 Hey, thanks a lot. It's awesome to be at another AHS. So obviously, we're talking about a subject matter here that has the potential to probably raise a few hackles, I imagine, and I assure you that's not my intention at all, although I do think that this is a legitimate question, and I do think that there is a legitimate answer, as you'll see. Now, here's the caveat. The following information is not necessarily what you might call or what might be widely embraced by this community as PC, paleo-correct, so to speak. I mean, I fully recognize that what you're about to hear is not necessarily representative of the popular viewpoint in this neck of the woods. Hopefully, that's OK with you, and you guys are willing to suspend disbelief a little bit. And while I sort of step out on a limb and propose an alternative viewpoint that I realize has a potential to maybe upset a few Apple cards, but I'll try to be gentle. Now, I assure you it's not my intention to provoke upset or murder any sacred cows. I assure you this is anything but a publicity stunt. That's not my MO, and it never has been, and it's, and I'm not about to start now. So I do hope you're going to find this interesting and thought-provoking, though. It's an idea that I believe whose time has come. So aren't we all different, right? Isn't that kind of the... This is sort of the PC battle cry for dietary diversity. The concept of bio-individuality to justify a wide range of differences and preferences. Too many of us, I think, have bought into the idea that everybody's different, and that's, you know, as though somebody were stating some sort of deep, you know, rational and solemn truth, some deep wisdom, and therefore Ergo, where being a vegetarian works for me, it might not work for you, or being a sugar burner works for me, it might not work for you. Yes, we are technically omnivores, and some of us are able to kind of get away with some things better than others, but by no means does this imply that all foods that we're capable of consuming are all equally optimal for us, or that we somehow need to consume a little bit of everything to be optimally healthy. Variety, in some respects, is really good. Certainly our microbiome likes variety, especially when we're talking about fibrous vegetables and greens, but by no means implies anything and everything goes with respect to our likes and preferences if we want to be optimally healthy in the world today where health compromises are hitting us from all sides and easily exceed whatever health-promoting influences there might be. Now, you know, we seem to kind of, you know, rationalize every indulgence with this sort of other pseudo-wisdom of everything in moderation. Why everybody sort of silently nods their heads in reverent agreement every time that they hear that phrase spoken is sort of beyond me. I mean, really? I mean, in my mind, it's not so much wisdom as it is politics and maybe wishful thinking. How much of anything metabolically dysregulating or inflammatory or disruptive to your endocrine and immune system or even potentially autoimmune provoking, do you want to enjoy in moderation? I'm just saying. So are you really that completely healthy and symptom-free? And if you're lucky enough or young enough to say yes, do you really think it's always going to be that way? It's an almost unavoidable fact that we all will choose moments of some compromise in life, but I think these moments need to be chosen really carefully and very consciously and I think they need to be compensated for as much as humanly possible. And some compromises, especially in light of the dangerous autoimmune epidemic, for instance, should never ever be made at all by anyone, case and point gluten, you know, but I'm preaching to the choir with that one. And yes, it is possible, by the way, to enjoy what you eat and also do the right things. That eating for joy does not necessarily mean a little bit of everything goes. So getting to the first important point here that needs to be made, there isn't a separate anatomy and physiology book for everybody sitting in this room. There are fundamental principles of anatomy and physiology that apply to each and every one of us as human beings. And from there, we extrapolate from nuances and polymorphisms, but those nuances don't necessarily change the solidly established foundations that we all share in common. Now, we each certainly have unique fingerprints, right? But we all have fingers. And as human beings, we're all way more alike than we are unalike. And we're all the same species. I mean, we're even the same race for Christ's sake, you know, the human race. We need to start acting like it. Little bit of an aside, but, you know, and we're all bound by the same fundamental anatomical and physiological laws. So there isn't a lot of wiggle room here. Not certainly not as much as we'd like to think. We all share, for instance, a hydrochloric acid-based digestive tract that's designed to make optimal use of animal source foods, including animal fats, by the way, you know, and not a fermentative-based digestive tract that's designed to make optimal use of plant foods. We can certainly make some use of plant foods. We can eat them, we can benefit from them as omnivores, but they can't supply us with absolutely everything, you know, that we need to be optimally healthy on