. IN FACT, THAT STAGE IS CALLED PROMOTION. AND SO THE QUESTION OF WHETHER WE DO OR DON'T GET CANCER, IT TURNS OUT, IS PRIMARILY RELATED TO, NOT THE AMOUNT OF SEEDS WE MAY PLANT, OR THE AMOUNT OF GENES WE MAY HAVE THAT CAN GIVE RISE TO CANCER. IT MORE RELATES TO HOW WE FERTILIZE THAT, HOW WE PROMOTE THOSE CANCER CELLS TO GROW OVER TIME. THAT'S WHERE NUTRITION COMES INTO PLAY.

NUTRITION COMES INTO PLAY BACK HERE, TOO, BUT IT'S PARTICULARLY PROMINENT DURING THIS PHASE, AND ANIMAL PROTEIN– ANIMAL PROTEIN, AS WE STARTED DOING THE RESEARCH, WE COULD–EXPERIMENTALLY, WE COULD TURN ON THE GROWTH OF THESE CELLS. THEY GROW MUCH MORE RAPIDLY WHEN THEY WERE FED ANIMAL PROTEIN. AS WE STARTED EXPLORING THESE OTHER QUESTIONS, WE, FOR EXAMPLE, WORKED WITH BETA-CAROTENE. THAT'S PRO–THAT'S THE THING THAT LEADS TO VITAMIN A. WE WERE WORKING SOMEWHAT WITH FAT. WE WERE WORKING WITH OTHER ANTIOXIDANTS, WORKING WITH OTHER CANCER SYSTEMS, NOT NEARLY AS EXTENSIVELY AS WE DID WITH THE PROTEIN/LIVER CANCER THING. BUT AS WE STARTED EXPLORING THESE RELATIONSHIPS, AND AS SOME INFORMATION LIKE THIS WAS ALSO APPEARING IN THE RESEARCH LABORATORIES OF OTHERS, IT SEEMED THAT THERE WAS– THAT THE NUTRIENTS THAT ARE TYPICALLY FOUND IN PLANTS TENDED TO PREVENT CANCERS OF DIFFERENT KINDS.

AND THE NUTRIENTS TYPICALLY FOUND IN ANIMAL FOODS TENDED TO PROMOTE CANCER. THERE WAS SOME EVIDENCE, AT THAT TIME, THAT, IN COMPARING POPULATIONS, FOR EXAMPLE, THERE WAS A LITTLE BIT OF EVIDENCE EMERGING THAT PEOPLE CONSUMING MORE OF THE PLANT-BASED FOODS, LOW IN FAT, HIGH IN FIBER– THERE'S ANOTHER ISSUE– SEEMED TO BE ASSOCIATED WITH LOWER RATES OF CANCER. SO THERE WAS KIND OF THAT STUFF– IDEAS KIND OF CREEPING IN, AT THE SAME TIME WE WERE DOING OUR RESEARCH AND SEEING THIS SPLIT LIKE THIS, WHICH TENDED TO SORT OF CATALYZE MORE INTEREST, I GUESS, IN THE IDEA THAT WHEN WE USE PLANT PROTEINS, WE DIDN'T TURN ON CANCER. WHEN YOU USE ANIMAL PROTEINS, WE DID. THEY'RE USING TOO MUCH OIL AND TOO MUCH FAT, FOR STARTERS, MAYBE NOT GETTING ENOUGH EXERCISE ON TOP OF IT. AND THIRDLY, PROBABLY USING PLANT-BASED FOODS AS PROCESSED FOODS. A PROCESSED FOOD IS ONE WHERE WE'RE GOING AWAY FROM THE WHOLE PLANT-BASED FOOD, YOU KNOW, WE'RE TAKING OUT SOME SUGAR, WE'RE TAKING OUT SOME FAT, MAYBE 'CAUSE WE FIGURE IT'S GOOD.

WE TAKE OUT SOME FIBER, PUT IT ALL TOGETHER, WE GET SOME WHITE FLOUR, THAT'S NOT WHOLE, MIX IT ALL TOGETHER, AND WE GET A DANISH OR A DOUGHNUT. AND WE CALL IT A PLANT-BASED FOOD, MAYBE. IT'S NOT. I MEAN, THAT'S NOT AT ALL. THAT'S NOT EVEN CLOSE TO WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT. A PLANT-BASED DIET HAS AN ABILITY TO REPRESS ALMOST ALL KINDS OF DISEASES. THAT IS– THAT IS SPECTACULAR. THAT IS–I MEAN, IF YOU PUT IT IN THE CONTEXT OF USING DRUGS TO DO THIS, OR LET'S SAY A NUTRIENT SUPPLEMENT, YOU KNOW, A SILLY EXPERIMENT LIKE THAT. YOU KNOW, IT DOESN'T DO THAT. MODERN MEDICINE CAN'T DO THAT. AND HERE WE HAVE IT RIGHT IN OUR HOMES, IN OUR FOOD. THIS PLANT-BASED EFFECT ALSO HAPPENS VERY FAST. VERY FAST. IN THE CASE OF DIABETES… LIKE THAT.

CUT IT OFF WITHIN DAYS. EVEN MAYBE IN HOURS. YOU KNOW, YOU START REVERSING THE WHOLE PHENOMENON. IN THE CASE OF HEART DISEASE, LOOK WHAT DR. ESSELSTYN DID. YOU KNOW, YOU CAN JUST TURN IT OFF. HE SEES NOW, IN HIS PATIENTS, FOR EXAMPLE, THEY MAY COME IN WITH PAIN AND SO FORTH, HE CAN REVERSE THAT PAIN QUICKLY. WE THINK THAT NUTRITION IS ATTRIBUTED TO INDIVIDUAL NUTRIENTS. THAT'S WHAT WE THINK. AND THAT'S THE WAY IT GETS MARKETED, AND THAT'S THE WAY THE COMPANIES TELL US, SO FORTH. THAT'S NOT THE RIGHT MODEL. THAT'S THE ANTITHESIS OF THE RIGHT MODEL. THAT'S NOT THE WAY NUTRITION– THAT'S PHARMACOLOGY. MAYBE WE COULD CALL THAT– THAT'S HUMAN INTERFERENCE… YOU KNOW, IN NORMAL BIOLOGY, THE REDUCTIONIST MODEL. WHEN IN FACT, NUTRITION, ALL OF IT WORKING TOGETHER TO CREATE THIS SYMPHONY, THE HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF DIFFERENT KINDS OF CHEMICALS IN FOOD ALL KIND OF WORKING TOGETHER NICELY. THE BODY, AT ANY NANOSECOND IN TIME, IT DECIDES ON HOW MUCH OF EACH OF THESE THINGS THAT IT GETS FROM THAT BUFFET– IT DETERMINES HOW MUCH OF EACH OF THESE THINGS TO TAKE, WHEN AND WHERE– WHERE TO SEND IT, HOW TO DISPOSE OF IT– I MEAN, THE COMPLEXITY IS.

.. IS TOTAL. ONE OF THE PROBLEMS WITH REDUCTION SCIENCE IS THAT, OKAY, VITAMIN C– LET'S SAY BETA-CAROTENE. GOOD ANTIOXIDANT, WE THINK, WHEN TESTED AT CERTAIN LEVELS. IF YOU CHANGE THE LEVEL, IT ACTUALLY BECOMES A PRO-OXIDANT. AND SO, IF YOU TAKE IT ALONE AND REALLY DOSE UP HIGH BECAUSE MORE IS BETTER, WE GET MORE CANCER, FOR EXAMPLE. SO THIS WHOLE IDEA OF USING SINGLE NUTRIENTS IN PILLS IS SILLY. IT'S NOT NUTRITION. IT REALLY TOOK A BIG BOOST, ACTUALLY, WITH THE PUBLICATION OF OUR REPORT ON DIET, NUTRITION, AND CANCER, IN 1982, THAT I SPOKE ABOUT BEFORE. IN THAT BOOK, WE SUMMARIZED THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN VARIOUS NUTRIENTS AND CANCER. BUT FOR THE PURPOSE OF MAKING A PRESENTABLE DISCUSSION, WE HAD A CHAPTER ON PROTEIN, A CHAPTER ON FAT, A CHAPTER ON CALORIES.

LOOKING BACK, IT WAS OKAY TO DO IT THAT WAY, BUT IT TENDED TO SUGGEST TO THE READER THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT ONE NUTRIENT AT A TIME. AND THAT WAS THE DOWNSIDE. BUT WE MADE IT CLEAR IN OUR EXECUTIVE SUMMARY THAT THIS INFORMATION ABOUT CHOOSING VEGETABLES AND FRUITS AND GRAINS WAS A GOOD IDEA. WE MADE IT CLEAR THAT THIS WAS NOT RELATED TO THE SPECIFIC CONTENT OF INDIVIDUAL NUTRIENTS. WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT INDIVIDUAL NUTRIENT SUPPLEMENTS BECAUSE WE WERE AWARE IN 1982 THE INDUSTRY WAS ALREADY GEARED UP, READY TO GO. SO WE MADE THAT STATEMENT, THAT PRECAUTIONARY STATEMENT, RIGHT UP FRONT. AND WHAT HAPPENED AFTER IT WAS PUBLISHED AND IT GOT ALL THIS NEWS, THEN THE VITAMIN COMPANIES JUMPED IN THERE RIGHT AWAY AND ACTUALLY SAID THAT WE SAID… THAT INDIVIDUAL NUTRIENTS WERE GOOD. BETA-CAROTENE'S GOOD. VITAMIN C IS GOOD. THIS AND THAT. THEY JUST ABSOLUTELY LIED ABOUT WHAT WE DID.

WHEN WE'RE EATING FOOD, THE RIGHT KIND OF FOOD, LET'S SAY, THE FOOD IS COMING INTO OUR BODY, THE BODY'S DECIDING ON WHICH OF ALL THESE HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF DIFFERENT THINGS, INCLUDING ALL THE VITAMINS AND STUFF LIKE THAT– IT'S DECIDING ON HOW MUCH TO RELEASE FROM THE FOOD, THAT IS, DIGEST. IT'S DECIDING ON HOW MUCH TO SEND THROUGH THE INTESTINAL WALL. THAT'S A VERY COMPLEX PROCESS. HOW MUCH TO TRANSPORT TO THE BLOOD, TO WHERE. WHETHER TO BIND IT AS IT TRAVELS OR LEAVE IT FREE. IT GETS TO THE CELLS– 3 TRILLION CELLS IN OUR BODY. THE BODY DECIDES HOW MUCH TO SEND HERE, HOW MUCH TO SEND THERE. IT DECIDES ON HOW MUCH TO CROSS THE MEMBRANE. WHEN IT CROSSES THE MEMBRANE, IT GOES INSIDE THE CELL. HOW MUCH GOES TO NUCLEUS OR THIS OR THAT. HOW MUCH TO EXCRETE, HOW MUCH TO STORE. THE BODY'S DECIDING THIS EVERY MICROSECOND IN A MOMENT'S TIME.

ALL THE TIME. AND SO IF YOU GIVE IT A NICE– I LIKE TO THINK OF IT AS A BUFFET. WE EAT THE RIGHT FOOD, THE BODY CAN JUST PICK AND CHOOSE WHAT IT WANTS. SO WHAT DO WE DO WHEN WE TURN AROUND AND TAKE INDIVIDUAL NUTRIENTS? COMPLETELY ABORT THE WHOLE PROCESS. WE'LL TAKE A SLUG OF NUTRIENTS, YOU KNOW, MAYBE 10 TIMES WHAT IT SHOULD BE IN FOOD, OR MAYBE 20 TIMES. WE WANT TO GET THE BIG BANG FOR THE BUCK. WHAT DO WE DO? WE DO THAT. WE TAKE IT THE WRONG TIME, TOO. WE TAKE IT THE WRONG TIME, WRONG DOSE. WE TAKE IT, YOU KNOW, MAYBE WE'LL ADD SOME OTHER CHEMICAL IN THERE, ANOTHER ONE, TRY TO MIX AND MATCH. IT'S REALLY FOOLISHNESS. IT'S THE HEIGHT OF FOOLISHNESS. IT'S THE HEIGHT OF INSANITY. PEOPLE EATING PLANTS ONLY ARE CONSUMING MUCH LESS B12, MAYBE NONE. THEY CAN STORE B12 FOR A LONG TIME, MAYBE YEARS, BUT THEY MAY GET TO A POINT WHERE THEY NOW ARE LOW, TRULY LOW. AND IN THOSE CIRCUMSTANCES, THEY WOULD BE BEST SERVED BY TAKING A SUPPLEMENT.

INSTEAD OF TALKING ABOUT A SINGLE NUMBER, THIS IS THE RECOMMENDED NUMBER THAT WILL PRETTY WELL ENSURE EVERYBODY WILL GET ENOUGH OF THAT NUTRIENT, THEY SAID, "LET'S MAKE A RANGE." SO THEY MADE A RANGE WITHIN WHICH IT WAS SAFE AND WE WOULD, THEREFORE, NOT GET THE DISEASES THAT WE WERE ACCUSTOMED TO GETTING. SO PROTEIN, FOR EXAMPLE, WENT FROM 10%, MORE OR LESS, FOR THE RDA… THEY SAID WE COULD GO ALL THE WAY UP TO 35%. THIS IS LUDICROUS, IF WE GO FROM 10 TO 20, WE GET INTO PROBABLY HEART DISEASE, CANCER. THEY SAID 35. THEY CHANGED THE FAT, BIG RANGE. CARBOHYDRATE. THEY SAID 25% OF OUR CALORIES COULD COME FROM SUGAR, AND THEY MEANT FREE SUGAR. AND THEY WERE TALKING ABOUT PASTRIES AND CANDIES. THEY SAID SO. WENT BACK TO THE NUTRIENT COMPOSITION TABLE, GOT A BUNCH OF FOODS, DETERMINED THE NUTRIENT CONTENT, AND PUT TOGETHER A MENU PLAN.

THE MENU PLAN MEANT WE COULD LIVE THE DAY AWAY, YOU KNOW, HAVING SOME FRUIT LOOPS AND PIZZA AND HIGH-FAT FOODS AND CANDIES AND SO FORTH. AND SO THAT WAS THE STANDARD THEY TOLD US WE COULD LIVE BY. THAT STRONGLY FAVORS THE DAIRY INDUSTRY AND THE MEAT INDUSTRY AND THE ANIMAL FOODS INDUSTRY, EVEN THE PROCESSED FOODS INDUSTRIES. THIS FAVORS THEM. GIVES THEM AN ADVANTAGE. THE INCIDENCE OF BONE FRACTURES IN A SOCIETY IS GENERALLY A REFLECTION OF OSTEOPOROSIS RISK. WHAT HAS BEEN FOUND AND HAS BEEN KNOWN FOR SOME TIME ACTUALLY IS THAT THE HIGHER THE CONSUMPTION OF ANIMAL PROTEIN IN DIFFERENT COUNTRIES, THE HIGHER IS THE RATE OF BONE FRACTURES. AND INTERESTINGLY, THERE'S ALSO PUBLISHED EVIDENCE, 20, 25 YEARS AGO NOW OR MORE, SHOWING THAT THE HIGHER THE CALCIUM INTAKE, THE HIGHER THE RATE OF OSTEOPOROSIS. SO WE CAN ASK THE QUESTION, WHERE DO WE GET OUR EXTRA CALCIUM AND PROTEIN FROM? DAIRY.

SO, IN FACT, THE HIGHER THE DAIRY CONSUMPTION, THE HIGHER THE RATE OF OSTEOPOROSIS. EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE OF WHAT THE DAIRY INDUSTRY'S BEEN TELLING US FOR SO LONG. ONE OF THE PRIMARY MECHANISMS FOR THAT IS THAT ANIMAL PROTEIN TENDS TO CREATE AN ACID-LIKE CONDITION IN THE BODY CALLED METABOLIC ACIDOSIS. EVEN A SLIGHT SHIFT IN THE ACIDITY OF THE BODY CAN IMPAIR OR CHANGE OR ALTER CERTAIN KEY ENZYMES AND OTHER PROPERTIES. SO A LITTLE BIT OF ACID IN THE BODY, BODY DOESN'T LIKE IT. WHAT IT DOES, IT DRAWS ON THE MOST READILY AVAILABLE BUFFER, NAMELY CALCIUM IN THE BONES. PULLS THAT OUT OF THE BONES TO NEUTRALIZE THE ACID IN THE BODY, AND THAT COMPROMISES BONE HEALTH. WHEN WE TAKE THE FAT OUT OF THE MILK, THE PROTEIN BECOMES A LARGER PROPORTION OF THE TOTAL. SO THEY BECOME HIGHER IN PROTEIN, LOWER IN FAT. AND WHEN WE COMPARE THESE HIGH-PROTEIN, LOW-FAT MILK PRODUCTS, FOR EXAMPLE, WITH PROSTATE CANCER, THE RELATIONSHIP IS AS STRONG AS IT IS FOR CIGARETTE SMOKING AND LUNG CANCER.

THE PROTEIN IN THE MILK IS WHAT MATTERS MORE THAN ANYTHING. AND SO BY TAKING OUT THE FAT, YOU'RE JUST MAKING IT WORSE. THE OBSERVATIONAL STUDY LIKE WE DID IN CHINA IS CRITICIZED BECAUSE YOU CAN'T MAKE CONCLUSIVE STATEMENTS, OR IT DOESN'T PROVE CAUSE AND EFFECT AS WE'D LIKE TO SAY. THAT'S TRUE IF THE HYPOTHESIS IN THE BEGINNING IS FOCUSED ON SINGLE THINGS, AFFECTING SINGLE THINGS. THAT'S TRUE. IN OTHER WORDS, YOU GOT A POPULATION HERE DOING ALL THEIR EATING AND THIS AND THAT AND EVERYTHING ELSE. YOU GO OVER HERE AND YOU GOT ALL KINDS OF HEALTH OUTCOMES. AND SO THE WAY THAT STATISTICS ARE ORGANIZED IS TO SEARCH FOR THE ONE THING THAT MIGHT BE RELATED TO THIS KIND OF OUTCOME. AND SO IN THAT SENSE, YES, THOSE OBSERVATIONAL STUDIES ARE LIMITED. I WROTE THIS, IN FACT, IN OUR CHINA STUDY. WE KNEW THAT WELL. I TAUGHT THIS KIND OF THING. THAT'S VERY CLASSICAL. HOWEVER, IN THE KIND OF STUDY THAT WE WERE DOING, WE HAD ALL THESE THINGS WE COULD MEASURE, ALL THE THINGS IN THE BLOOD, AND ALL THE THINGS IN THE BODY BEING CONSUMED AND ALL THE OUTCOMES.

WE GOT A WHOLE BUNCH OF THINGS HERE, WHOLE BUNCH OF THINGS HERE, LOOKING FOR THE CONTEXT ESSENTIALLY. THEN WHEN WE FRAMED THE QUESTION FROM A BROAD BASE… WE DON'T FRAME A HYPOTHESIS ON THE EFFECT OF ONE THING. WE FRAME THE HYPOTHESIS ON THE BASIS OF A GRAND SORT OF DIETARY PLAN THAT WE CAN EXAMINE IN A STUDY LIKE THIS IN MULTIPLE DIFFERENT WAYS. SO IF I SAY A PLANT-BASED DIET IS GOOD IN THIS SENSE, WELL, WE GOT MAYBE A HUNDRED DIFFERENT WAYS OF COMPARING THINGS ASSOCIATED WITH A PLANT-BASED DIET AND A HUNDRED DIFFERENT WAYS TO SEE HOW THOSE THINGS BEHAVE IN THE BODY, COMPARED TO THE THINGS IN THE OUTCOME. SO NOW OUR HYPOTHESIS BROADENED LIKE THIS. AND IF WE FIND THAT ALL OF THESE INDIVIDUAL RELATIONSHIPS ARE POINTING IN THE SAME DIRECTION, AND THEN WE CAN ASK OURSELVES, HOW COME 19 OUT OF 20 OF THESE THINGS SAID THE SAME THING? THAT'S VIRTUAL PROOF OF CAUSE AND EFFECT.

THE CHINA STUDY GAVE US SOME VERY IMPORTANT INFORMATION, BUT STANDING ALONE, IT WOULD NOT HAVE ALLOWED ME TO SIT HERE AND SAY THE THINGS I SAY, JUST STANDING ALONE, BECAUSE IT DID HAVE SOME LIMITATIONS. IT'S ONE STUDY FOR ONE THING. UM, AND… BUT WHEN THAT INFORMATION IS PUT IN THE CONTEXT OF ALL THE OTHER SORT OF NUTRITION PRINCIPLES THAT WE HAD DERIVED OVER THE YEARS, AND WHEN IT'S PUT IN THE CONTEXT OF ALL THE DIFFERENT KINDS OF DISEASES PEOPLE HAVE EXPLORED, YOU KNOW, WITH RESPECT TO DIET OVER THE YEARS AND PUBLISHED, WHEN IT'S PUT INTO CONTEXT WITH THAT KIND OF INFORMATION, THIS KIND OF INFORMATION, AND THEN WHEN IT'S PUT IN THE CONTEXT OF UNDERSTANDING HOW NUTRITION REALLY WORKS, THEN THE CHINA STUDY SAYS IT WENT FROM ALMOST 0% ANIMAL FOOD UP TO ABOUT 20%, IN THAT RANGE, AND WE SAW THESE AMAZING RESULTS. NOW THE CHINA STUDY BECOMES REALLY INTERESTING. I KNOW THAT THERE HAVE BEEN SOME STUDIES SHOWING, FOR EXAMPLE, THAT IF PEOPLE DO THIS AND THEN FOLLOW IT FOR A YEAR, YOU CAN SEE 40% TO 45% REDUCTIONS IN HEALTH CARE COSTS STRAIGHT OFF, AND THAT'S DOING IT IMPERFECTLY.

THAT'S NOT EVEN REALLY DOING IT IN A WAY IN WHICH WE CAN ADD SOME OF THESE OTHER DIMENSIONS THAT WE HAVE IN MIND, PROVIDING INFORMATION, ALLOWING PEOPLE TO MONITOR THEIR HEALTH IN A CONVENIENT WAY, MAKING THE WHOLE THING CONVENIENT. MAKING FOOD AVAILABLE TO THEM AT A COMPETITIVE PRICE, THE RIGHT KIND OF FOOD. YOU KNOW, CREATING A HEALTH INSURANCE COVERAGE PROGRAM. IT'S DOABLE, IT'S EASY. IT'S NOT– PUT ALL THOSE THINGS TOGETHER. UM, I–I– THERE IS EVIDENCE TO SUGGEST AT LEAST 40% OF THE PEOPLE WILL MAKE MAJOR CHANGES. SO YOU ADD THAT INTO THE EQUATION, AND HOW MUCH DOES THAT SAVE? WELL, JUST IN A LINEAR RELATIONSHIP, YOU ALWAYS SAY 40% IN HEALTH CARE, IT OUGHT TO DROP BY 40%. I THINK IT COULD BE A LOT MORE THAN THAT. THEORETICALLY, IT COULD DROP 80% OR 90%. WE SHOULD FIRST HAVE A NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF NUTRITION. AT LEAST GIVE SOME VOICE TO THIS THERE.

PUT SOME BUDGET IN THERE. YOU KNOW, THAT'S NUMBER ONE. NUMBER TWO, TAKE THE DIETARY GUIDELINES COMMITTEE, WHERE THE FOOD PYRAMID IS, THAT CRAFTS ALL THIS PUBLIC INFORMATION, TAKE IT AWAY FROM THE USDA. THE USDA IS AN AGENCY FOR THE LIVESTOCK INDUSTRY. TAKE IT AWAY FROM IT. PUT IT OVER HERE. I'M NOT SURE IT CAN BE EVEN PUT IN THE SECRETARY OF HEALTH'S OFFICE, BECAUSE THAT MIGHT BE CONTROLLED BY THE DRUG INDUSTRY. SO PUT IT SOMEPLACE WHERE IT'S INDEPENDENT AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE. AND, THIRDLY, THERE'S SOMETHING THAT CAN BE DONE VERY EASILY, AND THAT IS THAT THE CHAIRS OF THESE EXPERT COMMITTEES WHO COME UP WITH THESE GRAND STATEMENTS, THESE POLICY STATEMENTS, THE CHAIRS OF THOSE COMMITTEES SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED TO HAVE ANY ASSOCIATION WHATSOEVER WITH A POTENTIALLY CONFLICTING INDUSTRY. THE RANGE THAT IS SET UP IS DERIVED FROM STUDIES OF POPULATIONS THAT ARE CONSUMING MOSTLY MEAT. AND IT'S TRUE. IRON, IF YOU LOOK AT IT ON A MOLECULAR BASIS OR A SINGLE NUTRIENT BASIS, THE PERCENT OF IRON BEING ABSORBED BY MEAT EATERS IS SLIGHTLY HIGHER THAN PLANTS.

BUT THE IRON IN PLANTS IS ENHANCED BY THE PRESENCE OF VITAMIN C, FOR EXAMPLE, OR THE ANTIOXIDANTS. SO IRON CAN BE VERY NICELY ABSORBED FROM PLANT-BASED DIETS TO ACHIEVE A LEVEL THAT'S VERY CONSISTENT WITH GOOD NUTRITION, AND IT DOESN'T HAVE TO BE A LEVEL THAT ARTIFICIALLY HAS BEEN SET BY STUDYING MEAT EATERS. WE DO DEVELOP BIASES PERSONALLY. WE CAN HAVE FINANCIAL BIASES, WE CAN HAVE PERSONAL BIASES BASED ON OUR PRIOR RESEARCH OR PERSONAL PREFERENCES IN OUR LIVES. I HAD THOSE BIASES, TOO, BUT I GOT TO A POINT IN MY CAREER THAT I WAS GETTING RESULTS THAT WENT AGAINST WHAT I HAD THOUGHT WAS TRUE. SO I HAD TO SELF-REFLECT, CRITICIZE MY OWN BIAS, LOOK AT IT REALLY CAREFULLY, AND I CHANGED MY VIEWS BECAUSE OF THE DATA THAT WAS BEING PRESENTED. I'M AWARE THAT THE DAIRY INDUSTRY IN CHINA HAS POURED TONS OF MONEY INTO THIS COUNTRY TO TRY TO SELL THEIR PRODUCT AND MARKET IT, AND IT'S WORKING BECAUSE A LOT OF CHINESE NOW ARE GRAVITATING TO THE USE OF DAIRY PRODUCTS, INCLUDING CHEESE, WHICH THEY PREVIOUSLY TOLD ME THEY COULDN'T POSSIBLY STAND THE SMELL OF IT.

AS THIS DIET HAS SHIFTED IN CHINA OVER TO A MORE ANIMAL-BASED DIET, HIGHER IN FAT, LOWER IN DIETARY FIBER, LOWER IN ANTIOXIDANTS AND SO FORTH, WE ALREADY SEE NOW INCREASES, RATHER SHARP INCREASES, IN CANCER, HEART DISEASE, DIABETES, AND OBESITY TYPICALLY FOUND IN WESTERN COUNTRIES. AND IT REALLY HAPPENED VERY FAST. I MEAN, USUALLY… I MEAN, IT WAS MY IMPRESSION FROM PREVIOUS DATA THAT THIS WOULD TAKE MAYBE THREE OR FOUR DECADES TO OCCUR. THIS IS HAPPENING WITHIN ONE GENERATION, UNUSUALLY FAST. SO THAT CANCER AND HEART DISEASE NOW ARE NUMBER ONE AND NUMBER TWO IN SOME OF THE PLACES IN CHINA, WHEREAS PREVIOUSLY IT WAS DOWN THE LIST. WHEN I WAS YOUNG, WE DEFENDED OUR PRODUCT, PROMOTED OUR PRODUCT, BECAUSE IT WAS NATURE'S MOST PERFECT FOOD, SO I BELIEVED THAT. EVERYBODY BELIEVED THAT, BUT IT TOOK ON A SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT TWIST AS TIME PASSED. I MEAN, IT'S THE MOST PERFECT FOOD FOR CALVES. THE MOST PERFECT FOOD FOR HUMANS IS HUMAN MILK.

AND TRYING TO SWITCH THE MILK OF ONE SPECIES TO ANOTHER SPECIES DOESN'T MAKE A LOT OF SENSE. THE DISTINCTIVE CHARACTERISTICS OF ANIMAL FOODS, WHETHER IT'S BEEF OR MILK OR EGGS, REALLY HAS TO DO WITH ITS NUTRIENT COMPOSITION. HOW MUCH PROTEIN DOES IT HAVE? WHAT KIND OF PROTEIN? HOW MUCH FAT? DOES IT HAVE ANTIOXIDANTS? ALL THESE THINGS THAT PLANTS HAVE, DOES IT HAVE IT? NO. THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE ANIMALS THAT ARE FED ON NATURE'S LAND, PASTURE, NO HORMONES, NO PESTICIDES AND STUFF, I MEAN, THERE'S AN ARGUMENT BEING MADE THAT THAT MAY BE SOMEWHAT BETTER HEALTH-WISE, AND ONE CAN ACCEPT THE IDEA IT MAY BE A BIT BETTER. BUT THAT'S A SMALL, SMALL DIFFERENCE COMPARED TO THE BIG DIFFERENCE THAT OCCURS BETWEEN THE ANIMAL PRODUCT ITSELF AND PLANT PRODUCTS. I CAME TO A VIEW IN THE LATE 1980s THAT SUGGESTED THAT WE HAD SOMETHING IMPORTANT HERE TO SAY, NAMELY AVOIDING ANIMAL FOODS, AVOIDING PROCESSED PLANT-BASED FOODS, AND IT WAS THEN THAT OUR STUDY FROM CHINA GOT PUBLISHED, AND DR.

ESSELSTYN SAW THAT AND INVITED ME TO COME TO A CONFERENCE HE WAS ORGANIZING IN ARIZONA. AND HE WAS TELLING ME AT THAT TIME THAT HE WAS ACTUALLY REVERSING HEART DISEASE, WHICH I FOUND HARD TO BELIEVE. BUT I CAME, AND WE MET AT THE CONFERENCE, AND FROM THEN ON, WE'VE HAD A GREAT, FRIENDLY AND PERSONAL AND COLLEGIAL RELATIONSHIP, BECAUSE, ON THE ONE HAND, I'M COMING FROM THE SCIENTIFIC ROUTE GETTING SOME IDEAS. HE'S COMING FROM THE CLINICAL ROUTE AND DOING SOME REALLY, I THOUGHT, JUST DRAMATIC RESEARCH. I MEAN, THE TWO TOGETHER, IF THERE EVER WAS AN ILLUSTRATION OF THE WHOLE BEING GREATER THAN THE SUM OF ITS PARTS, THAT'S IT. HERE'S THE SCIENCE, HERE'S THE CLINICAL EVIDENCE. PUT THE TWO TOGETHER, IT'S AMAZING. MY MAJOR TASK AND RESPONSIBILITY AS A GENERAL SURGEON WERE– I SHORTLY BECAME CHAIRMAN OF OUR BREAST CANCER TASKFORCE AND HEAD OF THE SECTION ON THYROID AND PARATHYROID SURGERY. AND FOR MANY PEOPLE, THAT IS A CHALLENGE. HOW IN THE WORLD DO YOU GO FROM THOSE KINDS OF INTERESTS INTO VASCULAR DISEASE? BY THE LATE 1970s AND EARLY '80s, I WAS REALLY BEGINNING TO GET SOME DISENCHANTMENT ABOUT THE FACT THAT NO MATTER HOW MANY OF THESE OPERATIONS I WAS DOING FOR WOMEN FOR BREAST CANCER, I WASN'T DOING ONE SINGLE THING FOR THE NEXT UNSUSPECTING VICTIM.

AND…THAT GNAWED AT ME ENOUGH THAT I KIND OF BEGAN A GLOBAL SEARCH OF THE LITERATURE. IF YOU LOOKED AT RURAL JAPAN IN THE 1950s, BREAST CANCER WAS EXTREMELY INFREQUENTLY ENCOUNTERED. BUT WHEN THE JAPANESE WOMEN WOULD MIGRATE TO THE UNITED STATES, BY THE SECOND AND THIRD GENERATION, STILL PURE JAPANESE AMERICAN, THEY NOW HAD THE SAME RATE OF BREAST CANCER AS THEIR CAUCASIAN COUNTERPART. AND PERHAPS EVEN MORE COMPELLING WAS CANCER OF THE PROSTATE. IN THE ENTIRE NATION OF JAPAN IN 1958, HOW MANY AUTOPSY-PROVEN DEATHS WERE THERE FROM CANCER OF THE PROSTATE? 18. 18 IN THE ENTIRE NATION. THAT, TO ME, WAS ABOUT THE MOST MIND-BOGGLING PUBLIC HEALTH FIGURE THAT I THINK I'D EVER ENCOUNTERED. BUT WHEN THE JAPANESE MEN WOULD MIGRATE TO HAWAII AND TO THE UNITED STATES, THEN THEIR RATE OF PROSTATE CANCER OBVIOUSLY MARKEDLY WENT UP.

COLON CANCER, WE SORT OF HAD THE SAME PATTERN, BUT THEN I MADE A DECISION, AND I'M NOT SURE IT WAS CORRECT, BECAUSE I HAD A SENSE IN MY BONES: MY BONES WOULD LONG BE DUST BEFORE I COULD REALLY GET ANSWERS WITH NUTRITION AND BREAST CANCER. IT SEEMED, THEREFORE, APPROPRIATE TO LOOK AT THE LEADING KILLER IN WESTERN CIVILIZATION OF WOMEN AND MEN, WHICH IS CORONARY ARTERY DISEASE, CARDIOVASCULAR DISEASE. WHY WOULDN'T IT MAKE SENSE TO TRY TO TAKE PATIENTS WHO ALREADY HAD SIGNIFICANT CORONARY ARTERY DISEASE, AND BY HAVING THEM EAT THIS PLANT-BASED TYPE OF NUTRITION, MIGHT WE BE ABLE TO SLOW THE RATE OF PROGRESSION, HALT IT, OR, WHO KNOWS, MAYBE EVEN REVERSE IT? WE HAD THIS RARE WINDOW IN HISTORY WHERE THERE WAS A GREAT OPPORTUNITY TO LEARN SOMETHING PROFOUND. YOU MAY RECALL THAT IN WORLD WAR II WHEN THE AXIS POWERS OF GERMANY WOULD, UH… INVADE THE LOW COUNTRIES OF HOLLAND AND BELGIUM, AND THEY OCCUPIED DENMARK AND NORWAY, AND IT WAS CHARACTERISTIC THAT THEY WOULD TAKE AWAY THEIR CATTLE, THEIR SHEEP, THEIR PIGS, THEIR CHICKENS, THEIR GOATS AND TURKEYS AND SO FORTH. AND AS A RESULT, THESE CULTURES.

.. IN ESSENCE, THESE COUNTRIES BECAME PLANT-BASED. NOW WE LOOK AT THE DEATHS IN NORWAY DURING THIS, JUST ANTECEDENT TO THIS PERIOD, THE DEATHS FROM HEART ATTACK AND STROKE, ALL RIGHT? 1927, 1930, '35, LOOK AT RIGHT UP HERE, RIGHT AT THE VERY TOP, 1939. BINGO! HERE COME THE GERMANS. WOW, THIS IS TERRIFIC. IMMEDIATELY, 1940, WOW! '41, '42, '43, '44, '45. HAVE WE EVER SEEN A POPULATION HAVE THEIR CARDIOVASCULAR DISEASE PLUMMET LIKE THIS FROM STATINS, FROM BYPASS SURGERY, OR FROM STENTS? NO. BUT LOOK WHAT IMMEDIATELY HAPPENED. WITH THE CESSATION OF HOSTILITIES IN 1945, BACK COMES THE MEAT, BACK COMES THE DAIRY, BACK COMES THE STROKES AND HEART ATTACKS. I MEAN, IT'S SUCH AN ABSOLUTE POWERFUL LESSON, BUT WE DIDN'T GET IT. WHEN PEOPLE KNEW THAT I WAS DEALING WITH FOOD PRIMARILY, UH, THERE WAS AN AWFUL– THERE WAS– BEHIND MY BACK, I GOT TO BE KNOWN AS DR. SPROUTS. BUT I DIDN'T REALLY.