their own. It's just, we're not designed that way. There isn't a different digestive design between any one person or another in this room. We're all physiologically have the same complement of digestive juices, mainly hydrochloric acid and pepsin, you know, and then digestive pancreatic enzymes. And we're all supposed to have gallbladders to help us digest fats and fat-soluble nutrients. We all have the same basic skeletal structure in tissues, hormones, glands, neurotransmitters. We all share the same kinds of organs. We have the same type of unique brain that, you know, although some clearly, you know, work better than others, but unless something important's been amputated, we all share the same complement of appendages that work in roughly the same way, some of which are apparently, you know, which are admittedly gender-specific, but we all have a blood pH that ranges very narrowly between 7.35 and 7.45, or else, all of us. We all have and rely upon these minute intracellular burning factories known as mitochondria that make up close to 10% of our total body weight they're so numerous. And our cells all make energy through something called the Krebs cycle, you know, citric acid, tricarboxylic acid cycle, you know, that breaks down fat and or glucose for generating ATP that fuels our human machinery. We all require the same ranges of macronutrients. We all need complete source protein. We all need a significant amount and a variety of quality dietary fats some that really need to be from animal source foods and, you know, fat soluble nutrients that and certain essential fatty acids that simply cannot be gotten from plant-based foods in order for us to be optimally healthy. And I am not saying we should not eat plants far from it, not at all. But the fact is that there is no human alive for whom carbohydrates are dietarily foundationally essential. And therefore, there can be no such thing as a sugar-starch deficiency in anyone. There is, I mean, there's no denying that. There are those that like to debate this, certainly. But within the actual science of human physiology there really isn't any debate. So all the same foundations are foundational for all of us in an extremely basic way and the rest is all nuance. So I pulled this from the 2010 dietary guidelines for Americans, Food and Nutrition Information Center, Center for Nutrition Policy and Promotion from the United States Department of Agriculture of all places. This is as mainstream as it gets, folks. This is not a quote by Robert Atkins or anyone else biased toward low-carb genre. You know, the lower limit of dietary carbohydrate compatible with life apparently is zero, provided that adequate amounts of protein and fat are consumed. So, I mean, the National Research Council hasn't even established an RDA for carbohydrates probably because the human body can readily adapt to a carbohydrate-free diet and manufacture all the glucose that it needs. So, I'm sure most of you remember this guy. Weston A. Price, you know, he doesn't come up too often in the paleo sphere, but probably should. He was a legitimate scientist and researcher. He supplied us with a unique body of information that would not have been possible at any other time in history, and by the way, will never be possible ever again. I'm assuming, you know, most of you know who he is and what he's accomplished, but I'll just touch upon a couple of things in case somebody here is not familiar with his work. Weston Price was formerly the president of what used to be called the National Dental Association. Now, this was, you know, prior to the advent of the dark days of fluoride, back in on the 1920s and 30s, and he was also a bit of an anthropologist. He was profoundly interested in researching what he understood as the purportedly superior physical and dental health of people in primitive societies that were still, you know, thriving over a good part of the planet. He noticed that the teeth of the children of a lot of the older patients were showing a lot of problems. They were showing like severe dental decay, abnormalities and malocclusions, and he was not used to seeing, and he had this hypothesis that this had something to do with the relatively recent industrialization of the food supply. So he set out to travel the world over a period of 10 years to exhaustively research this hypothesis himself. And during that time, you know, in the early 1930s, dry throat, Colorado, you know, where he traveled the world, over 100,000 miles worth of travel, by the way, in search of answers about nutrition and physical degeneration, right? And how this related to primitive versus modern life and health. We just developed air travel that allowed us to penetrate a wide variety of remote areas that were previously very, very difficult for us to reach. You know, especially when we're talking about, you know, getting to multiple locations in a relatively short period of time. This was unique, it was new. And at the same time, there were still numerous neolithic primitive cultures that were thriving and also a few remote and isolated post-agricultural traditional societies that were still doing things the way they had done them generations prior to the advent of industrialization. This carved out a truly unique opportunity in all of human history to make the observations that Wesson Price made. We