.. YOU KNOW, I GUESS I'VE ALWAYS LIKED A CHALLENGE. ONCE I BEGAN TO GET SOME RESULTS, THEN IT WAS A LITTLE HARDER TO ACCEPT ANY RIDICULE, AND I THOUGHT I WAS ON PRETTY DARN POWERFUL SCIENTIFIC GROUND ONCE I HAD NOW PUBLISHED THIS MULTIPLE TIMES IN THE PEER-REVIEWED SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE. AND, EVENTUALLY, WE GOT TO THE POINT WHERE ANY NUMBER OF PROFESSIONALS AT THE CLINIC, WHETHER IT WAS STAFF PHYSICIANS, SENIOR STAFF RESEARCHERS, TRUSTEES, ALL CAME TO THE DOOR KNOCKING FOR A LITTLE HELP. YOU'VE GOT TWO PILES OF FOOD: THE WESTERN DIET, PLANT-BASED NUTRITION. NOW, WITH THE WESTERN DIET, THIS GUARANTEES THAT HALF A MILLION PEOPLE IN THIS COUNTRY THIS YEAR WHO WILL HAVE TO HAVE THE FRONT HALF OF THEIR BODY DIVIDED, THEIR HEART EXPOSED, THEN VEINS WILL BE TAKEN FROM THEIR LEG AND SEWED ON THEIR HEART. SOME PEOPLE WOULD CALL THAT EXTREME.

I MEAN, IF YOU WERE TO TAKE THIS PROGRAM TO THE PAPUA HIGHLANDS IN NEW GUINEA OR THE TARAHUMARA, WHO NEVER HAVE HEART DISEASE, AND INTRODUCE A DIETARY PROGRAM THAT GUARANTEED THAT THERE WOULD BE A SIGNIFICANT PORTION OF THEIR POPULATION THAT HAD TO BE OPERATED WITH THIS MAGNITUDE, I THINK THEY'D THINK IT WAS EXTREME. WE TALKED EARLIER ABOUT THE FACT OF THE IMPORTANCE OF THE LIFEJACKETS OF OUR BLOOD VESSELS, WHICH ARE THESE ENDOTHELIAL CELLS. AND IT APPEARS QUITE RAPIDLY YOU ARE ABLE TO IMPROVE THE CAPACITY OF THESE ENDOTHELIAL CELLS TO MAKE MORE AND MORE NITRIC OXIDE AS YOU EAT CORRECTLY AND ESPECIALLY WHEN YOU ARE NO LONGER INJURING THE ENDOTHELIAL CELLS. LET'S TAKE THE SITUATION OF ANGINA. WE KNOW THAT WITHIN A FEW WEEKS, WE HAVEN'T WASHED OUT THAT PLAQUE OR THAT OBSTRUCTION, BUT WHAT WE DO FEEL STRONGLY IS THAT WHEN YOU MAKE THESE PROFOUND CHANGES AND YOU ELEVATE THE LEVEL OF NITRIC OXIDE FROM HERE, LET'S SAY, TO HERE, YOU'RE TAKING EVEN THE ARTERY WHICH IS DISEASED, AND YOU'RE RESTORING THE CAPACITY OF IT TO DILATE.

AND AS YOU INCREASE FLOW, THEN THOSE TISSUES WHICH WERE BEING DEPRIVED OF OXYGEN NO LONGER ARE BEING DEPRIVED. WE'VE MENTIONED THE IMPORTANCE OF THE BRACHIAL ARTERY TOURNIQUET TEST, HOW IT IDENTIFIED THAT THE INGESTION OF, UH, HASH BROWNS AND SAUSAGE WAS CAUSING THIS COMPROMISE TO THE ENDOTHELIAL CELLS. THEY COULDN'T DILATE AFTER THAT MEAL. FURTHER RESEARCH HAS BEEN DONE NOW ON DAIRY PRODUCTS. YOU INGEST DAIRY PRODUCTS OR ICE CREAM OR MILKSHAKES, YOU SO INJURE THESE ENDOTHELIAL CELLS, AGAIN, THEY CAN'T DILATE AFTER THAT MEAL. AND THE SAME THING HAS NOW BEEN SHOWN WITH OLIVE OIL AND WITH PALM OIL AND WITH SOYBEAN OIL. SO I REALLY DON'T LET MY PATIENTS HAVE ANY OIL. THEY HAVE TO READ INGREDIENTS ON ALL THESE PACKAGES.

I DON'T WANT OIL. REMEMBER, I'M COMPETITIVE. THEY CAN HAVE BREAD WITHOUT OIL. THEY CAN HAVE ANYTHING IN A CAN WITHOUT OIL. I DON'T WANT ANY CRACKERS WITH OIL, BECAUSE WHEN YOU ARE FIERCELY COMMITTED TO THIS AND THE PATIENTS GET IT… THE REASON THAT WE WILL SUCCEED WHERE OTHERS FAIL IS, I'M SURE, PURELY BECAUSE OF ATTENTION TO DETAIL. WE STARTED WITH 24, AND DESPITE MY PERSUASIVE PERSONALITY, WHY, I KNEW WITHIN ABOUT– WELL, WITHIN A YEAR THAT THERE WERE 6 OF THE 24– GOOD GUYS. I MEAN, REALLY THEY WERE GREAT, BUT THEY JUST QUITE DIDN'T FULLY GET IT AT ALL, AND I HAD ABSOLUTELY NO MONEY FOR THIS RESEARCH. IT WAS PRETTY MUCH BARE BONES. AND, THEY, UH… SO I DID THE FOLLOWING: IN A CONVERSATION WITH THEM, THEY WERE RELEASED FULL TIME BACK TO THEIR EXPERT CARDIOLOGISTS WITH THE UNDERSTANDING THAT I WOULD PEEK IN FROM TIME TO TIME JUST TO SEE HOW THEY WERE DOING, BECAUSE THEY, IN ESSENCE, SORT OF BECAME MY CONTROL GROUP.

I MEAN, HERE WAS A STUDY THAT EVENTUALLY WENT ON BEYOND 20 YEARS, AND THEY LEFT WITHIN 12 MONTHS. SO THAT MEANT THAT THE… THE OTHER, UH… THE OTHER 18, WHO SORT OF STUCK WITH THE PROGRAM, I WROTE THEM UP AGAIN AT 12 YEARS, AND THAT WAS PRETTY SIGNIFICANT BECAUSE WHAT WE FOUND AT 12 YEARS WAS THAT, FIRST OF ALL, AMONG THOSE SIX WHO HAD LEFT THE STUDY, TWO OF THOSE HAD DIED AND THE OTHER FOUR HAD HAD ANOTHER BYPASS OPERATION. THE 18 THAT STAYED WITH THE STUDY, WE DECIDED WE'D LOOK AT HOW MANY CORONARY OR HEART EVENTS HAD THEY HAD IN THE EIGHT YEARS PRIOR TO THE STUDY WHILE THEY WERE IN THE HANDS OF EXPERT CARDIOLOGISTS, AND THOSE 18 PATIENTS HAD 49 CORONARY EVENTS, EITHER A HEART ATTACK OR ADDITIONAL NEED FOR MORE INTERVENTION OR WORSENING SYMPTOMS OR WORSENING ANGINA AND SO FORTH.

THE INTERESTING THING WAS, WE LOOKED AT THOSE SAME 18 IN THE 12 YEARS ON THE STUDY. 17 OF THOSE 18 HAD ZERO CORONARY EVENTS. HOWEVER, ONE LITTLE SHEEP, AFTER SIX YEARS, WANDERED FROM THE FLOCK, GOT INTO THE GLAZED DONUTS AND ALL THE WRONG FOODS, AFTER BEING A LITTLE BIT COCKY, AND ENDED UP HAVING MORE ANGINA AND HAD ANOTHER BYPASS. NOW HE'S BACK WITH THE FLOCK. SO AT THE END OF FIVE YEARS, WE HAD FOLLOW-UP ANGIOGRAMS IN 11 OF THE GROUP, AND THEY ALL HAD HALTED THEIR DISEASE. THERE WAS NO PROGRESSION. AND IN, UH… THERE WERE FOUR WHERE WE HAD RATHER EXCITING EVIDENCE OF REGRESSION OF DISEASE. I WILL SHARE WITH YOU THAT… THAT THESE THESE ANGIOGRAMS BEFORE I EVER SAW THEM WERE READ IN TRIPLICATE BY THE SENIOR MEDICAL TECHNICIANS IN THE CLEVELAND CLINIC ANGIOGRAPHY CORE LABORATORY, BECAUSE THERE THEY DO IT SO CAREFULLY, AND THEY ARE ABLE TO HAVE THE BEFORE AND AFTER IMMEDIATELY SIDE BY SIDE. AND WITH CAREFUL CASSETTES, CALIPERS AND COMPUTER MEASUREMENTS, I KNOW THAT WHEN THEY GAVE ME A PERCENTAGE OF CHANGE THAT IT WAS ACCURATE.

IT WAS REALLY VERY COMPELLING WHEN YOU COULD SEE THIS DISEASE REGRESSING AND THE FACT THAT THE LOCUS OF CONTROL… THE LOCUS OF CONTROL WAS NOT WITH THE CARDIOLOGIST OR THE HEART SURGEON. THE LOCUS OF CONTROL WAS THE PATIENTS THEMSELVES. THIS IS SO POWERFUL BECAUSE THERE IS NOTHING PERHAPS THAT A PATIENT WITH HEART DISEASE OR WHO'S HAD A HEART ATTACK FEARS MORE, AS DOES THEIR FAMILY, WHEN IS THE OTHER SHOE GOING TO FALL? WHEN ARE THEY GOING TO GET THEIR NEXT HEART ATTACK? AND THAT'S A TERRIBLE BURDEN TO LIVE WITH. AND THESE PATIENTS, AS THEY WENT THROUGH THEIR 5th YEAR AND THEIR 10th YEAR AND THEIR 15th YEAR, AND THEY SAW THEIR ARTERY DISEASE REGRESSING, WHAT HAPPENS IS THE CAP OVER ALL THEIR PLAQUES THEY HAVE IN THEIR ARTERIES, THEIR CAP THICKENS AND BECOMES FIRM, THE INFLAMMATION SUBSIDES.

THEY'VE MADE THEMSELVES HEART ATTACK-PROOF. RIGHT NOW, THE CARDIOLOGY BUDGET IN THE UNITED STATES IS SOMETHING LIKE A QUARTER OF A TRILLION DOLLARS. BYPASSES ARE ABOUT $90,000 TO $100,000. DEPENDING UPON HOW MANY STENTS YOU GET, IT'S $30,000 OR $40,000, SOMETIMES MORE. BUT THERE'S A BURDEN AND THERE'S A RISK TO THIS. THE MORTALITY WITH STENTS IS ABOUT 1%. NOW, WE HAVE A MILLION OF THEM THIS YEAR. 1% OF A MILLION IS 10,000, SO 10,000 PEOPLE WILL DIE THIS YEAR DURING THEIR, UH… DURING THEIR STENT PROCEDURE. IT'S A LITTLE HIGHER WITH SURGERY, ABOUT 3% IS A ROUGH AVERAGE, AND 500,000 OF THOSE PATIENTS WILL HAVE SURGERY, SO THAT'S ANOTHER 15,000 WHO WILL DIE IN SURGERY, 10,000 DIE WITH STENTS. AND YOU TOTAL THAT UP, THAT'S 25,000 PEOPLE WHO HAVE NOW DIED. AND IF WE LOST 25,000 PEOPLE IN IRAQ THIS YEAR, IT WOULD PROBABLY BE CALLED CARNAGE.

THE ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM IS THE FACT THAT, WHILE IT'S NO QUESTION IN AN EMERGENCY THESE PROCEDURES ARE ABSOLUTELY LIFESAVING. NO QUESTION. AND ESPECIALLY WHEN THEY'RE DONE BY SKILLED, COMMITTED PERSONNEL. BUT WHEN THEY'RE DONE ELECTIVELY, YOU KNOW, THAT IS WHEN IT'S REALLY KIND OF A CHALLENGE, BECAUSE I REALLY FEEL THAT THE DATA ARE SO CLEAR NOW THAT THESE PROCEDURES DO NOT PROLONG LIFE AND THESE PROCEDURES DO NOT PROTECT FROM NEW HEART ATTACKS, AND THAT HAS BEEN SHOWN WITH MULTIPLE STUDIES. BOTH OF THESE PROCEDURES USUALLY ARE UTILIZED WHEN YOU HAVE A VERY, VERY MAJOR, BIG PLAQUE, ALL RIGHT? AND WE ESTABLISHED THE FACT THAT ONLY 10% OF HEART ATTACKS COME FROM THOSE. BUT LET'S SAY YOU GO AHEAD AND YOU FIX A MAJOR PLAQUE AND YOU FIX ONE BY BYPASS AND ANOTHER ONE BY STENTS. BUT WE KNOW FROM STUDIES WITH ULTRASOUND AND SO FORTH THAT PATIENTS, IN ADDITION TO HAVING THAT MAJOR PLAQUE, HAVE HUNDREDS AND HUNDREDS OF OTHER PLAQUES THAT ARE THOSE SMALL, VICIOUS, YOUNG, JUVENILE PLAQUES THAT, AS THEY MATURE, ARE GOING TO RUPTURE SO THAT YOU CAN'T PLAY WHACK-A-MOLE WITH THESE PLAQUES BECAUSE YOU JUST WOULD, UH.

.. THERE'D BE NO END TO IT. SO THIS IS WHY THOSE PROCEDURES DON'T TREAT THE DISEASE. THEY ARE TREATING SYMPTOMS. WHAT THE STATIN DRUG DOES IS IT BLOCKS AN ENZYME IN THE LIVER SO YOU CANNOT PRODUCE AS MUCH CHOLESTEROL. THAT'S THE BOTTOM LINE. BUT YOU JUST DON'T REALLY INTERFERE WITH THE, UH…REALLY THE METABOLIC EPICENTER OF YOUR BODY, YOUR LIVER, YOU KNOW, WITHOUT SOME SIDE EFFECTS, AND THE MOST COMMON ONES THAT WE SEE ARE PROBLEMS WITH THE LIVER REACTING WITH SOME DEGREE OF INFLAMMATION WITH THE ENZYMES GOING UP, AND THEY CAN AFFECT THE PATIENTS IN TERMS OF THEIR MUSCLE ACHES AND PAINS, AND SOMETIMES THAT CAN BE VERY PROFOUND AND ACTUALLY CAN CAUSE DEATH. SOME PATIENTS REPORT THERE ARE PROBLEMS CERTAINLY WITH COGNITION. SOME PEOPLE HAVE SUGGESTED PUTTING IT IN THE WATER SUPPLY, AND SOME PEOPLE HAVE SUGGESTED STARTING GIVING IT TO PEOPLE IN THE PEDIATRIC AGE GROUP. I MEAN, THE TARAHUMARA INDIANS, WHO NEVER HAVE HEART DISEASE, IT'S NOT BECAUSE THEY'VE GOT STATINS IN THEIR DRINKING WATER.

IT'S JUST BECAUSE THEY NEVER EAT THE FOODS THAT GIVE THEM THE DISEASE. PERHAPS THE STRONGEST AND BEST-KNOWN HAWAII TRI-ATHLETE, IRON MAN, DAVE SCOTT: PLANT-BASED. EVEN CARL LEWIS, THE GREAT AMERICAN SPRINTER, IN HIS LAST SEVERAL YEARS IN HIS EARLY 30s WENT PLANT-BASED, FELT HE WAS BEGINNING TO LOSE IT A LITTLE BIT AND WANTED TO HANG ON A LITTLE LONGER. AND SURE ENOUGH, OVER IN TOKYO IN THE EARLY 1990s IN ONE TRACK MEET THERE, WHILE EATING PLANT-BASED, HE SET A NEW WORLD RECORD FOR THE 100-YARD DASH, ANCHORED THE LEG OF THE RELAY THAT SET THE NEW 4 X 100-DASH RECORD, AND BECAME THE ONLY MAN IN HISTORY THREE TIMES IN ONE AFTERNOON TO BROAD JUMP OVER 29 FEET. SO I THINK, YOU KNOW, THE DATA ARE VERY, VERY CLEAR THAT YOU CAN GET ALL THE NUTRITION AND STRENGTH AND PROTEIN. I MEAN, PEOPLE ALWAYS ASK, ARE YOU GONNA GET ENOUGH PROTEIN? THEY FEEL UNLESS YOU'RE EATING A STEAK OR A LAMB CHOP, YOU'RE NOT GETTING PROTEIN. IT'S CRAZY. YOU'RE GETTING SO MUCH PROTEIN THROUGH THE PLANT-BASED SOURCES, YOU'RE NOT GONNA BE DEFICIENT.

WE ARE AT THE ABSOLUTE CUSP OF WHAT COULD BE A SEISMIC REVOLUTION IN HEALTH. AND IT'S INTERESTING THAT, AS WE SPEAK RIGHT NOW, THERE IS DISCUSSION ABOUT GIVING EVERYBODY THIS BROAD HEALTH INSURANCE COVERAGE, UNIVERSAL COVERAGE. THAT IS NOT GOING TO BE THE ANSWER. I'M NOT AGAINST IT. I THINK IT'S WONDERFUL, BUT THERE ARE SO MANY PEOPLE OUT THERE WHO HAVE ABSOLUTELY BEAUTIFUL COVERAGE WHO ARE MISERABLE WITH CHRONIC ILLNESSES THAT THEY NEED NEVER, EVER HAVE. WE'RE NOT GOING TO GET THIS SEISMIC REVOLUTION FROM THE INVENTION OF ANOTHER PILL. WE'RE NOT GOING TO GET THIS SEISMIC REVOLUTION FROM THE INVENTION OF ANOTHER PROCEDURE. BUT WHERE THIS SEISMIC REVOLUTION CAN COME IS WHEN WE IN MEDICINE HAVE THE GRIT AND THE FORTITUDE AND ARE ABLE TO ECHO BACK TO OUR CORE BELIEFS AND SHARE WITH THE PUBLIC THE LIFESTYLE THAT LITERALLY PROTECTS THEM FROM HAVING THESE COMMON CHRONIC ILLNESSES. ALL THROUGH MY SURGICAL CAREER, I WAS REALLY NOT INVOLVED WITH TREATING HEART DISEASE, BUT IT WAS THE LAST 15 YEARS, YES, I WAS.

AND WHAT TO ME IS SO EXCITING ABOUT TREATING PATIENTS WITH CARDIOVASCULAR DISEASE, I HAVE BEEN UP AGAINST IT WITH PATIENTS WITH CANCER. BUT CARDIOVASCULAR DISEASE IS BENIGN. THIS IS AN ABSOLUTE CHIP SHOT WHEN YOU REALLY GET PATIENTS TO DO IT. HEART DISEASE, AS FAR AS I'M CONCERNED, IS AN ABSOLUTELY TOOTHLESS PAPER TIGER THAT NEED NEVER, EVER EXIST. AND IF IT DOES EXIST, IT NEED NEVER, EVER PROGRESS. WELL, THE PROBLEM IS, WHEN A KID IS PULLING HIS TRAY DOWN THE SCHOOL LUNCH LINE, YOU SEE FEDERAL POLICIES IN ACTION. THERE ARE BURGERS TOPPED WITH CHEESE, THE MILK IS HEAVILY SUBSIDIZED, BUT THE VEGETABLES AND FRUITS, A LITTLE BIT HARDER TO FIND. AND THIS IS BECAUSE THE GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS ARE GOING TO PARTICULARLY THE MEAT PRODUCERS AND OTHER PRODUCERS AS WELL, NOT FOR HEALTH REASONS. IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE HEALTH OF THE CHILDREN.

IT HAS ALL TO DO WITH THE FINANCIAL HEALTH OF THE BIG AGRIBUSINESS ENTITIES. WHY IS IT, FOR EXAMPLE, THAT A CHILD WHO MAY BE LACTOSE-INTOLERANT, GETS DIGESTIVE PROBLEMS AFTER DRINKING A GLASS OF MILK, THAT CHILD CANNOT HAVE SOYMILK, RICE MILK, OTHER KINDS OF MILK, WITHOUT PROVIDING SPECIFICALLY A DOCTOR'S NOTE. WHY? BECAUSE THE SCHOOL GETS SUBSIDIZED FOR COW'S MILK. THEY HAVE TO PAY FULL PRICE FOR ANYTHING ELSE, AND THIS IS POLITICS. THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH HEALTH. NOT TOO LONG AGO, THE BATTLEGROUND WAS OVER SUBSIDIES, AND WE SAT DOWN WITH MEMBERS OF CONGRESS, AND THEY TOLD US POINTBLANK, "YOU'RE NOT GONNA TOUCH THE SUGAR INDUSTRY. THEY GET THE SUBSIDIES THAT THEY WANT" AND THEY KNOW THAT MEMBERS OF CONGRESS WHO GO AGAINST THEM ARE GONNA GET VOTED OUT OF OFFICE. SAME WITH THE DAIRY INDUSTRY, AND ALL OF THE REFORMS TO WHAT WAS THE FARM BILL THAT DICTATED THE SUBSIDIES, ALL OF THOSE REFORMS WERE KILLED. THE BATTLEGROUND AFTER THAT WAS OVER SCHOOL LUNCHES, BECAUSE RIGHT NOW THERE ISN'T ANY OBLIGATION THAT THE SCHOOLS HAVE AT ALL TO SERVE, SAY, A MEAL THAT DOESN'T HAVE MEAT IN IT, THAT DOESN'T HAVE DAIRY PRODUCTS ON THE TRAY.

WE WANT TO HAVE MORE CHOICES, PARTICULARLY THE VEGETABLES AND FRUITS, BRING THEM IN IN A BIG WAY. THAT'S THE CURRENT BATTLEGROUND. ONE OF THE REALLY SURPRISING THINGS ABOUT COW'S MILK IS THAT IT'S LINKED TO PROSTATE CANCER. I NEVER WOULD HAVE GUESSED THAT A FEW YEARS AGO. BUT HARVARD RESEARCHERS AND MANY OTHER RESEARCH TEAMS HAVE LOOKED AT WHAT ARE THE DIETS OF PEOPLE WHO END UP DEVELOPING CANCER, AND THE FOOD THAT JUMPS OUT MORE THAN ANY OTHER IS COW'S MILK, INCLUDING LOW-FAT MILK. IT'S NOT THE FAT NECESSARILY. IT'S SOMETHING TO DO WITH HOW THE MILK AFFECTS THE HORMONES IN A MAN'S BODY, AND THE INCREASED RISK IS SOMEWHERE BETWEEN ABOUT 30% TO 60% FOR A MAN WHO DRINKS MILK EVERY DAY, COMPARED TO A MAN WHO SAYS, "NO, THANKS, I'M NOT HAVING IT AT ALL." MILK, FOR KIDS, IT'S ACTUALLY THE BIGGEST SOURCE OF SATURATED FAT. THAT'S BAD FAT, THAT'S THE KIND THAT'S LINKED TO CARDIOVASCULAR DISEASE AND OTHER PROBLEMS. MILK IS THE BIGGEST SOURCE OF IT IN A CHILD'S DIET.

NOW, A LOT OF PEDIATRICIANS WILL SAY, "WELL, OKAY, YOU DON'T NEED TO GIVE THEM WHOLE MILK. GIVE THEM NON-FAT MILK." WELL, AT THAT POINT, IF YOU LOOK AT WHAT'S IN IT, THE NUMBER ONE NUTRIENT IS SUGAR. IT'S LACTOSE SUGAR FOR WHICH THERE IS NO NUTRITIONAL NEED WHATSOEVER. THERE ARE LOTS OF OTHER PROBLEMS WITH MILK-DRINKING AS WELL. WHEN YOU LOOK AT MIGRAINES, ARTHRITIS, DIGESTIVE PROBLEMS, THE NUMBER ONE FOOD THAT'S A CONTRIBUTOR TO ALL OF THOSE IS COW'S MILK. AND SO MANY KIDS WHO ARE UP RIGHT CLOSE TO THE MIRROR, LOOKING AT THAT NEW PIMPLE THAT CAME IN, IF THEY REALIZE THAT MILK ALSO HAPPENS TO BE THE NUMBER ONE CAUSE OF ACNE LESIONS IN RESEARCH STUDIES, YOU'D HAVE A WHOLE BUNCH OF KIDS THROWING THEIR MILK OUT PROBABLY OVERNIGHT. WE SUBMITTED A FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT REQUEST TO THE U.S. GOVERNMENT, AND WE GOT SOME AMAZING DOCUMENTS. THERE WAS A CONFERENCE HELD IN THE YEAR 2000 THAT WAS THE DAIRY INDUSTRY MEETING WITH THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT ABOUT HOW THEY COULD PROMOTE CHEESE.

NOT JUST PROMOTE CHEESE, THEY WANTED TO PROMOTE CHEESE CRAVING. THEY HAD IDENTIFIED ALL AMERICANS AS FALLING INTO TWO GROUPS: CHEESE CRAVERS AND PEOPLE WHO JUST USED A LITTLE BIT OF CHEESE TO ENHANCE THEIR SALAD OR THEIR PASTA. THEY'RE NOT INTERESTED IN THEM. THEY'RE INTERESTED IN THE PEOPLE WHO OPEN UP THE REFRIGERATOR DOOR, TAKE THE CHEESE, AND STUFF IT IN THEIR MOUTH. THAT'S A CHEESE CRAVER. SO THEY FIGURED, IN THIS CONFERENCE– IN THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE CONFERENCE, THEY LAY OUT EXACTLY THEIR STRATEGY. THEIR STRATEGY WAS NOT TO WORK WITH EVERY MA AND PA RESTAURANT DOWN THE BLOCK AND ENCOURAGE THEM TO SELL CHEESE. THAT WOULD TAKE FOREVER. THEY WORKED WITH WENDY'S. THEY HAVE A CONTRACT WITH WENDY'S, WHICH I CAN SHOW YOU, THAT SAYS THEY WILL MARKET SOMETHING CALLED THE CHEDDAR LOVER'S BACON CHEESEBURGER, AND IT WAS A BIG SUCCESS. IT SOLD A LOT OF CHEESE– A LOT OF CHOLESTEROL, BUT A LOT OF CHEESE– AND THEN, PREDICATED ON THAT, THEY THEN WORKED WITH PIZZA HUT, AND THEY DEVELOPED NEW PRODUCTS. THEY WORKED WITH SUBWAY, WHICH HAD TWO SANDWICHES WITH NO CHEESE ON THEM.

THEY FIXED THAT. THEY WORKED WITH TACO BELL, THEY WORKED WITH BURGER KING, SO THAT YOU GO THROUGH THE DRIVE-THRU, AND THEY MAKE SURE CHEESE IS IN WHAT THEY ASK YOU. "HI, WELCOME TO TACO BELL. WOULD YOU LIKE TO TRY A QUESADILLA TODAY?" AND THEY HAVE MOVED CHEESE VERY SUCCESSFULLY. A HUNDRED YEARS AGO, THE AVERAGE AMERICAN CONSUMED LESS THAN FOUR POUNDS OF CHEESE IN A YEAR'S TIME. AS OF MAYBE 2009, IT'S ABOUT 32 POUNDS OF CHEESE PER PERSON PER YEAR. AND I'M NOT EATING ANY, SO SOMEBODY ELSE IS GETTING MINE. YOU KNOW, PEOPLE ARE SURPRISED THAT THE GOVERNMENT IS NOW RUNNING GENERAL MOTORS AND RUNNING SOME BANKS. WELL, IT HAS BEEN RUNNING THE DAIRY INDUSTRY FOR A VERY LONG TIME, EVEN AT THE SAME TIME AS THEY'RE PAYING CANCER RESEARCHERS TO FIGURE OUT WHY DO AMERICANS HAVE MORE PROSTATE CANCER, THEY HAVE HEART DISEASE RESEARCHERS TRYING TO FIGURE OUT WHY DO WE HAVE SO MUCH HEART DISEASE, AND AT THE SAME TIME, THEY'RE SAYING MORE CHEESE, MORE MILK, MORE MEAT, MORE SUGAR, MORE UNHEALTHY FOODS.

WE'RE NEVER GONNA WIN UNLESS WE CAN ACTUALLY RUN THIS GOVERNMENT IN ONE COHERENT WAY THAT PRIORITIZES HEALTH. ONE OF THE MORE ABSURD ADVERTISEMENTS THAT THE DAIRY INDUSTRY WAS RUNNING SAID THAT IF YOU HAVE A LOW-CALORIE DIET THAT HAS MILK IN IT, YOU'RE GONNA LOSE MORE WEIGHT THAN A LOW-CALORIE DIET ALONE. SO IN OTHER WORDS, YOU'RE DIETING, BUT IF YOU ADD MILK, YOU'RE GONNA DO BETTER. WELL, WE LOOKED INTO THOSE CLAIMS, AND IT CAME FROM ONE RESEARCH CENTER IN TENNESSEE. IT WAS ONE RESEARCHER, WHO HAD VERY SMALL NUMBERS OF PEOPLE. I'M TALKING ABOUT MAYBE 10 OR 11 IN HIS RESEARCH STUDIES. AND HE HAD SHOWN EXACTLY THIS, BUT THE FINDINGS WERE QUITE DUBIOUS. OTHER RESEARCHERS HAD NOT BEEN ABLE TO REPLICATE THESE FINDINGS, BUT THIS AD CAMPAIGN WENT FORWARD, BECAUSE THE DAIRY INDUSTRY HAD DOLLAR SIGNS IN ITS EYES.

SO WE COMPLAINED TO THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION. AND IT TOOK A COUPLE OF YEARS FOR THEM FINALLY TO GET BACK TO US, BUT THEY DID WRITE BACK AND SAID THAT THEY HAD WORKED WITH THE DAIRY INDUSTRY ON IT, AND THEY HAD COLLECTIVELY DECIDED THAT THE EVIDENCE WAS JUST TOO WEAK TO SUPPORT THESE ADS, AND THEY PULLED THEM. IN DIABETES, THERE'S TOO MUCH SUGAR IN THE BLOOD, AND TYPE 2 DIABETES USED TO BE CALLED ADULT ONSET. THE PROBLEM IS THAT THE INSULIN, WHICH IS THIS HORMONE THAT ACTS LIKE A KEY TO LET THE SUGAR OUT OF THE BLOOD INTO THE MUSCLE CELLS WHERE IT CAN POWER YOUR MOVEMENTS, THAT INSULIN KEY ISN'T WORKING VERY WELL. AND UP UNTIL NOW, PEOPLE WITH DIABETES HAVE SAID, WELL, TOO MUCH SUGAR IN MY BLOOD, DON'T EAT SUGAR. DON'T EAT BREAD BECAUSE THAT'LL TURN INTO SUGAR.

WELL, WE REASONED THAT IN COUNTRIES LIKE CHINA, JAPAN, THAILAND, CAMBODIA, WHERE IT'S A VERY HIGH-CARBOHYDRATE DIET, BUT A VERY LOW-FAT DIET, GIVEN THAT THEY HAVE THE LOWEST DIABETES RATES IN THE WORLD, WE THOUGHT IT'S NOT CARBOHYDRATE. THE PROBLEM HAS TO DO WITH FAT– THE FATTY FOODS, MEAT, CHICKEN FAT, OILY FOODS. THOSE FATS GET INTO THE CELLS THAT CAUSES THAT INSULIN RESISTANCE, SO THE DIET SHOULD BE GETTING THE FAT OUT OF THE CELLS SO INSULIN CAN WORK AGAIN. STARTING IN 2003, THE U.S. GOVERNMENT FUNDED MY TEAM TO TEST A TOTALLY VEGAN DIET. I'M TALKING ABOUT NO ANIMAL PRODUCTS AT ALL, BUT IT WASN'T A LOW-CARB DIET AT ALL. THE PEOPLE COULD EAT RICE AND PASTA ALL THEY WANTED, AND IT WORKED DRAMATICALLY WELL, BETTER THAN A MORE CONVENTIONAL DIABETES DIET. PEOPLE LOST WEIGHT, THEIR BLOOD SUGARS CAME DOWN, THEIR CHOLESTEROLS FELL. AND, ODDLY ENOUGH, THEY FOUND IT EASIER TO FOLLOW THIS KIND OF DIET, BECAUSE WE DIDN'T MAKE THEM COUNT CALORIES. THEY COULD EAT AS MUCH AS THEY WANTED. TYPE 1 DIABETES USED TO BE CALLED CHILDHOOD ONSET.

THE CELLS THAT MAKE INSULIN ARE DEAD, AND SO IF A PERSON ALREADY HAS TYPE 1 DIABETES, IF YOU PUT THEM ON A HEALTHY VEGAN DIET, THAT WILL REDUCE THE LIKELIHOOD OF COMPLICATIONS, BUT IT WON'T GET THEM OFF THEIR INSULIN. NOW HAVING SAID THAT, THERE ARE RESEARCHERS WHO NOW BELIEVE THAT ONE OF THE BIG TRIGGERS FOR TYPE 1 DIABETES IS DAIRY PRODUCTS. IT TURNS OUT THAT PROTEINS IN COW'S MILK CAUSE THE BODY… THE BODY RECOGNIZES THEM AS FOREIGN PROTEINS. THE BODY MAKES ANTIBODIES TO DESTROY THEM. THOSE SAME ANTIBODIES THEN DESTROY THE INSULIN-PRODUCING CELLS IN THE PANCREAS. THERE'S A MAJOR STUDY RIGHT NOW THAT'S NAILING DOWN WHETHER, IF KIDS ARE BREAST-FED AND THEY ARE NOT GIVEN A COW'S MILK PROTEIN AT ALL DURING INFANCY, THAT WE MIGHT BE ABLE TO REDUCE THE RISK OF TYPE 1 DIABETES. THE EVIDENCE SO FAR SAYS THAT'S EXACTLY RIGHT. THERE HAVE BEEN A COUPLE OF TREMENDOUS STUDIES ON BREAST CANCER SURVIVAL.

I'M TALKING ABOUT A WOMAN WHO HAS BEEN DIAGNOSED ALREADY. SHE WANTS TO KNOW WHAT CAN I EAT IN ORDER TO PREVENT THE CANCER FROM COMING BACK? AND ONE STUDY CALLED THE WOMEN'S INTERVENTION NUTRITION STUDY, "WINS" STUDY, SHOWED THAT, IF WOMEN CUT THE FAT FROM THEIR DIET, THEIR LIKELIHOOD OF SURVIVAL IS GREATLY INCREASED, THE LIKELIHOOD OF HAVING A RECURRENCE GREATLY DECREASED. A SECOND STUDY SHOWED THAT, IF YOU ALSO ADD VEGETABLES AND FRUITS AND PHYSICAL ACTIVITY TO THE DIET, YOU'RE GONNA DO BETTER AS WELL. SO MY ANSWER IS LET'S PUT IT ALL TOGETHER. CUT THE FAT, BOOST THE VEGETABLES AND FRUITS, LACE UP OUR SNEAKERS, LET'S SEE WHAT WE CAN DO. IN BOTH OF THOSE CASES THAT I MENTIONED, THE RESEARCHERS HAVE SHOWN THAT SURVIVAL IS MEASURABLY INCREASED, AND IT'S INCREASED A LOT. A WOMAN WHO'S EATING A LOT OF VEGETABLES AND FRUITS AND IS PHYSICALLY ACTIVE, HER RISK OF DYING OF HER CANCER IS HALF THAT OF A WOMAN WHO IS EITHER SKIPPING THE VEGETABLES AND FRUITS OR SKIPPING THE EXERCISE.