owe him a lot for that. His body of research reveals things that otherwise would have been completely lost to history and loose speculation. His meticulous scientific approach and exhaustive detailed analysis of the data that he collected on his journeys, you know, resulted in a textbook that for years was required reading in Harvard anthropology classes. His work was absolutely still, is absolutely still incredibly important and relevant today. And even though it might sound like old news to some folks. So, his very first passion was primitive people groups. And in some ways, one could argue that Wesson Price was the very first paleo guy. Okay? And I, of course, say somebody that I know would be totally rolling over in their grave right now if they were dead, that is. But this was undeniably his greatest passion and interest, right? It's what drove his tireless and honest search for deeper answers. His pictures in so many ways say so much more than words ever could. His photographs, you know, today curated by the Price-Pottinger Nutrition Foundation, which we should all be supporting by the way. You know, it's curated by their archives. And they're absolutely extraordinary. So, he also extensively examined prehistoric skeletal remains wherever possible in his travels. And I mean, and look at these skulls. It's kind of amazing. The sheer uniform perfection, you know, of the skull morphology here is absolutely, it just kind of almost leaves you breathless, really. And it's something very rarely seen today. Interestingly, most any paleoanthropologists worth their salt can look at a set of human remains and tell you whether these remains belong to pre-agriculture or post-agricultural human strictly based on the health and morphology of that schedule, skeleton, excuse me. And it's robustness, it's bone density, the uniform morphological perfection or the lack of perhaps thereof. Also, the presence of visible birth defects were very, very telling, you know, in this regard. Post-agricultural skeletons also showed clear signs of bone mineral deficiencies, abnormalities, plus dental disease and malocclusions. No one needed an orthodontist prior to those days or even a regular dentist, you know, for that matter. Now, he also studied some traditional post-agricultural groups. Now these folks all seem to be doing pretty well also. What distinguished these groups from the more primitive groups with a notable exception of the Maasai was their incorporation of post-agricultural foods into their diets. So some of these foods were traditionally prepared in a way that supposedly, you know, made them a bit less harmful and easier to digest, although the fact is that no human can actually digest gluten. And today we know that all gluten exposure is to some degree harmful for everyone, but I digress. At the very least, no one owned a toothbrush and most of these folks seemed to be able to hang onto most of their teeth, so, you know, good deal. And among the many people groups that Wesson Price studied, few impressed him more than the Inuit. They had the lowest rate of dental disease of any culture that he studied, which was a prime criteria for overall health in his view, and they exhibited extraordinary physical robustness while also demonstrating the most exceptional disposition and character of any people group that he studied. So Wesson Price himself said, and I quote, in his primitive state, he has provided an example of physical excellence and dental perfection such as seldom been excelled by any race in the past or present. We are also deeply concerned to know the formula of his nutrition in order that we may learn from the secrets that will not only aid in the unfortunate modern or so-called civilized races, but will also, if possible, provide a means for assisting in their preservation. And unfortunately, you know, the ship of manifest destiny has since sailed on the healthy so-called primitive Inuit in their way of life that Wesson Price encountered are long gone. You know, it's a genocidal tragedy. So what were the dietary inclusions that Wesson Price observed among healthy, primitive, and traditional cultures, just to kind of whip through them a little bit? It was quite a mix. You had raw milk products, including cheese, cream, and butter, sourdough, rye bread, some meat, seafood, some meat, milk, and oat cakes, no veggies, you know, or not much for veggies. Raw cooked meat, seafood, fish eggs, organs, bone marrow, seal oil, blubber, about 80% fat calorically. Few, if any, plant foods. Pork fish, pork fish, not pork fish, but pork fish, shellfish, fruits, tubers, vegetable matter, and coconuts. Raw goat milk, seafood, organ meats, insects, rice, and beans. Relatively widely common miscellaneous foods included things like eggs, honey, reptiles, rotting foods, fermented foods, and beverages. You know, it was quite a mix. Oh, and I should probably, you know, keep doing that. So, without question, price observed an incredibly wide range of diets that seemed to result in really good health that led many to assume that optimal health was achievable through a wide range of dietary practices as long as the name of the game was jerf, right? Just eat real food. Well, I would like to humbly propose another way of looking at this. So, the assumption that comes to mind with the aforementioned idea seems to suggest that all natural-sourced foods are somehow more or less equally optimal or at least health-promoting for us. There really is no rational basis for this assumption. Rather than focusing on the enormous variety of foods that might, you know, quote, might have a role to play in the relative health of these people groups, what if instead we distilled everything down to the common denominators between them? Western Price also made another critical observation that in my mind reveals a much bigger implication amidst this enormous range of dietary preferences and foods available to all of the cultures throughout the world, whether people were living in deserts, jungles, rich, fertile landscapes, you know, or polar regions, there were two basic principles that were true for all of them. So, human diets weren't just willy-nilly jerf, right? All primitive and or traditional diets resulting in excellent health had two things in common. They all consumed as many animal-sourced foods as were available to them, none were vegetarian or vegan. He looked hard to find that, he couldn't find it. And number two, in every single culture, the most venerated and coveted foods have all contained extremely high levels of fat and fat-soluble nutrients every time. And there in I think lies a key foundational message. If we distill this down to these two most common denominators, we simply need to consider the following. Out of all the highly varied dietary practices that Weston Price studied that seemed to meet every single criteria for apparent, robust physical and mental health, which people group ate a diet having the fewest moving parts? In other words, which diets applied the fewest types of foods clearly resulting in optimal health benefits meeting his two universal criteria? Drum roll, please. Without question, the answer is the innuent. I know you guys saw that coming. But what did the bulk of their diet consist of? Meat, fish in that order and mostly fat with negligible carbohydrates? And with this, they once, and no, there's not glycogen in the meat, but that's a whole other debate. And with this, they once enjoyed generations of superb physical structure with robust physical and mental health. Now by no means do I conclude from this that these are the only foods any of us should be eating. That's not where I'm coming from at all, far from it. But based on this deduction, and I think it's a rational deduction, it is reasonable to conclude that their diet supplied the most foundational essentials. Now there's a key hidden foundational principle in here we can't ignore. Everything else is nuanced for better or worse. And perhaps the reason so many other cultures were able to eat and get away with certain extra dietary inclusions like natural sugar, starches, grains, et cetera, had less to do with those dietary inclusions being good or optimal foods. And more to do with the fact that their universally essential human dietary foundations were solidly in place. And the health and genome, their health and genome was robust enough to be able to withstand whatever compromises these additional, these dietary additions may have represented. So the relative balance was always seemingly toward health in these other cultures, but that was also a very different time. The fact is that the same foundations are foundational for us all in an extremely basic way. The rest is all nuance. I will go out on a limb, as I have been known to do from time to time, and say that animal fat is fundamentally meant to be the primary energy source of nourishment for each and every one of us. It's what our body stores and burns the most efficiently. Fat in general supplies at least twice the calories per gram that either protein or carbohydrate do, but it supplies at least four times more energy. And it's more even burning, clean, safe, lasting energy. It's like a form of solar energy powering our cells instead of the dirty petroleum and nuclear type fuel that sugar provides. Healthy and exclusively pastored animal fats also supply us with key fat soluble nutrients that we critically require that cannot be gotten realistically any other way. It's kind of incredible actually. It's how we were best designed. It's also interesting to point out that humans are unique among all species in the capacity of our extremely unique brains to be able to run on almost nothing but ketones. Our brains can do that. Other animals can't do that. No other animal. We need to take a hint and ponder the implications of that. There's a reason for this. Why would our brains be designed to run on practically nothing but ketones when no others in the animal kingdom can do that? Well, for one thing, our brains allocate way more of our energetic resources than the brain of any other animal species. 