SO IT'S POWERFUL. HYPERTENSION IS A BIG PROBLEM AND VERY, VERY COMMON, AND THE TYPICAL TREATMENT FOR IT IS, "SWALLOW THIS PILL." ABOUT AS FAR AS DOCTORS GET WITH DIET IS TO REDUCE SALT. THAT'S A GOOD IDEA, BUT IT DOESN'T GO AS FAR AS WE NEED TO GO IN MOST CASES. BUT WHEN PEOPLE FOLLOW A PLANT-BASED DIET, FOR REASONS THAT WERE NEVER TERRIBLY CLEAR, BLOOD PRESSURE FALLS, AND IT FALLS QUITE SIGNIFICANTLY AND QUITE QUICKLY. AND IF YOU THEN GO BACK TO YOUR OLD DIET, YOUR BLOOD PRESSURE GOES RIGHT BACK UP TO WHERE IT WAS BEFORE. I THINK WHAT'S HAPPENING IS THAT A PLANT-BASED DIET REDUCES THE VISCOSITY OF THE BLOOD, THE THICKNESS OF THE BLOOD. YOUR BLOOD'S MORE LIKE WATER, IT'S LESS LIKE GREASE, SO THE HEART DOESN'T HAVE TO PUSH IT SO HARD IN ORDER TO GET IT THROUGH THE ARTERIES. WHEN WE BRING PEOPLE IN FOR RESEARCH STUDIES, WHETHER IT'S FOR DIABETES OR TO LOWER THEIR CHOLESTEROL OR WHATEVER IT IS, WE ASK THEM TO RATE, HOW DO YOU LIKE THE FOODS THAT YOU'RE EATING IN THIS STUDY? HOW MUCH WORK IS IT? WHAT DOES YOUR FAMILY THINK? WHAT ARE YOU GONNA DO IN THE FUTURE? AND WE'VE ALWAYS FOUND THAT A LOW-FAT, TOTALLY VEGAN DIET STACKS UP EVERY BIT AS WELL AS ANY OTHER KIND OF DIET THAT PEOPLE ARE USING.

YOU COMPARE IT TO A LOW-CALORIE DIET, A DIABETES DIET, THE VEGAN DIET SEEMS TO BE AS EASY OR EASIER THAN ANY OF THEM. THINK ABOUT IT. YOU'RE NOT COUNTING CALORIES AT ALL. I'M NOT MAKING YOU ADD UP YOUR CARBOHYDRATE GRAMS FOR THE DAY. I'M NOT SAYING, "AFTER 6:00, YOU CAN'T EAT ANYTHING MORE, EVEN IF YOU'RE HUNGRY." YOU DON'T HAVE TO DEAL WITH THAT. YOU DO HAVE TO MAKE A QUALITATIVE CHANGE. YOU'RE EATING DIFFERENT FOODS, BUT NOBODY'S GONNA TELL YOU HOW MUCH. THEY'RE NOT GONNA SAY YOU CAN'T GO BACK FOR SECONDS, AND ALSO IT'S A DIET THAT ANYBODY CAN USE. I DON'T CARE IF YOU'RE A CHILD, PREGNANT, OLDER, IT'S GOOD FOR EVERYBODY. PEOPLE WILL COME INTO OUR OFFICE VERY OVERWEIGHT WITH DIABETES. THEY MIGHT BE TAKING $3,000, $4,000, $5,000 WORTH OF MEDICATIONS EVERY SINGLE YEAR FOR THEIR CHOLESTEROL, THEIR DIABETES, THEIR BLOOD PRESSURE. THEY CHANGE THEIR DIET.

THAT'S THE ONLY THING THEY DO, AND THEIR DIABETES GETS BETTER AND BETTER AND BETTER. IN SOME CASES, YOU JUST CAN'T DETECT IT ANYMORE. THEIR CHOLESTEROL COMES DOWN, THEIR BLOOD PRESSURE COMES DOWN. THE SCALE IS SMILING AT THEM AGAIN BECAUSE THEY'RE LOSING A LOT OF WEIGHT. AND TO BE TOLD BY YOUR OWN DOCTOR THAT THIS DISEASE LIKE DIABETES OR HYPERTENSION THAT HAS KILLED FAMILY MEMBERS NO LONGER APPLIES TO YOU, THAT'S A WONDERFUL FEELING. AT 22 YEARS OLD, I GOT SO FAT– I WAS ABOUT 50 POUNDS HEAVIER THAN I AM NOW– THAT MY MOTHER CALLED ME FAT. WHEN YOUR MOTHER CALLS YOU FAT, THERE ARE PROBLEMS. AND AT 24 YEARS OLD, THE ABDOMINAL PAINS BECAME SO BAD– I WAS A DOCTOR AT THAT TIME, A YOUNG DOCTOR WORKING ON A SURGICAL SERVICE, AND I ASKED A SURGEON ABOUT MY STOMACH PAINS. AND I SPENT THE AFTERNOON IN THE OPERATING ROOM HAVING EXPLORATORY SURGERY. THERE WAS NOTHING WRONG, AND NOBODY ASKED ME ABOUT THE THREE HOT DOGS WITH HAMBURGER RELISH I USED TO HAVE AT NIGHT BEFORE I WENT TO BED.

SO FINALLY ABOUT AGE 27, I DISCOVERED THE ISSUES AROUND DIET, AND IT SAVED MY LIFE. I MEAN, I WOULD HAVE BEEN A BYPASS PATIENT IN HIS EARLY 30s. I'D HAVE BEEN DEAD OF A HEART ATTACK, YOU KNOW, MID-30s. I WAS ON A SELF-DESTRUCTIVE COURSE, AND I WOULD NOT HAVE LIVED. SO THE GOOD FORTUNE OF DISCOVERING THE TRUTH ABOUT DIET SAVED MY OWN LIFE. SO HERE I SIT, 62 YEARS OLD, AND HAVING A GREAT TIME AND GOING WIND-SURFING AND SCUBA DIVING AND PLAYING WITH THE GRANDKIDS, AND I HAVE MY LIFE. I GOT PUT IN THE SITUATION WHERE I HAD 5,000 PLANTATION PATIENTS TO TAKE CARE OF, WORKING ON A SUGAR PLANTATION. AND THEY'D DONE THE SAME KIND OF THING FOR ALMOST 100 YEARS. NOTHING HAD CHANGED. BASICALLY THE SAME POPULATION, SAME JOBS, SAME THING. WHAT I OBSERVED THERE WAS THE HEALTH OF THE PEOPLE DIFFERED DRAMATICALLY DEPENDING UPON HOW LONG THEY'D BEEN IN HAWAII. I WAS TAKING CARE OF FIRST GENERATION– THOSE BEING PEOPLE WHO WERE RAISED IN JAPAN, THE PHILIPPINES, KOREA, CHINA– FIRST GENERATION WHO HAD MOVED FROM THEIR NATIVE LAND TO HAWAII TO START A NEW LIFE, HAD THEIR KIDS.

SO THEN YOU HAD THE SECOND GENERATION, AND THEN THEY HAD THEIR KIDS AND THE THIRD AND THE FOURTH GENERATION. I WAS TAKING CARE OF FOUR GENERATIONS OF PEOPLE. NOW, THE INTERESTING THING, AND THE THING THAT JUST HIT ME RIGHT IN THE FACE WAS THAT MY FIRST GENERATION PATIENTS WERE ALWAYS TRIM, NEVER HAD HEART DISEASE, PROSTATE CANCER, COLON CANCER, BREAST CANCER, RHEUMATOID ARTHRITIS, MULTIPLE SCLEROSIS, NEVER OVERWEIGHT. THEY WERE IN THEIR 80s AND 90s AND FULLY FUNCTIONAL. THEIR KIDS GOT A LITTLE FATTER, A LITTLE SICKER. THEIR GRANDKIDS IN THE NEXT GENERATION WERE JUST AS FAT AND SICK AS ANYBODY I'D EVER SEEN IN MY MEDICAL TRAINING OR ANYPLACE. SO I HAD TO ASK MYSELF, WELL, WHAT'S THE DIFFERENCE? AND WHAT CAME THROUGH CLEARLY WAS THE DIET WAS THE DIFFERENCE. THE FIRST GENERATION HAD LEARNED A DIET OF RICE AND VEGETABLES IN THEIR NATIVE LAND OF JAPAN OR CHINA OR THAILAND OR KOREA AND THE PHILIPPINES. YOU DON'T CHANGE WHAT YOU LEARN AS A CHILD, SO THEY BROUGHT THEIR DIET TO HAWAII, AND THEY CONTINUED TO EAT RICE AND VEGETABLES, A TINY BIT OF CHICKEN, A TINY BIT OF FISH AT MOST. NO DAIRY.

BUT THE KIDS, THEY CAME UNDER WESTERN INFLUENCE, AND THEY STARTED TO GIVE UP THE RICE AND REPLACE IT WITH THE ANIMAL FOODS, THE DAIRY PRODUCTS, THE MEATS, AND THE RESULTS WERE OBVIOUS. THEY GOT FAT AND SICK. SO I KNEW AT THAT POINT WHAT CAUSED MOST DISEASES. ANYBODY CAN GO TO THE LIBRARY AND LOOK UP THE TREATMENT OF HEART DISEASE WITH ANGIOPLASTY OR BYPASS SURGERY OR THE TREATMENT OF DIABETES WITH AGGRESSIVE USE OF INSULIN OR DIABETIC PILLS. AND YOU SEE THAT WE'RE KILLING THESE PEOPLE, AND THERE IS NOT A PERSON, NOT A DOCTOR, NOT A SCIENTIST, THAT COULD ARGUE OTHERWISE, BECAUSE THE FACTS ARE ABSOLUTELY CLEAR, BUT THERE'S A BLINDFOLD HERE, AND THAT BLINDFOLD IS FULL OF DOLLAR BILLS, BECAUSE THAT'S HOW YOU MAKE THE MONEY. AND NOT ONLY IS THAT PART OF THE PROBLEM, THAT THEY'RE DELIVERING TREATMENTS THAT HURT PEOPLE, BUT THEY DON'T DELIVER THE INFORMATION THAT WOULD PREVENT THEIR PROBLEMS AND CURE THEIR DISEASE.

TYPE 2 DIABETES, EVERYBODY KNOWS– YOU WILL NOT FIND A SCIENTIST, AN INVESTIGATOR, A DOCTOR WHO'S WELL-READ, WHO WILL TELL YOU OTHERWISE THAN TYPE 2 DIABETES IS CAUSED BY EATING RICH FOODS, TOO MANY CALORIES, GETTING FAT, EATING TOO MUCH FAT, THAT'S HOW YOU GET TYPE 2 DIABETES. AND IF THAT SAME RESEARCHER, THAT SAME EXPERT, WOULD BE WILLING TO TAKE THE NEXT STEP, THEY WOULD SAY, "WELL, IF YOU DIDN'T DO THAT, THEY'D BE CURED." THEY'RE 100% CURABLE. THE SAME THING WITH ARTERY DISEASE THAT CLOGS YOUR ARTERIES AND YOUR HEART. NOW, EVERYBODY KNOWS THIS IS THE CONSEQUENCE OF SHOVELING FAT AND CHOLESTEROL INTO YOUR ARTERIES WITH YOUR FORK AND SPOON. EVERYBODY KNOWS IT. SO WHY ARE THE PATIENTS NOT GIVEN THIS INFORMATION? VERY SIMPLE, IT'S NOT IN THE PRACTICE OF MEDICINE. IF YOU LOOKED BACK THROUGH RECORDED HISTORY OR YOU LOOK EVEN TODAY– YOU GOT TO LOOK QUICK BECAUSE IT'S DISAPPEARING– WHAT YOU WILL FIND IS ALL SUCCESSFUL LARGE POPULATIONS OF PEOPLE IN ALL OF RECORDED HISTORY HAVE LIVED ON STARCH-BASED DIETS.

THAT WASN'T A MISTAKE. THAT'S BECAUSE THAT'S THE DIET OF THE HUMAN BEING. FOR EXAMPLE, IF I ASK YOU TO REMEMBER THROUGH YOUR HISTORY WHAT AZTECS AND MAYANS ATE, YOU'D GO, "THE PEOPLE OF CORN. THEY ATE CORN." OF COURSE, THEY ATE CORN. THAT WAS THEIR DIET. IT WAS CORN. HOW ABOUT THE INCAS, WHO LIVED IN THE ANDES? WHAT'D THEY EAT? "OH, THOSE WERE THE PEOPLE THAT ATE POTATOES." WELL, OKAY, HOW ABOUT THE MIDDLE EAST? WHAT'D THEY EAT IN THE MIDDLE EAST? WELL, THEY ATE CORN, TOO, BUT IT WASN'T MAIZE, LIKE THE PEOPLE IN CENTRAL AMERICA. CORN TO THEM WAS VARIOUS KINDS OF GRAINS LIKE WHEAT AND BARLEY, BUT THEY CALLED IT CORN. THEY LIVED ON GRAIN-BASED DIETS. WELL, HOW ABOUT THE PEOPLE IN ASIA? MOST PEOPLE CAN GET THIS ONE. HOW ABOUT THE PEOPLE IN ASIA? WHAT DO THEY EAT? "WELL, THEY LIVE ON RICE.

" AND SO YOU GO THROUGH YOUR HISTORY OR EVEN THE PRESENT WORLD TODAY, MAYBE 50% OF THE WORLD STILL GETS MOST OF THEIR CALORIES FROM STARCH. PEOPLE MUST GET THIS CONCEPT, BECAUSE WHAT HAPPENS IS THIS. THEY WANT TO DO BETTER. THEY WANT TO GET HEALTHIER, AND THEY START THINKING, WELL, I'LL EAT MORE VEGETABLES. AND THEY FOCUS ON BROCCOLI, CAULIFLOWER, SPROUTS, PEA PODS, CARROTS, AND AFTER A COUPLE OF DAYS, THEY GO, "I'M GONNA STARVE TO DEATH." AND YOU WILL STARVE TO DEATH. THERE AREN'T ENOUGH CALORIES IN THESE GREEN AND YELLOW VEGETABLE FOODS. THESE ARE FINE AS PERIPHERAL PARTS OF THE DIET, BUT YOU MUST HAVE THE STARCH. YOU MUST HAVE THE RICE, THE CORN, THE POTATOES, THE SWEET POTATOES, THE BARLEY. YOU MUST HAVE STARCH AS THE CENTER BECAUSE THIS IS HIGH-CALORIE VEGETABLE FOOD. YOU NEED THAT ENERGY. YOU MUST HAVE THAT ENERGY TO WORK, TO DEFEND YOUR COMMUNITY.

YOU MUST HAVE THE ENERGY. OKAY. SO IT HAS TO BE STARCH-BASED, OTHERWISE, YOU'RE NOT SATISFIED, YOU WON'T STICK WITH IT. YOU WON'T GET THE HEALING QUALITIES YOU'RE LOOKING FOR. PLUS, UNLESS THE WHOLE WORLD GETS THE IDEA OF A STARCH-BASED DIET, THEY'RE GONNA BE STILL TRYING TO GET THEIR CALORIES FROM WHAT'S DESTROYING THE PLANET, WHICH IS THE ANIMAL FOOD-BASED DIET. WHEN PEOPLE START THINKING ABOUT A STARCH-BASED DIET, THE INITIAL REACTION, AS I SAID, IS ONE OF MISUNDERSTANDING, OF MAYBE A LITTLE BIT OF REPULSION. BUT THEN WHEN YOU START SAYING THINGS, "WELL, WHAT DO YOU REALLY LIKE TO EAT?" AND THEY'LL SAY, "POTATOES. I DON'T LIKE VEGETABLES, BUT I WANT POTATOES." AND THEY'LL START TO DESCRIBE IT AS COMFORT FOOD. OR YOU TALK TO SOMEBODY WHO'S HAD A MORE ASIAN-TYPE BACKGROUND, WHAT IS YOUR COMFORT FOOD? "WELL, RICE, RICE." SO PEOPLE INNATELY LIKE STARCHES. THEY'VE JUST BEEN TAUGHT NOT TO ENJOY THEM, EVEN THOUGH THEY DO.

THEY'RE TAUGHT THAT STARCHES MAKE YOU FAT. OF COURSE, THAT'S WHY THERE ARE 1.73 BILLION FAT ASIANS LIVING ON RICE. AND THEN YOU START TRANSLATING INTO THINGS THAT THEY LIKE, AND THIS IS REALLY IMPORTANT. YOU START TELLING THEM ABOUT SPAGHETTI AND MARINARA SAUCE AND BEAN BURRITOS AND MOO SHU VEGETABLES OVER RICE, AND ALL OF A SUDDEN, IT BECOMES FAMILIAR. AND ONCE THEY INTERNALIZE THIS, THEN THEY'RE COMPLETELY SET FREE. EVERYTHING WORKS FOR THEM IN TERMS OF FOLLOWING A HEALTHY MEAL PLAN. FREE OILS CAUSE CHANGES IN THE BODY. FREE OILS, FOR EXAMPLE, YOUR "GOOD" FATS, THE OMEGA 3 FATS, THESE FREE FATS WILL SUPPRESS THE IMMUNE SYSTEM AND WILL DECREASE ARTHRITIS. YOU CAN GIVE THEM TO RHEUMATOID ARTHRITIS PATIENTS, AND THEY WILL HAVE LESS PAIN.