20 to 30% of our total energy is needed for our brains versus maybe about 8% for other primates. In light of that, it is an adaptation that makes, I think, perfect sense. So in light of the agricultural revolution, the reverse trend in human brain size also makes disturbing sense. Having gone from eating a diet that was roughly 90% animal source food in origin according to the bulk of stable isotopic data that we have available, not just prices work, to one that's today maybe 10%. Let's just say that the evolutionary trend isn't going quite as we'd hoped. And according to the authors in this research paper, human populations during the last 10,000 years have undergone rapid decreases in average brain size as measured by endocrineal volume or as estimated from linear measurements of the cranium. Now this recognition in the anthropological literature overall is actually pretty well established. You know, am I alone in finding this fact just a wee bit troubling? I wonder. So those inuit that adopted a modern diet paid a horrible price and frankly so have the rest of us. It's a genocidal tragedy. But here's something for us all to think about. None of us are living in a world where prehistoric ancestors, none of us are living in the world of our prehistoric ancestors anymore or in the world of Western price. We're all at risk. So I'm sure most of you are familiar with the work of Dr. Francis Pottinger. One of his modern day descendants actually wrote the foreword from my book, Primal Body, Primal Mind. Francis Pottinger showed what happens when you feed a compromised diet to an animal group generation after generation after generation. The cranium shrinks along with the brain volume, there's a narrowing of the skull malocclusion of the teeth, skeletal abnormalities, mental and physical health, problems, birth defects that ensue along with eventual fertility issues. And the implications for us are obvious and fairly demonstrable. We're no longer, we're no more than about a dozen generations into the industrialized food revolution and maybe in that right on the heels of 500 generations prior to that of the increasing dependence on agriculture and carbohydrate-based diets and our human genome has never been more vulnerable. And as natural selection gives away to unnatural selection, our common foundations become, I think, even more important. So in the work of Francis Pottinger, it took fully four generations of restoring a healthy foundational diet for the progeny of the cats and with a deteriorated genome to be able to recover its original health and robustness. Very good and rather remarkable message here, though, is that it is possible. So this is taken from the 2013 Global Burden of Disease study, which analyzed 35,620 sources of information on disease and injury from 188 countries between the years, 1990 and 2013. Just that span of time. What they discovered was a substantial toll of disabling disorders. This overall burden of health on health systems from 301 acute and chronic diseases and injuries, as well as 2,337 health consequences believed to be a result of one or more of these disorders. And what were the results? Well, for starters, over 95% of the world's population has health problems with over a third having more than five ailments. Wow. Now, just one in 20 people worldwide, 4.3% had no health problems in 2013. A third of the world's population, 2.3 billion individuals are experiencing more than five ailments, according to this study. I think things have improved since 2013. I doubt it. Yeah, so in the same time, there's also been the startling increase in the health. The health loss, rather, associated with diabetes, which has increased 136%, Alzheimer's disease, 92% increase, medication overuse, headache's 120% increase, and osteoarthritis is 75% increase. So the question, it begs the question, just which generation of pottingers cat are you? And what is the number one source of bankruptcy in the United States today? Surprise, a bad diagnosis. Three out of five bankruptcies in the US today are healthcare related. This is the real root of the debt crisis, folks. Since 2001, the proportion of all bankruptcies attributable to medical problems has increased by 50%. Nearly two thirds of all bankruptcies are now linked to illness. And this research was published in 2007. That was before the big crash, before the 2008 economic fallout. An American was filing super bankruptcy due to health-related debt every 90 seconds. You think it's any better today? I kinda doubt it. This was a study that was based on. So what are the selective pressures we have to face that our ancestors didn't? Just a few things off the top of my head. As I said before, we don't live in the world of our ancient ancestors anymore or in Western prices world. We're living in this world that, in my mind, is infinitely more hostile and challenging even as we have the collective illusion of modern creature comforts and conveniences. I have more to say about each of these, but I'll keep going. And anyone who doesn't think corporate greed is a selective pressure, guess again. It's the single greatest impetus leading us all toward the next great extinction event that we've got. Yeah. Thank you, I think. Anyway, so in today's world, we're literally made more toxic than we are nourished by our environment. Still think the idea of everything in moderation is a good one? Our genome is being challenged in a manner that's unprecedented in all of human history. We think we have it good in these modern times. We get to sit around in climate-controlled environments watching celebrity bloopers on TV and ordering pizza that gets delivered to our front doors or having access to other so-called convenience foods. The water we need just pours right out of our faucets. How awesome is that? And we all have soft beds to sleep in. I'm here to tell you, we've never been more screwed. We're living in a state of false complacency in these modern times and our flesh is falling off our bones like the proverbial boiling frogs that we are thinking we're all sitting in some hot tub in Vegas somewhere. If you're young or seemingly healthy, you might feel a certain laissez-faire when it comes to these issues, but eventually these issues catch up to all of us in ways that erode or ultimately destroyer quality of life. Unless we're willing to work, do the work to stay ahead of the game. Am I trying to depress you or be a major buzzkill? No, I know I can be, but no, that's not what I'm trying to do. I'm just going to point out that we all do have choices and we need to exert control over. The good news is that we do still have some control over what we eat as hard as Monsanto and the politicians that work for them are working to revoke that, right? But we live in extreme times and without the wiggle room we once, you know, that was once enjoyed by our prehistoric ancestors, our great grandparents, grandparents or even parents. Yeah, welcome to the 21st century. So as I said before, I would submit that we're no longer in the world of our prehistoric ancestors or even primitive Neolithic ancestors, much less, you know, the world of Western price. We're an advanced generation of potenters' cats. Prices, two key foundational principles are more critical for us today than ever before and they offer us critical inclusions common to all healthy humans. Whatever we add to that foundation needs to complement and not compromise it. That's the trick. Fibrous vegetables and greens help add a non-compromising nuance that's likely more important to us now than it ever used to be to our prehistoric forebears. That, you know, they provide us with this helpful variety of the extra antioxidants and unique phytonutrients and are really useful for the process of detoxification and added microbial support. All these things are really critical to us now in modern times. And again, we need to be sure that whatever else we include in our diets only supports and not compromises are most key foundational principles. So it's not the strongest of the species that survives and not the most intelligent. It's the one that is most adaptable to change and times folks, they are a change in. So what are the universally optimal foundational dietary principles we all share? How do we best optimize? Well, so number one, a diet based on naturally fed and forged animal source foods especially rich in healthy dietary fats and critical fat soluble nutrients needed for healthy gene transcription and a whole host of other things. A diet that's naturally low in utilizable sugar and starch for which there is no established human dietary requirement which is more likely to metabolically compromise and support our best health especially if you're combining that with the fats that you do not go together well. The non-compromising bonus here is a wide variety of fibers, vegetables and greens supplying a plethora of phytonutrients and prebiotics. So how do we best optimize or preserve our health as a species? We apply the same basic foundational principles price discovered, then we look to add those things that are at least likely to compromise and offer what could be a nuance of enhancement while avoiding anything that compromises it. And I think we have more than ample evidence showing that most of the foods bestowed on us by the agricultural and industrial revolutions have been more devolving than evolving of our genome and overall health. Everything in moderation, not anymore. So in conclusion, the most important thing to optimal health and to what makes us human in the first place lies not in our individual differences but in that which we all have in common. Biochemical individuality supplies the nuance but it is our common physiological design that supplies our most essential foundations which all humans share. This is where the rubber hits the road, folks. From these core principles put forth by Weston Price we have the foundational formula for the health of literally everyone in this room and fat is where it's at. Moral of the story, every day you should eat something from each of the five basic food groups, fried blubber, boiled blubber, stewed blubber, baked blubber and raw blubber. So thank you. I suspect we don't probably have much room for anything else, but. We have time for a couple of questions and I am once again going to exert my chair's privilege and ask the first one. Okay. Given the essential role of fat soluble nutrients for human health, how do you feel about the established RDAs for these nutrients? Yeah, they suck. They're a joke. You know, in Weston Price's time the fat soluble nutrient intake alone in the primitive and traditional societies that he studied that really had superb health was 10 times what the RDA is today. And it was, or actually what, 10 times what people were consuming in his time. We can only imagine, you know, what it is compared to what we're eating today, but, you know, the RDAs are kind of, you know, let's just say they're low. They're low. We need a lot more than what we're getting and I think that there's a lot of phobia around these fat soluble nutrients. People think of them as toxic because our body can actually store them somewhat. But, you know, if you really do the research, and I've got 50 pages worth on vitamin