IT SUPPRESSES THE IMMUNE SYSTEM, BUT IT'S NOT SPECIFIC JUST FOR ARTHRITIS. IT SUPPRESSES ALL THE IMMUNE SYSTEM– THE IMMUNE SYSTEM THAT FIGHTS CANCER, THE IMMUNE SYSTEM THAT FIGHTS INFECTION. SO AS A CONSEQUENCE, WHEN YOU EAT THESE OILS, WHAT HAPPENS IS YOU INCREASE YOUR RISK OF CANCER AND RATE OF CANCER GROWTH. YOU INCREASE YOUR RISK OF INFECTION. THE OTHER THINGS THAT OILS DO IS– THE PURPOSE OF OIL, THE PURPOSE OF FAT, AND OIL IS JUST LIQUID FAT– THE PURPOSE OF FAT IS TO PROVIDE CALORIES FOR THE DAY WHEN THERE'S NO CALORIES AVAILABLE. IT'S THE METABOLIC DOLLAR, FAT IS, THAT'S STORED IN THE BANK, BODY FAT, FOR THE DAY WHEN NO FOOD'S AVAILABLE, WHICH SOMEHOW NEVER SEEMS TO COME. SO IF YOU'RE GOING TO EAT OIL– CORN OIL, FISH OIL, FLAXSEED OIL, OLIVE OIL– WHAT HAPPENS IS THE BODY IS GONNA DO WHAT IT'S SUPPOSED TO DO WITH IT. IT'S GONNA MOVE IT FROM YOUR FORK AND SPOON INTO THE STORAGE DEPOT. THE FAT YOU EAT IS THE FAT YOU WEAR. I THINK IT'S THE WORST FOOD THAT PEOPLE EAT FOR TWO REASONS.

ONE, DAIRY IS BASICALLY LIQUID MEAT. EVERYBODY KNOWS MEAT'S BAD, BEEF'S BAD. BEEF'S BAD BECAUSE IT'S FULL OF FAT AND CHOLESTEROL AND ANIMAL PROTEIN CONTAMINATION. WELL, IF YOU LOOK AT CHEESE, IT HAS ESSENTIALLY THE SAME MACRONUTRIENTS AS A BEEFSTEAK DOES. YOU KNOW, SAME AMOUNT OF FAT, SAME AMOUNT OF CHOLESTEROL, SAME NO DIETARY FIBER, SAME LACK OF VITAMIN C, SAME CONTAMINATION PROBLEMS. BASICALLY LIQUID MEAT. ADD TO THAT THE FACT THAT THE DAIRY PROTEIN HAS SOME UNIQUE QUALITIES TO IT THAT HURT PEOPLE EVEN MORE, LIKE IT'S THE NUMBER ONE CAUSE OF FOOD ALLERGY. IT ALSO CAUSES SERIOUS AUTOIMMUNE DISEASES LIKE RHEUMATOID ARTHRITIS. MULTIPLE SCLEROSIS IS PROBABLY INVOLVED WITH DAIRY PRODUCTS. LUPUS, GLOMERULONEPHRITIS. SO YOU'VE GOT THESE SPECIAL QUALITIES OF THE DAIRY PROTEIN, BUT I THINK PROBABLY THE MOST IMPORTANT REASON TO HIT HARD ON DAIRY IS BECAUSE SO MANY PEOPLE BELIEVE IT'S HEALTH FOOD.

THEY SIT DOWN TO THIS BLOCK OF YELLOW FAT, THEY GO, "MMM, HELP MY BONES, MMM, HELP MY BONES." NO, YOU NEED TO UNDERSTAND THAT'S A BLOCK OF YELLOW FAT AND CHOLESTEROL. THE RESEARCH SAYS THAT THESE SUPPLEMENTS, FOLIC ACID, YOUR ANTIOXIDANTS, YOUR VITAMIN Es, THESE THINGS INCREASE YOUR RISK OF DYING, HAVING HEART DISEASE AND CANCER. THIS IS ABSOLUTELY CLEAR. WHAT SOME SMART SCIENTIST DOES SITTING IN A TOWER– VERY, VERY WEALTHY TOWER– IS THEY DECIDE THEY'RE GONNA IMPROVE ON MOTHER NATURE. SO THEY TAKE THAT ORANGE OR THAT ASPARAGUS, AND THEY SUCK THE NUTRIENTS OUT, AND THEY CONCENTRATE A NUTRIENT, LIKE VITAMIN E OR BETA-CAROTENE, AND THEY CONCENTRATE IT AND PUT THOUSANDS OF TIMES MORE THAN WOULD BE IN THE FRUIT OR VEGETABLE, AND THEY ISOLATE IT, SO THERE'S NONE OF THE OTHER STUFF IN THERE THAT'S SUPPOSED TO GO INTO THE BODY WITH THE FRUIT AND VEGETABLE, AND THEN THEY FEED IT TO PEOPLE.

AND THIS HIGH CONCENTRATION OF NUTRIENTS GOES THROUGH THE GUT, INTO THE BLOODSTREAM, INTO THE CELLS, FLOATS AROUND IN CYTOPLASM, AND SEES THESE RECEPTORS AND STARTS STICKING TO ALL THESE RECEPTORS. AND WHAT HAPPENS IS, THERE'S NO ROOM FOR THE OTHER STUFF THAT'S SUPPOSED TO BE WORKING TO ATTACH TO THE RECEPTORS AND DO THE JOB, SO YOU CREATE THESE IMBALANCES WITHIN THE CELLS. AND AS A CONSEQUENCE, BECAUSE OF THE IMBALANCES YOU'VE CREATED BY FLOODING THESE RECEPTORS WITH THESE ISOLATED CONCENTRATED NUTRIENTS THAT ARE SOLD IN THESE PILLS, YOU END UP CREATING DISEASE, AND THAT'S WHY THE RESEARCH, UNCONTESTED, SHOWS THAT IF YOU TAKE THESE ISOLATED, CONCENTRATED NUTRIENTS, YOU WILL INCREASE YOUR RISK OF DYING, HAVING HEART DISEASE AND CANCER, PERIOD. THE TRUTH OF THE MATTER IS IS B12 DEFICIENCY IS EXTREMELY RARE, MAYBE ONE IN A MILLION, MAYBE ONE IN 10 MILLION PEOPLE WHO DON'T EAT ANIMAL FOODS IN THEIR DIET. MOST B12 DEFICIENCY IS CAUSED BY DAMAGE TO THE GUT, AND THEN IT IS COMMON, AND WE SEE THAT A LOT AS DOCTORS.

THE WAY I'VE DECIDED TO DEAL WITH THIS IS, I DIDN'T WANT TO HAVE THIS AS A BATTLEFRONT. SINCE MY FIRST WRITINGS, AND TODAY IN ALL MY BOOKS, ALL MY DVDS, ANY TYPE OF PUBLIC ISSUANCE I HAVE, I TELL PEOPLE, IF THEY'RE GONNA BE ON MY PROGRAM FOR MORE THAN THREE YEARS– IT TAKES ABOUT 20 YEARS TO RUN OUT OF B12– BUT FOR MORE THAN THREE YEARS OR IF THEY'RE PREGNANT OR NURSING A BABY, THEY'RE TO TAKE A SUPPLEMENT OF B12. IT'S NONTOXIC, AS FAR AS I KNOW, B12 IS. AND IT GETS RID OF THE ISSUE, AND THAT'S THE WAY I'VE DEALT WITH IT, AND I DO MAKE THAT RECOMMENDATION WITH SOME SERIOUSNESS. IT'S IN ALL OF MY WRITINGS. IT TAKES AND PUTS ME IN A POSITION WHERE THERE'S NOT A SINGLE THING THAT YOU CAN SCIENTIFICALLY CRITICIZE THE DIET I RECOMMEND ON. IT'S DONE.

IF YOU ARE A HEALER, YOU'RE A DOCTOR, AND YOU'RE FRUSTRATED BEING A DOCTOR, IT'S NOT BECAUSE YOU'RE A BAD DOCTOR. IT'S BECAUSE YOU'VE BEEN GIVEN THE WRONG TOOLS. YOU WANT TO HAVE FUN IN MEDICINE? YOU WANT TO HAVE A GREAT DAY? YOU WANT TO LOOK FORWARD TO GOING TO THE OFFICE? JUST CHANGE THE TOOLS. USE THE TOOL THAT FIXES THE PROBLEM. THE PROBLEM IS THE FOOD. THE FOOD IS THE PROBLEM. IT'S THE FOOD. YOU GOT TO FIX THE FOOD. YOU FIX THE FOOD, YOUR PATIENTS WILL DO WELL. A MUSCLE IS A MUSCLE IS A MUSCLE, AND YOU'RE GONNA GET BASICALLY THE SAME HEALTH EFFECTS WHETHER YOU SWITCH FROM BEEF MUSCLE TO FISH MUSCLE. THE DIFFERENCE IS GOING TO BE NOT MUCH, NOT PERCEPTIBLE. WHEN YOU EAT MUSCLES, YOU EAT A FOOD THAT'S HIGH IN PROTEIN OR FAT, AND PROTEIN AND FAT ARE BOTH TOXIC TO THE SYSTEM WHEN YOU EAT EXCESSES, PARTICULARLY ANIMAL PROTEINS. YOU EAT A FOOD THAT HAS NO DIETARY FIBER, SO YOU'RE AT LEAST GOING TO GET CONSTIPATED.

AND THESE ANIMALS, BECAUSE THEY EAT HIGH ON THE FOOD CHAIN, THEY'RE LOADED WITH CONTAMINATION. IN FACT, ONE OF THE MOST SERIOUS CONTAMINATIONS, AND IT MAY BE THE SALVATION OF THE FISH, IS METHYLMERCURY. NOW, THEY SAY FISH IS GOOD FOR YOU BECAUSE IT HAS THIS GOOD FISH FAT, OMEGA 3 FATS, WHICH THIN THE BLOOD SO THAT IF YOU POP A PIMPLE IN ONE OF YOUR ARTERIES, YOU'RE LESS LIKELY TO GET BLOOD CLOT TO FORM. ALL RIGHT, THERE'S SOME TRUTH TO THAT. BUT YOU THIN THE BLOOD, WHAT HAPPENS IF YOU GET IN AN AUTO ACCIDENT OR YOU GET A BAD NOSEBLEED? YOU COULD BLEED TO DEATH. YOU TAKE A DRUG, YOU GET THE GOOD WITH THE BAD. SO TAKING FISH FAT INCREASES YOUR RISK OF BLEEDING. FISH AND FISH FAT, THESE GOOD FATS, WHAT HAPPENS IS THEY SUPPRESS THE IMMUNE SYSTEM. THAT'S WHY THE JOINTS ARE LESS INFLAMED, BECAUSE THEY'RE AN IMMUNOSUPPRESSANT, AN IMMUNE SYSTEM SUPPRESSANT, NOT BECAUSE THEY OIL THE JOINTS. THEY SUPPRESS THE IMMUNE SYSTEM. WELL, YOU SUPPRESS ALL THE IMMUNE SYSTEM, SO YOU INCREASE YOUR RISK OF CANCER AND INFECTIOUS DISEASES.

THE ISSUE ON HEART DISEASE AS FAR AS THINNING THE BLOOD, IF YOU TAKE AND YOU REVIEW THE STUDIES, AND THIS HAS BEEN DONE BY MAJOR SCIENTIFIC ORGANIZATIONS, WHAT YOU FIND, IF YOU OVERALL LOOK AT THE IMPACT OF FISH ON SOMEBODY'S RISK OF HEART DISEASE, IT ACTUALLY SHOWS THAT FISH DOES NOT REDUCE THE RISK OF HEART DISEASE. NOW, WHAT DR. SWANK SHOWED AND PUBLISHED IN 1991 AND OTHER RESEARCH ARTICLES IS, IF YOU TAKE PEOPLE WITH MULTIPLE SCLEROSIS AND YOU PUT THEM ON A LOW-ANIMAL-FAT DIET, THAT OVER A 35-YEAR PERIOD OF TIME, LESS THAN 5% OF THEM DETERIORATE. PUBLISHED, UNCONTESTED. UNCONTESTED. BUT, UNFORTUNATELY, IF YOU GO TO THE MS SOCIETY OR YOU GO TO A NEUROLOGIST– MOST OF THEM, THERE ARE A FEW EXCEPTIONS– AND YOU BRING UP THIS INFORMATION, THEY'LL SAY, "OH, THAT'S JUST QUACKERY. "THAT'S NOT PROVEN. WE DIDN'T DO "A PLACEBO-CONTROLLED RANDOMIZED TRIAL ON THAT, SO IT CAN'T BE TRUE." WE'RE TAKING ONE GROUP OF MS PATIENTS AND PUTTING THEM ON A HEALTHY DIET, WHICH IS OUR DIET, AND ANOTHER GROUP AND LEAVING THEM TO THEIR OWN MEANS, AND WE'RE GONNA SEE WHAT HAPPENS TO THEM OVER SIX MONTHS, 12 MONTHS, 24 MONTHS. AND I BELIEVE WE'LL SHOW THE SAME THING DR.

SWANK SHOWED, AND THAT IS YOU STOP THIS DISEASE WITH A HEALTHY DIET. SO IT'S EXCITING. PEOPLE ASK ME, THEY SAY, "WELL, WHY DID YOU TAKE ALL THAT MONEY AND DO IT– "YOU KNOW, TREAT MULTIPLE SCLEROSIS? "WHY DIDN'T YOU TREAT SOMETHING LIKE HEART DISEASE OR CONSTIPATION OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT?" AND MY ANSWER IS… IS I WANTED TO TAKE THE BIGGEST ROCK I COULD FIND AND THROW IT AT THE BIGGEST PICTURE WINDOW IN TOWN, BECAUSE PEOPLE ARE GONNA STEP BACK, AND THEY'RE GONNA SAY, "WHOA, IF YOU CAN STOP THAT DISEASE, "THAT MUCH OF A MYSTERY TO SCIENCE, "IF YOU CAN STOP THAT WITH FOOD, YOU COULD PROBABLY STOP ANYTHING." SAY YOU GOT 100 SUBJECTS, AND WITHOUT TREATMENT, TWO GET BAD– THEY HAVE A STROKE– AND WITH TREATMENT, ONLY ONE HAS A STROKE. WELL, THAT'S ONE IN 100 VERSUS TWO IN 100, WHICH IS NOT MUCH DIFFERENCE.

BUT IF YOU JUST TAKE A LOOK AT THE ONE AND THE TWO, THAT'S A 50% REDUCTION, AND THAT'S A RELATIVE BENEFIT. SO THAT'S THE WAY IT'S BEEN REPORTED TO PATIENTS. SO YOU GO IN AND SEE YOUR DOCTOR AND YOU HAVE THINNING BONES, SO TO SPEAK, OSTEOPOROSIS. THE DOCTOR SAYS, "YOU KNOW, IF YOU DON'T TAKE THIS DRUG, "THIS PHOSPHONATE DRUG, MEDICATION–" FOSAMAX, ACTONEL, BONIVA, THOSE KINDS OF THINGS– "YOUR RISK OF HAVING A FRACTURE IS DOUBLED. "YOU CAN CUT YOUR RISK OF FRACTURE NEARLY IN HALF BY TAKING THESE DRUGS." WELL, THAT'S THE RELATIVE BENEFIT, BUT THE ABSOLUTE BENEFIT IS ONLY 1.7% OVER FOUR YEARS OF TIME, SO THEY LIE. THE MAJOR STUDIES DONE ON THE DIETARY TREATMENT OF PEOPLE WITH BREAST CANCER OR THE PREVENTION OF BREAST CANCER HAVE BEEN USELESS. THEY HAVE BASICALLY TAKEN AND TAUGHT A DIET, A REASONABLE, MODERATE, PRUDENT DIET THAT IS STILL A VERY SICKLY VERSION OF THE AMERICAN DIET, TO ONE GROUP AND LEFT THE OTHER GROUP ON THE REGULAR OLD SICKLY AMERICAN DIET, AND THEY GOT MINIMAL RESULTS.

AND SO IT'S ADVERTISED THAT DIET DOES NOTHING TO PREVENT OR TO CURE BREAST CANCER. THEY NEVER TESTED IT. THEY DON'T HAVE THE GUTS, SO TO SPEAK, TO TEST IT. WHAT YOU REALLY NEED TO DO IS YOU NEED TO TAKE A DIET WHERE BREAST CANCER IS UNKNOWN, LIKE USED TO BE IN ASIAN COUNTRIES. VIRTUALLY UNKNOWN, A STARCH-BASED DIET WITH FRUITS AND VEGETABLES. YOU NEED TO TAKE THAT DIET, THE DIET THAT I TEACH, AND YOU NEED TO TAKE AND PUT A GROUP OF WOMEN ON THAT DIET, AND YOU NEED TO TAKE ANOTHER GROUP OF WOMEN, WHO EITHER ARE INTENDED TO PREVENT BREAST CANCER OR ALREADY HAVE BREAST CANCER, AND LEAVE THEM ON THE AMERICAN DIET AND SEE WHAT HAPPENS. TO MOST DOCTORS, THAT'S, UH… THAT'S UNREASONABLE. THAT'S TOO MUCH TO ASK OF A WOMAN, TO ASK HER TO CHANGE TO OATMEAL AND HASH BROWN POTATOES AND BEAN BURRITOS AND MINESTRONE SOUP. BUT WHAT WILL WOMEN DO TO KEEP THEIR BREASTS AND TO STAY ALIVE? WOMEN WILL CHECK THEIR BREASTS EVERY DAY AND WORRY ABOUT THE RESULTS. WOMEN WILL GO TO A DOCTOR AT LEAST ONCE A YEAR AND HAVE THAT MALE DOCTOR CHECK HER BREASTS. WOMEN WILL HAVE THEIR BREASTS SQUEEZED BETWEEN MAMMOGRAM STEEL JAWS TO PREVENT BREAST CANCER.