A alone on my website that I know some of you guys have probably seen, you know, not one documented case of death from overdose of vitamin A, D3K, you know, all of that. It's really kind of a joke. So, and especially if we're consuming these foods in their natural state in tandem with each other, you know, they keep each other in check. You're not going to OD on any of those things. I actually thought I was going to find some deaths attributable to people eating polar bear liver and stuff. It's a myth. Never happened. Hello. The 2007 Medical Bankruptcy Study. Yeah. 2007, pre-Obamacare, I call that. What, has there been any follow-up? Is that rate going up? Is it the same? I couldn't find any follow-up with that, but, you know, I mean, we could probably extrapolate a little bit. You know, I think it's fair to say, it's probably not getting any better. Be interesting. Yeah. Hi. So, hey, your book saved my ass. I have a, I mean, literally, a- It is a very nice ass it is. I have an autoimmune thing called Inclosing Spondylitis. Oh, yeah, yeah, yeah. So I've recovered very significantly from it. I have to say though, so after sort of going with this approach, after about 10 months, I was having a lot of co-occurring problems, and I found the jam in its work with the perfect health diet and the safe starches stuff. And I don't mean to open a can of worms here, but I- Yeah, yeah. That can's long since been opened. Yes, but I guess my curiosity is, so I have found that really helpful to include some of the safe starches in my own recovery. And, but you were talking about sort of, we don't live in Western-priced times. Right. And I'm wondering, do you see, you know, similarly, like how you see vegetables as providing some essential stuff nowadays that we might need given the depletion of other things. Do you see a role for safe starches and glucose in that? Well, I think safe starches are a bit of an oxymoron. Yeah, or glucose, and that's introducing glucose. Really, I mean, potatoes and rice, those aren't even paleo. And rice actually has the potential to be cross-reactive with gluten, even white rice, by the way. Not a safe thing. But the thing is, is that- So I mean specifically about the introduction of glucose, then, into my system through those means. So if for some reason you're doing starch and it makes you feel better, you need to figure out why that is. That what you're doing, you've found a way to use carbs palliatively to make yourself feel better. But that doesn't mean that you were deficient in carbs in the first place. I think what it implies is there's something going on for which that seems to ameliorate the symptom. But I think it's incumbent upon you to dig a little deeper to figure out what's actually underlying that. Commonly- Have you read a new book to help me? Well, you know, well, actually, we'll just stick around till the first of the year. So that very commonly, you know, adrenal issues, you know, particularly like adrenal autoimmunity could be something underlying. I mean, I don't know. There are a number of things that could be potentially at play. I think it's really important to dig deeper to figure out what that is. Because the fact that carbs help is no more evidence that carbs are, that there's such a thing as a carb deficiency any more than the fact that aspirin helps a headache is evidence that the person was aspirin deficient. You know, what are you actually ignoring that is underlying that, that may catch up with you in a bigger way down the pike, right? So, you know, that's the issue in my mind. It doesn't change what's true for us physiologically, but it does beg the question of what else is going on. So, yeah. If you're gonna put corporate greed on your list at the end, shouldn't you also have governmental overreach? Because I think just about everything that comes, well. It's the same difference, you know? I mean, they're on the corporate payroll. Well, I don't think that, but the people who were vegan oriented and who kept that little zero thing off of the table for 35 years as they were pushing carbohydrates and whole grains and all the rest of that. Right. They were not in the pocket of the meat industry, for instance. They were in the pocket of a specific industry. Big agribusiness, which a lot of the meat industry is too. Well, but I don't know. I find that all the bad advice seems to come from government in terms of pushing carbohydrates, pushing all the rest of the stuff, and that goes back to the biggest corporate manipulators of all, Kellogg, Graham. Oh, Monsanto, you know? I mean, who owns them, right? Well, but Post and Kellogg and all the rest of those guys are 100 years ago, and they are the biggest corporate manipulators of our diets of all time. Sure. And they're, you know, they're the good guys. Well, these things are, this is politics and economics. This is, you know, the USDA US Department of Agriculture's Food Pyramid, that says we all need to be eating, you know. Right. You know, eight to 11 servings a day of this crap. Right. You know, it's not based on science. Well, the degree to which we've been following that has been the degree to which our health has been declining. I totally agree with you, but that all came from the George McGovern side of the political spectrum. I mean, I don't know too many conservatives who are vegans. Well, it's not all about veganism. That's not the problem. I mean, there is, there's a lot of, there's certainly a lot of politics being promoted. And I can't think of a single multinational corporation that wouldn't be heavily invested in every man, woman and child on planet earth being dependent on carbohydrates as a primary source of food because it is cheap as heck to produce. It's highly profitable and it keeps you perpetually hungry. So hey, what's not to love about that when there's a buck to be made, you know? And you know, and the meat industry too has a big, you know, they're as owned by Monsanto as anybody else. 97% of the meat produced is feedlot, is factory farmed. You know, so we need to set the agenda and not let the government and its, you know, and its corporate cronies, you know, set the agenda for us. And by what we choose to, where we choose to spend our food dollars. I'm totally with you. It's the only vote we have that's worth anything. Right, I'm totally with you. But that's a free market vote. That assumes we have the right. In theory, yeah. To do all this stuff. Well, we still do, but they're working hard to take it that way. I totally agree with you, but that's why we have to resist even more. And I find that your PC is really much more politically correct. I don't think you offended any paleo person in this room with you. Hopefully not. Yeah. And I think this might have to be, well, okay, yeah, sorry. Sorry, Jules. I'll catch you after. So my question is in relation to, like, regional availability. So different regions, like if we look at, you know, those regions that are closer to the equator, where they're not like the Inuits who were eating, like a lot of blubber. No, they were eating a lot more saturated fat near the equator. Yeah, so I'm just, because there's also a lot of more availability of fruits and carbohydrates. So like your take on kind of like the metabolic typing diet and also, like how do, how does that kind of evolution come into play? Well, how it comes to play is, again, what I sought to do in this talk was talk about what are the common denominators between all of the societies that exhibited robust health. And there were just the two things that they had in common. And again, so, you know, in primitive times, maybe the genome was robust enough, you know, they were healthy enough to be able to include things that may have been less optimal for their health and still, you know, do pretty well. But we don't live in that time anymore. Right. So, you know, and I understand that there is local availability in different things, different times of the year, but I'm just trying to establish what is the foundational underpinning that we all need to be looking at? And that's true for all of us. And that was kind of like, like their fat and proteins will always be a foundation, but there's certain, you know, in that order. We look at different regions where the fat and protein availability and the sources were more lean, like fish and things like that, versus something that's like a higher fat, you know, type of animal protein, and they relied more on fruits. So, is that available? Well, even in those places where, you know, even in the tropical areas and in the desert regions, like the Outback in Australia, far and away the most coveted food was fat. And if they killed an animal and the animal didn't have enough fat on them, they'd leave it to rot in the sun and find a fatter animal. I mean, we are unique in the world of predators. And of course, you know, a lot of you guys know I spent a whole summer of my life living with a family of wild wolves up near the North Pole and all of that. I really did. And was able to follow these animals on their hunts. And what they select for as predators are very different. They went for the weak and the sick and whatever was most easily culled from the herd, basically. It was a matter of practicality. They had limited technology. We, on the other hand, were smart and savvy enough to know how to be able to bring down, you know, major 10,000 kilogram mega fauna, right? I mean, we had the mega herbivores on this planet that we, you know, lived with extemporaneously for during the entirety of our evolution right up until about 10,000 years ago when more than half of them died off. All the big ones died off. And suddenly we were stuck with having to hunt leaner prey. But what we did was, we didn't go for what was easiest for us to catch. We went for the stuff that was hardest. We went for the fattest, sassiest, healthiest animals there were. We selected for that because we wanted fat, right? And everything else was just like side dish, right? It was all the rest of the side dish, right? So, I mean, the veggies are really important. They are, I think. They offer us something extra today that we kind of need that don't seem to compromise us usually. I think if you have SIBO or something and there are gonna be exceptions to that. And that's where the polymorphisms and the minor differences between us come in. But by and large, I think that fibrous vegetables and greens, organic, please, are really, really important to us today. And if you were to look at my dinner plate, you'd probably see more vegetables on it than anything else. But the calories, 75, 80% of them are coming from fat. Sure. Yeah. Thank you. Yeah. Okay, thank you very much.