THAT'S WHAT WOMEN WILL DO. AND WOMEN WILL GO SO FAR AS TO HAVE CUTS IN THEIR BREASTS MADE CALLED BIOPSIES. THEY'LL HAVE BIG CHUNKS OF THEIR BREASTS TAKEN OUT. THEY'LL HAVE THE WHOLE BREAST AMPUTATED. THEY'LL HAVE THE NODES TAKEN OUT OF THE ARMPIT ON THAT SIDE. THEY WILL HAVE RADIATION TO THEIR SKIN AND CHEST, WHICH WILL INCREASE THE RISK OF DYING OF HEART DISEASE. THEY WILL TAKE ANTI-ESTROGEN DRUGS, AND THEY WILL TAKE CHEMOTHERAPY THAT'LL MAKE THEIR HAIR FALL OUT AND MAKE THEM THROW UP FOR A YEAR. BUT… "THEY WON'T EAT BEAN SOUP. THAT'S TOO MUCH TO ASK." IF YOU ARE EATING SOME VERSION OF THE STANDARD AMERICAN DIET– TOO MUCH FAT, TOO MUCH ANIMAL PROTEIN, DAIRY FOODS, REFINED FOODS, JUNK FOODS, YOU'RE A CAFFEINE JUNKIE– SOONER OR LATER, SOMETHING IS GOING TO GO WRONG. IT'S NOT IF, IT'S WHEN AND WHAT. AND I'VE NEVER HAD ANYBODY IN MY OFFICE EVER IN ALL THE TIME I'VE BEEN DOING THIS THAT HAS SAID TO ME, "WELL, YOU KNOW, I GOT THIS AUTOIMMUNE DISEASE, "BUT I'LL TELL YOU WHAT, "ALL THE BROWNIES AND CHEESEBURGERS I HAD, I MEAN, IT WAS SO WORTH IT TO ME." NOBODY SAYS THAT.

SO IF YOU DON'T WANT THAT TO HAPPEN TO YOU, YOU NEED TO DO THE RIGHT THING STARTING NOW. AND THE OTHER THING IS THAT SOMETIMES YOU DON'T EVEN GET THAT OPPORTUNITY. I MEAN, THE FIRST SIGN OF HEART DISEASE 40% OF THE TIME IS DEATH. WELL, PRETTY MUCH THAT'S THE END OF EVERYTHING. YOU DON'T GET TO CHANGE YOUR DIET, YOU DON'T GET A SECOND CHANCE. SO WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE STATISTICS, THERE ARE VERY GOOD REASONS, COMPELLING REASONS, FOR PEOPLE TO DO SOMETHING BEFORE THEY GET SICK. WE HAD A LOT OF PEOPLE WHO, THEY'VE HAD THE FIRST BLOOD TEST WHERE THEIR CHOLESTEROL IS ELEVATED. THEY'RE GOING, "WOW," YOU KNOW, "I'M 31. I GUESS I'D BETTER DO SOMETHING ABOUT THIS," YOU KNOW. AND SO THEIR BIOMARKERS BECOME NORMAL. WE HAD A LOT OF PEOPLE WHO THE ONLY THING WRONG WITH THEM, AND, AGAIN, BECAUSE THEY HAVE YOUTH ON THEIR SIDE, IS WEIGHT, SO THEY BECOME NORMAL WEIGHT. ENERGY IMPROVES.

YOU KNOW, I CAN DO MORE THAN PEOPLE HALF MY AGE. AND SO, YOU KNOW, TO WATCH SOMEBODY WHO'S 26 AND ASLEEP HALF THE TIME BECOME AWAKE AND ACTIVE 18 HOURS A DAY IS BIG. THEIR COMPLEXION IMPROVES. YOU KNOW, THEY BECOME BRIGHT-EYED AND ENERGETIC, AND THEIR COGNITIVE FUNCTION IMPROVES. I MEAN, YOUR BRAIN IS THE BIGGEST USER OF CARBOHYDRATE, WATER, AND OXYGEN, SO YOU START EXERCISING AND EATING AND DRINKING WELL, AMAZING HOW MUCH BETTER YOU THINK. SO THE CHANGES ARE MAYBE A LITTLE MORE SUBTLE, BUT THEY'RE NOT TO BE DISCOUNTED, BECAUSE PEOPLE DON'T LIKE BEING TIRED. THEY DON'T LIKE BEING OVERWEIGHT. THEY DON'T LIKE HAVING GRAY SKIN. THEY DON'T LIKE BEING ASLEEP AT THEIR DESK AT 2:00 IN THE AFTERNOON. SO THOSE ARE IMPORTANT CHANGES, TOO. WE SEE SO MANY FEDERAL AGENCIES HAVING AN INSTITUTIONAL CONFLICT OF INTEREST. THEY'RE SUPPOSED TO DO ONE THING AND ANOTHER THING, AND THEY CAN'T DO BOTH WELL. AND SO WHAT WE HAVE WITH THE USDA IS IT'S REALLY A FARMER'S ADVOCACY ORGANIZATION. AND, OKAY, LET'S HAVE ONE. BUT THAT SAME GROUP CANNOT ADVOCATE FOR FARMERS, HELP SUBSIDIZE THEIR OPERATIONS, MANAGE COMMODITY FOODS, SUBSIDIZE THE PRICE OF GROWING THINGS, AND THEN TURN AROUND AND SAY, "OKAY, WE'RE GONNA TELL PEOPLE WHAT TO EAT.

" THEY'RE GONNA TELL PEOPLE WHAT TO EAT BASED ON THEIR CONSTITUENTS, WHICH ARE THE FARMERS, NOT THE AMERICAN PUBLIC. SO WE SIMPLY NEED TO HAVE A DIFFERENT GOVERNMENT ORGANIZATION, IF THE GOVERNMENT IS INDEED GOING TO COME UP WITH NUTRITIONAL RECOMMENDATIONS. I'M STARTING TO QUESTION WHETHER OR NOT THAT'S EVEN A GOOD IDEA. I HAVE NEVER SEEN ANYTHING GOOD COME OUT OF IT. THERE ARE THREE THINGS THAT CREATURES DO, AND THAT IS THEY SEEK PLEASANT THINGS, OR WHAT WE CALL PLEASURE, AND PRIMARILY TWO THINGS ARE THE CAUSE OF THAT. AND THOSE TWO THINGS ARE FOOD AND SEX. SO IN THE CASE OF A GREAT WHITE SHARK, IT'S BASICALLY GOT A NEON SIGN FLASHING ACROSS ITS FOREHEAD SAYING, "FOOD, SEX, FOOD, SEX, FOOD, SEX." THAT'S WHAT IT DOES, UNLESS IT'S A MALE, THEN IT SAYS "SEX, FOOD, SEX, FOOD," BUT IT'S PRETTY MUCH THE SAME THING. THE, UM… IT ALSO NEEDS TO AVOID PAIN, SO IT HAS SIGNALS FROM ITS BODY THAT TELL IT WHEN THERE'S BEEN A RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN ITSELF AND ITS ENVIRONMENT WHICH IS NOT GOOD.

SO, FOR EXAMPLE, IF THE WATER'S A LITTLE TOO DIRTY, IT'LL MOVE TO WHERE IT'S CLEANER. IF IT'S A LITTLE TOO COLD, IT'LL MOVE TO WHERE IT'S WARMER. IF IT SCRAPES ITSELF ON SOME FIRE CORAL, IT'LL MOVE AWAY FROM THAT AREA OF THE OCEAN. IT HAS A LOT OF VERY SOPHISTICATED METHODS TO TELL IT WHEN ITS RELATIONSHIP TO THE ENVIRONMENT IS NOT GOOD. THAT'S PAIN. SO THIS THING IS SEEKING PLEASURE AND AVOIDING PAIN. IT HASN'T BEEN UNTIL COMPARATIVELY RECENTLY THAT WE UNDERSTOOD THERE WAS A THIRD MAJOR COMPONENT OF MOTIVATION THAT HELPS US UNDERSTAND THINGS. ALL WE HAD TO DO IS ASK THE QUESTION RIGHT. IF THAT GREAT WHITE SHARK IS HUNGRY, AND THERE'S A TUNA FLOPPING IN THE WATER 20 FEET AWAY AND ANOTHER TUNA FLOPPING IN THE WATER 40 FEET AWAY, WHICH ONE DOES IT GO FOR? EVERY GRADE SCHOOL KID THAT I ASK THIS QUESTION KNOWS. HE OR SHE WILL SAY, "WELL, 20 FEET AWAY, THE CLOSER ONE." AND THEN WE JUST ASK WHY. AND THE ANSWER IS, "WELL, IT'S EASIER," AND THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT IT IS. AND MORE FORMALLY, WHAT THIS IS IS THE LAW OF ENERGY CONSERVATION, THAT ANIMALS MUST, BY NATURE OF HOW THEY'RE BUILT CHEMICALLY, THEY HAVE TO FIGURE OUT HOW TO GET A LOT OF CHEMICALS FOR A LITTLE CHEMICAL OUTPUT.

BASICALLY, LITTLE CHEMICAL BUSINESSES IS WHAT A LIFE FORM IS, AND SO IT HAS TO OBEY THIS LAW THAT SAYS GET THE MOST FOR THE LEAST, WHICH MEANS CONSERVE ITS ENERGY. SO PLEASURE-SEEKING, PAIN AVOIDANCE, AND ENERGY CONSERVATION ARE WHAT WE CALL THE MOTIVATIONAL TRIAD, AND THAT REALLY SUMS UP ANIMAL BEHAVIOR, WHETHER WE'RE TALKING ABOUT A PARAMECIUM UNDER A MICROSCOPE OR A GREAT WHITE SHARK. WHAT THE PLEASURE TRAP IS IS AN INTERACTION BETWEEN OUR NATURAL INSTINCTS, WHICH ARE TRYING TO TELL US THE RIGHT THING TO DO, AND SOME KIND OF ARTIFICIAL MODERN STIMULATION THAT IS PIGGY-BACKING OR HIJACKING THAT PROCESS. SO THE CLASSIC EXAMPLE OF THE PLEASURE TRAP WOULD BE DRUGS AND DRUG ADDICTION OR ALCOHOL ADDICTION. THESE ARE WAYS THAT WE HAVE FOUND, IN OUR GREAT HUMAN INGENUITY, WE'VE FOUND CHEMICALS THAT, IF WE PUT THEM IN US, THEY WILL CAUSE THE MIND TO SAY, "THIS IS REALLY GOOD.

THIS IS A GREAT BIOLOGICAL SUCCESS." THIS IS OBVIOUSLY DANGEROUS STUFF, AND IT'S A PROBLEM, AND THERE'S REALLY NO WAY TO GET AROUND THE ISSUE THAT WE'RE SUSCEPTIBLE TO THESE THINGS. OUR PLEASURE CENTERS AND OUR SENSITIVITY TO CERTAIN KINDS OF STIMULATION IS NATURAL. WE NEED IT. IT'S CRITICAL GUIDANCE FOR US. IT'S OUR INTERNAL COMPASS. THAT INTERNAL COMPASS CAN BE LED ASTRAY BY ARTIFICIAL THINGS THAT HUMAN BEINGS HAVE CREATED. YOU SEE THIS NOT JUST IN PEOPLE, BUT YOU SEE IT ALSO IN ANIMAL LIFE, AND IT'S VERY EASY TO SEE IT. SO A MOTH ON YOUR BACK PORCH THAT SPENDS ITS NIGHT RUNNING INTO YOUR LIGHT, YOUR PORCH LIGHT, AND GETS EXHAUSTED AND DISORIENTED IN THE PROCESS, THAT'S A MOTH THAT IS IN THE PLEASURE TRAP. IT'S BEING GOADED TO FLY TO THE LIGHT, BECAUSE THEY'RE DESIGNED TO FLY TO THE MOON AT NIGHT.

AND BY DOING SO, THEY FLY UP, THEY CAN'T GET TO THE MOON, AND THEN THEY GET UP ABOVE THE FRAY, AND THEY CAN GET CHEMICAL SENSITIVITY TO MATES OR FOOD, AND THEN THEY FLY DOWN TO THOSE MATES OR FOOD, AND THEY CAN THEN REVERSE THIS PROCESS AND USE THE MOON AS A COMPASS TO FLY BACK TO WHERE IT IS THAT THEY CAME FROM. FRUIT TYPICALLY HAS ABOUT 300 CALORIES A POUND. AND SO A GIVEN APPLE, IF IT'S HALF A POUND, IT MIGHT HAVE 150 CALORIES IN IT IF IT'S A BIG APPLE. AND SO IF IT TOOK 15 BITES TO EAT THAT APPLE, IT WOULD BE ABOUT 10 CALORIES IN A BITE. SO YOU CAN TASTE THAT 10 CALORIES, AND IF IT WAS NOT A VERY RIPE APPLE, YOU WOULDN'T BE TOO IMPRESSED WITH IT, AND YOU REALLY WOULDN'T WANT TO EAT IT. BUT IF YOU CAME OUT HERE A LITTLE WHILE LATER, AND THAT APPLE WERE A LITTLE RICHER, JUST A LITTLE BIT HIGHER SUGAR CONTENT, IT MIGHT BE A 330-CALORIE-A-POUND APPLE.

SO THAT APPLE MIGHT BE JUST 10% MORE CONCENTRATED, SO THAT BITE THAT YOU HAD WOULDN'T BE 10 CALORIES, IT WOULD BE 11, AND YOU WOULD BE MUCH MORE MOTIVATED TO EAT THAT APPLE. YOU'D LIKE IT A LOT. SO YOUR TASTE SENSITIVITY IS SO SENSITIVE THAT IT CAN EASILY PICK UP THE DIFFERENCE IN ONE CALORIE IN A BITE. NOW, IF THAT'S TRUE, AND THE REASON WHY THAT'S TRUE IS BECAUSE YOUR NATURAL HISTORY SAID, "10 CALORIES IN A BITE, TOO SOUR. "NOT ENOUGH SUGAR CONTENT, "NOT GOOD ENOUGH, NOT WORTH EATING. "FIND SOMETHING BETTER. "AND SO KEEP PICKING, PICK A DIFFERENT ONE. PICK ONE THAT'S A LITTLE DIFFERENT IN COLOR." AND SO WE PICK ONE THAT'S A LITTLE DIFFERENT IN COLOR AND TAKE A BITE, 11 CALORIES IN THAT BITE, AND YOU LIKE IT, AND YOU'RE MOTIVATED TO CONTINUE. IF WE'RE MOTIVATED BEHIND THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN ONE CALORIE IN A BITE, THEN YOU CAN IMAGINE THAT WHEN I HAVE A CHOCOLATE APPLE.

.. THAT'S NOT 300 CALORIES A POUND OR 330 CALORIES A POUND. IT'S 3,000 CALORIES A POUND, IT'S 10 TIMES THE CALORIC DENSITY, 10 TIMES THE ENERGY PER BITE. SO NOW WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT 10 CALORIES OR 11 CALORIES. WE'RE TALKING ABOUT 100 CALORIES. SO YOU CAN ONLY IMAGINE WHAT HAPPENS TO THE NEUROCHEMISTRY. IF IT'S EXCITED ABOUT THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN 10 CALORIES AND 11 CALORIES, WHAT HAPPENS WHEN WE GO FROM 11 CALORIES TO 100 CALORIES? AND THAT'S HOW THE TRAP IS SET. WHAT WE'VE SIMPLY DONE TO THE FOOD IS THIS. WE'VE REMOVED THE FIBER, WE'VE REMOVED THE WATER, WE'VE REMOVED THE MINERALS. WE'VE DONE EVERYTHING THAT WE CAN TO HYPERCONCENTRATE SUGAR AND FAT AND ADD A BUNCH OF SALT AS WELL INTO THE FOOD. NOW WHAT WE HAVE IS BASICALLY DENATURED DRUGS. THEY KEEP PEOPLE ALIVE, AND WE STRUGGLE ALONG, AND THE PROBLEMS GENERALLY DON'T SHOW UP TILL MIDDLE AGE. BUT WHEN THEY DO, THEY'RE VERY DIFFICULT TO DEAL WITH, AND THEY ARE, IN FACT, THE GREAT ROBBERY OF HEALTH AND HAPPINESS IN THE MODERN WORLD. THERE'S AN AREA OF OUR BRAIN CALLED THE DOPAMINE PATHWAY, AND THERE ARE PLEASURE BUTTONS OR PLEASURE CENTERS IN THE BRAIN THAT, WHEN CERTAIN CHEMICALS HIT THOSE AREAS, THEY CAUSE RUSHES OF DOPAMINE OR ENDORPHINS THAT CAUSE FEELINGS OF EUPHORIA AND EXCITEMENT.

THESE PLEASURE CENTERS IN OUR MINDS CAN BE HIJACKED BY ANYTHING THAT IS MORE CONCENTRATED OR MORE POTENT THAN WAS SUPPOSED TO BE THERE IN OUR HISTORY. THESE WERE DISCOVERED ACCIDENTALLY BY NEUROLOGY RESEARCHERS WHO WERE POKING AROUND IN A BRAIN. AND WHEN THEY POKED AROUND– THIS WAS ACTUALLY IN A RODENT'S BRAIN. WHEN THEY POKED AROUND IN THAT BRAIN AND THEY HIT THIS CERTAIN AREA, THE RODENTS GOT INCREDIBLY EXCITED, AND THEY WOULD DO WHATEVER IT WAS THAT THEY WERE JUST DOING BEFORE THAT ELECTRODE HIT THAT AREA. SO IF THEY WERE SCRATCHING THEIR LEFT FOOT AND YOU HIT THAT AREA, THEY'D SCRATCH THEIR LEFT FOOT LIKE CRAZY. IF THEY WERE WINKING WITH THEIR LEFT EYE ACCIDENTALLY, AND YOU HIT THE PLEASURE CENTERS OF THE BRAIN, THEY WOULD WINK THAT LEFT EYE LIKE CRAZY. THEY WOULD DO WHATEVER IT WAS THAT IMMEDIATELY PRECEDED THE RUSH OF THAT PLEASURE CENTER, AND THESE WERE FANTASTIC DISCOVERIES IN NEUROSCIENCE. DON'T THINK THAT THIS WENT UNNOTICED BY THE TOBACCO COMPANIES.

THEY ARE VERY SOPHISTICATED RESEARCHERS IN NEUROSCIENCE. THEY KNOW EXACTLY HOW TO HIT THE PLEASURE CENTERS OF THE BRAIN. AND THOSE TOBACCO COMPANIES THEN WENT ON TO PURCHASE MAJOR FOOD COMPANIES IN THE UNITED STATES, WHERE THEY THEN CONTINUED IN THE 1980s AND 1990s THIS RESEARCH ABOUT HOW TO BANG THE PLEASURE CENTERS OF THE HUMAN MIND AS EFFECTIVELY AS THEY POSSIBLY COULD. SO IF IT SEEMS TO YOU THAT THE FOOD SUPPLY AND HUMAN BEHAVIOR HAS GOTTEN MORE DESTRUCTIVE OVER THE LAST 20 YEARS, IT HAS, AND THERE'S NO ACCIDENT. THERE'S TREMENDOUS COMPETITIVE FINANCIAL INTERESTS TO SURVIVE AND TO THRIVE AS COMPANIES BY DOING WHAT IT TAKES TO BANG THESE PLEASURE CENTERS INSIDE OF HUMAN BEINGS, AND THEY'RE DOING IT, AND THEY'RE DOING IT BRILLIANTLY. BUILT INTO US ARE SOME PRETTY GOOD COMPUTATIONAL EQUIPMENT THAT MOTIVATES US TO EAT ENOUGH, BUT THEN STOPS WHEN WE'VE HAD ENOUGH.

THE WHOLE PICTURE IS WHAT WE COULD CALL SATIETY OR SATIATION MECHANISMS. ONE OF THE PRIMARY METHODS ARE THE STRETCH RECEPTORS, WHICH ARE SIMPLY A METHOD TO SEE WHETHER OR NOT WE'VE HAD KIND OF ENOUGH BULK, WHETHER THE AMOUNT OF FOOD THAT WE'VE EATEN IS CONSISTENT WITH OUR PERSONAL SIZE. AND SO IT'S SIMPLY, HOW STRETCHED OUT IS YOUR STOMACH WHEN YOU EAT? BUT THAT'S NOT ENOUGH, BECAUSE IF NATURE RELIED JUST ON THAT, WE'D HAVE A PROBLEM THAT, IF YOU GOT HUNGRY, YOU COULD JUST GO OUT AND EAT A BUNCH OF GRASS, AND YOU COULD FILL THAT UP, AND YOU'D FEEL FINE AND YOU'D FEEL FULL. BUT IN FACT, YOU CAN'T GET ANY CALORIES OUT OF THAT GRASS, AND SO YOU'D STARVE TO DEATH. SO NATURE DID SOMETHING ELSE, WHICH WAS TO IMBED NUTRIENT RECEPTORS INTO OUR DIGESTIVE TRACT TO TELL US WHAT IS THE MACRONUTRIENT CONTENT OF THAT FOOD– HOW MUCH CARBOHYDRATE, HOW MUCH FAT, HOW MUCH PROTEIN– TO TRY TO GET A SENSE OF HOW MANY CALORIES PER POUND. WE HAVE BOTH KINDS OF RECEPTORS IN THERE COUNTING THE AMOUNT AND COUNTING WHAT.

AND BETWEEN THOSE TWO THINGS, THEY CAN GIVE AN ACCURATE COUNT AND LET US KNOW WHEN WE'VE HAD ENOUGH TO EAT. WE'VE GOT AN EPIDEMIC OF WEIGHT PROBLEMS AND OF OBESITY UNLIKE THIS COUNTRY HAS EVER SEEN, AND THERE'S A REASON FOR IT. IT ISN'T THAT PEOPLE HAVE BECOME MORE SELF-INDULGENT. IT ISN'T BECAUSE THEY'RE LAZIER THAN THEY EVER WERE. THAT'S NOT WHAT'S HAPPENING. WHAT'S HAPPENING IS THEIR MECHANISMS OF SATIATION ARE BEING FOOLED. I CAN DO THIS WITH HUMAN BEINGS, I COULD DO IT WITH RATS, I COULD DO IT WITH RACCOONS, I COULD DO IT WITH HORSES. YOU GIVE ME A SPECIES. ALL I NEED TO DO IS TO MAKE THE FOOD MORE CONCENTRATED THAN THE FOOD WAS OF ITS NATURAL HISTORY. IF I DO THAT, IT WILL SYSTEMATICALLY OVEREAT, BECAUSE OF ITS RELIANCE PARTICULARLY ON STRETCH RECEPTORS TO TRY TO FIGURE OUT WHEN IT'S HAD ENOUGH. WHAT WE'VE DONE WITH THE MODERN FOOD IS WE'VE MADE IT SMALLER.

WE'VE TAKEN THE SAME AMOUNT OF CALORIES, AND BY PULLING THE FIBER OUT, WHICH HAS NO CALORIES IN IT, WE'VE SIMPLY MADE THE FOOD MORE CONCENTRATED. SO IF YOU TAKE AN APPLE AND YOU JUICE IT, YOU CAN GET BASICALLY ALL THE CALORIES OUT OF THAT APPLE, AND THAT APPLE JUICE GLASS IS NOW A LOT SMALLER THAN THAT APPLE. IF I TAKE THAT APPLE JUICE, AND I PUT IT OUT ON A PAN AND LET THE SUN BAKE IT, AND I GET SOME CRYSTALLINE SUGAR, I CAN TAKE ALL THE CALORIES IN THAT APPLE, AND I COULD PUT IN A COUPLE OF TABLESPOONS, WHICH IS FAR SMALLER THAN THAN THAT APPLE. I CAN TAKE WHAT WAS A 300-CALORIE-A-POUND APPLE AND DISTILL IT DOWN TO AN 1,800-CALORIE-A-POUND FRUCTOSE SUGAR. SO I CAN GO SIX TO ONE ON THE CONCENTRATION OF THAT FOOD. THAT'S WHAT WE'VE DONE WITH THE FOOD.

THAT APPLE SUGAR THAT WE GOT IS FAR TASTIER THAN THE APPLE, BECAUSE THE CALORIES HAVE BEEN CONCENTRATED AND DISTILLED, AND WHEN IT HITS THOSE PLEASURE RECEPTORS ON THE TONGUE THAT ARE DESIGNED TO TRY TO FIGURE OUT WHETHER THAT APPLE WAS RIPE, WE'VE NOW OVERWHELMED THOSE RECEPTORS WITH A SIX-TO-ONE SHOT. PEOPLE LOVE IT, THEY EAT TO SATIATION ON IT, AND WHAT THEY WIND UP EATING IS FAR MORE FOOD THAN THEY NEEDED. UNFORTUNATELY, IF YOU'RE EATING FOOD THAT IS HYPERCONCENTRATED, THAT'S TWO OR THREE TIMES MORE CONCENTRATED AS IT'S SUPPOSED TO BE BY NATURE, THEN WHAT WILL HAPPEN IS YOU WILL OVEREAT, AND YOU'LL OVEREAT SUBSTANTIALLY, AND THAT IS THE PROBLEM OF– THAT IS THE PROBLEM OF WEIGHT CONTROL. PORTION CONTROL IS A… IS A TRAGIC METHOD TO TRY TO DEAL WITH THIS PROBLEM. IT'S ALL ABOUT TRYING TO GRIND YOUR TEETH AND PUSH YOURSELF AWAY FROM THE TABLE BEFORE YOU'RE READY AND TO TRY TO BE A GOOD GIRL OR A GOOD BOY SO THAT YOU'LL LOSE A LITTLE WEIGHT. THIS IS JUST TORTURE. WE WOULD NEVER DO THIS KNOWINGLY TO ANY ANIMAL OR CHILD OR ANYBODY ELSE, BUT THIS IS THE ONLY SOLUTION THAT PEOPLE CAN FIGURE OUT.

THAT'S BECAUSE THEY'RE BEING LED DOWN THE WRONG PATH BY PEOPLE THAT EITHER DON'T KNOW OR DON'T WANT THEM TO KNOW WHAT THE TRUTH IS. THE TRUTH IS, YOU NEED TO EAT FOODS THAT ARE CONSISTENT WITH YOUR NATURAL HISTORY. IF YOU DO THAT, YOU CAN HAVE AS MUCH AS YOU WANT, WHENEVER YOU WANT. IT WON'T MATTER. THERE'S NO CALORIES TO BE COUNTED ANY MORE THAN THE BILLIONS UPON BILLIONS OF OTHER CREATURES OUT HERE ON THE PLANET THAT NEVER COUNT A CALORIE AND EAT AS MUCH AS THEY WANT. PEOPLE STRUGGLE WITH THE PLEASURE DROP, BECAUSE WHEN THEY GO FROM HIGHLY CONCENTRATED FOOD, HIGHLY CONCENTRATED FOOD IS MORE STIMULATING. IT TASTES BETTER, IT OPERATES MORE PLEASURE CENTERS. OF COURSE IT DOES, FOR THE SAME REASON THAT A… THAT A NON-RIPE APPLE WILL NOT HAVE AS MUCH POTENCY ON OUR PLEASURE CENTERS AS A RIPE APPLE.

IT'S BUILT THAT WAY. IT'S BUILT FOR YOUR SURVIVAL TO TELL YOU THERE'S MORE CALORIES INSIDE. THAT SAME PROBLEM EXISTS, OR THE SAME SYSTEM EXISTS WHEN YOU EAT MORE CONCENTRATED FOOD. WE LIKE THE CONCENTRATED FOOD BETTER. THAT'S HOW IT WORKS. THAT'S A SURVIVAL MECHANISM. OUR ENERGY CONSERVATION SYSTEM IS REACHING ACROSS EVOLUTIONARY TIME RIGHT INTO OUR PREFERENCES OF THE MODERN WORLD TELLING US, "THAT FOOD'S BETTER. "IT'S GOT MORE CALORIES. THAT'S MORE ENERGY PER BITE. EAT THAT." IF WE'RE FORTUNATE ENOUGH TO GET THE DIRECTION TO ACTUALLY FIND THE RIGHT WAY TO GO TO CHANGE OUR DIETARY HABITS SO THAT WE CAN IMPROVE OUR HEALTH, THE PROBLEM IS WHEN WE DO THAT, OUR FIRST EXPERIENCES WITH HEALTHY FOOD WILL BE "BLAH.

" IT'S NOT AS TASTY. IT'S NOT AS CONCENTRATED. IT'S NOT AS EXCITING. THIS CAN'T BE RIGHT. MY OWN FATHER, COMING OUT OF A BYPASS SURGERY THAT HE NEVER SHOULD HAVE HAD, BUT HE GOT ANYWAY, AND I FINALLY TOOK HIM HOME AND I SAID, "WELL, DAD, YOU KNOW, YOU'VE DONE IT YOUR WAY, "AND WE HAD A HEART ATTACK, "AND YOU'RE IN TROUBLE, AND YOU BARELY SURVIVED. "NOW WE'RE GONNA DO IT THIS WAY, "AND WE'RE GONNA DO "WHAT DR. ESSELSTYN OR DR. McDOUGALL WOULD SAY. THIS IS WHAT WE'RE GONNA DO." AND HE AGREED, AND HE SAT DOWN, AND I GAVE IT MY BEST SHOT, AND WE SAT DOWN, AND HE STARTED EATING, AND AFTER ABOUT 30 SECONDS, HE LOOKED UP AND ME AND HE SAID, "KID, I GOTTA TELL YOU THAT IF I HAVE TO EAT THIS WAY, I THINK I'D RATHER BE DEAD." AND THAT WAS BECAUSE HIS PLEASURE CENTERS WERE TELLING HIM, "THIS CAN'T BE RIGHT. THIS ISN'T ENOUGH PLEASURE.

" HE COULDN'T UNDERSTAND THAT HE WOULD CHANGE. HEALTH IS IN FACT THE LINCHPIN UPON WHICH ALL OF OUR LIVES ARE BASED, THAT WE NEED TO GET AN "A" IN HEALTH, AND WE GET AN "A" IN HEALTH BY GOING THE DIRECTION OF PEOPLE LIKE COLIN CAMPBELL, JOHN McDOUGALL, DEAN ORNISH, CALDWELL ESSELSTYN, ALAN GOLDHAMER, JOEL FUHRMAN. THESE ARE THE GIANTS AND OTHERS–NEAL BARNARD– IN OUR MODERN AGE WHO HAVE BLAZED A TRAIL FOR US TO LET US KNOW WHAT TO DO SO THAT WE CAN TAKE CHARGE OF OUR OWN LIVES AND LIVE THE LIFE THAT WE DESERVE. ERECTILE DYSFUNCTION IS ACTUALLY THE FIRST CLINICAL INDICATOR OF GENERALIZED CARDIOVASCULAR DISEASE. SO…CARDIOVAS– AND WHAT WE'VE FOUND IS THAT THE RISK FACTORS FOR ERECTILE DYSFUNCTION WERE THE SAME AS THEY WERE FOR STROKE, WERE THE SAME AS THEY WERE FOR HEART DISEASE, WERE THE SAME AS THEY WERE FOR EVERYTHING ELSE, BECAUSE INSIDE THE PENIS, YOU HAVE THE HIGHEST PER CROSS-SECTIONAL AREA OF SPECIALIZED CELLS CALLED ENDOTHELIAL CELLS. AND ENDOTHELIAL CELLS ARE WHAT ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE INITIATION OF INCREASED BLOOD FLOW AND STORAGE OF BLOOD IN THE PENIS TO CREATE AN ERECTION.

AND THE DISEASES THAT DAMAGE THE ENDOTHELIAL CELLS WERE DIABETES, HIGH BLOOD PRESSURE, ELEVATED CHOLESTEROL, AND THINGS OF THAT NATURE. SO IF YOU WANTED TO DECREASE YOUR CHOLESTEROL, AND THE GUIDELINES ARE VERY CLEAR THAT THE FIRST THING YOU NEED TO DO BEFORE GOING ON MEDICINE IS DO WHAT'S CALLED TOTAL LIFESTYLE CHANGE. AND TOTAL LIFESTYLE CHANGE MEANS ELIMINATING OR SEVERELY REDUCING THOSE ITEMS IN YOUR DIET THAT CONTAIN CHOLESTEROL, SO THAT WOULD BE MEAT AND MEAT BYPRODUCTS. IF YOU HAVE VASCULAR DISEASE ANYWHERE, YOU HAVE IT EVERYWHERE. AND WHAT WE WAIT FOR ARE WHAT ARE CALLED SYMPTOMS, BUT YOU DON'T HAVE SYMPTOMS UNTIL YOU HAVE SEVERE VASCULAR DISEASE. SO EARLY ON, AND THAT'S WHAT WE CALL ERECTILE DYSFUNCTION, IT'S THE CANARY IN THE COAL MINE. IT'S THE THING THAT LETS YOU KNOW THAT YOU HAVE SOME SIGNIFICANT ENDOTHELIAL AND VASCULAR OR BLOOD VESSEL DISEASE MUCH EARLIER THAN WILL A HEART ATTACK OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT WILL, BECAUSE, OFTENTIMES, THE FIRST SIGN OF THE HEART PROBLEM MIGHT BE A FATAL HEART ATTACK.

FIRST OF ALL, THE DIETS ARE CALORIE-RICH AND NUTRIENT-POOR. THIS IS THE REAL PROBLEM. AND, UNFORTUNATELY, POOR PEOPLE ARE POOR IN EVERYTHING. THEY'RE POOR IN HEALTH, THEY'RE POOR IN FOOD CHOICES, THEY'RE POOR IN ALMOST EVERY ASPECT YOU COULD THINK OF. IF YOU OVERLAY CANCER INCIDENCE OR LOW BIRTH WEIGHTS OR TAKE ANY NUMBER THAT YOU COULD THINK OF AND OVERLAID IT OVER POVERTY, YOU'D FIND THAT THE HIGHEST CONCENTRATIONS WOULD BE IN THE AREAS WITH THE MOST POVERTY, FOR THE MOST PART. IT ACTUALLY ISN'T MORE EXPENSIVE. I DON'T KNOW THE LAST TIME YOU COMPARED THE PRICE OF A BAG OF BEANS WITH A RIB-EYE STEAK. WHEREVER I'VE GONE, I'VE ALWAYS SEEN THE BAG OF BEANS WIN. AND MANY OF US, PARTICULARLY IN MY GENERATION, AS I'M NEAR 60 YEARS OLD, GREW UP IN… I GREW UP IN A FAMILY WHERE WE DIDN'T HAVE MEAT EVERY DAY.

YOU JUST COULDN'T AFFORD IT. YOU ARE YOUR SINGLE MOST IMPORTANT INVESTMENT. WHY WOULD YOU SPEND MORE TIME CONCERNED ABOUT YOUR HOUSE VALUE OR YOUR CAR OR YOUR CLOTHES OR YOUR JEWELRY WHEN YOU ARE THE KEY THAT MAKES THAT ENGINE RUN. WITHOUT YOUR HEALTH, YOU REALLY HAVE ABSOLUTELY NOTHING. SO THESE ARE SOME SIMPLE THINGS THAT YOU CAN DO TO BE CERTAIN THAT ALL THE YEARS THAT YOU HAVE ON THIS PLANET ARE AS MANY AS YOU COULD POSSIBLY NUMBER. AND THE WAY TO DO THAT IS YOU HAVE TWO CHOICES: YOU CAN EAT YOURSELF INTO POOR HEALTH AND EARLY DEATH, OR YOU CAN EAT YOURSELF INTO GOOD HEALTH AND A LONG, HEALTHY LIFE. AND THAT ROAD IS ON A PLANT-CENTERED DIETARY PATTERN, EXERCISE, BUT NOT ONLY EATING GOOD PHYSICAL FOOD, BUT ALSO HAVING GOOD MENTAL FOOD, RESTING, DOING THE SIMPLE THINGS. THIS ISN'T HARD..