 Before I get started here, actually, you know how when people publish journal articles, they have to disclose their conflicts of interest first. I actually have a disclosure to make. I have returned to veganism, and I'm actually being serious. I've been a vegan for the past three hours, and I feel fine. So if that's going to bias my information, I'm very sorry. I felt like I should be honest. Anyway, seriously, I thought about tidying this presentation something different. Is that in the art of being wrong sometimes? Because I feel with any pursuit of knowledge, one of the most important things we can do is not just question other people's beliefs, but also question our own. In fact, that might even be more important. And one fantastic way to do that is to try to see yourself and your beliefs and your worldview through the eyes of someone you disagree with. And so enter the plant-based diet people. Clearly, some of our sworn enemies in this community often seem to be hating us as much as we hate them, and so there's often this war going on. But for today, I want to present something kind of devil's advocacy and actually look more closely at the results and how they may have achieved them. And so we're going to be looking at a very specific kind of plant-based diet, and that is the one espoused by these dapper young gentlemen. We have John McDougal, who's the author of The Start Solution, Neal Bernard, who you might have recognized from a debate with our very own Chris Masterjohn recently, and Caldwell Esselston, who's known for his dietary treatment of heart disease. Ornish, who probably doesn't need an introduction, and then Joel Furman is often lumped in with this group, but nobody really likes him, so we're going to just kick him off the island. No, seriously, he actually doesn't have a lot of clinical research, if any, backing up his particular brand of plant-based diet. So I'm not going to include him in this case here. And so for the maning people, the diet-based spouse is pretty consistent. It is under 10% of calories from fat, no added oil whatsoever. Starch-based, low in salt, low in refined sugar, low in high fructose corn syrup, and generally low in refined grains as well. And on top of that, there's little to no animal foods allowed in these programs. With the exception of some early research done by Caldwell Esselston, where he did allow skim milk. So then he met T. Kong Campbell, who convinced him protein was evil. And so he dropped that from his program. And I do believe Ornish is actually using supplementary fish oil in his program now. So in the past, I have rationalized the success of these diets based on their overlap with the ancestral community. And those include areas like excluding high omega-6 vegetable oils, which brings their proof intake very low, limiting refined grains and sugar, using whole foods instead of processed foods, and there's always the option of it being some kind of healthy lifestyle overhaul that masks the perhaps negative effects of their diet by compensating with more exercise, ceasing smoking, so on and so forth. And I'd like to take this moment to apologize, because I think I have jumped the gun on justifying it with only these items. And I feel I have not in the past looked closely enough at the success of these people and some of their rationale. So I was, for the prepping of this presentation, I actually found quite a few things that shocked and disturbed me and made me realize I have been wrong about some things. So I'd like to apologize for anyone who has taken my word as gospel, which I hope no one has. But if you have, I would like to present a slightly different version of events today. And that is not a joke. So there's more to the story. So to start off, I want to dig into some research into some people that are not well known, but they're from the past and they have some great information to explore. So this is our current generation of dietary doctors, and some of us may be familiar with them. But before any of these guys, and serving as the inspiration for many of them, was a man named Nathan Pritikin. Who's heard of Pritikin? Good, lots of hands. So short story, he was an engineer who had heart disease, was able to reverse it using a low-fat vegan diet, and then started a longevity clinic trying to do the same for other people. He also happened to be quite buddy-buddy with George McGovern, the guy who gave us the 1977 Dietary Goals. Don't you love that heart? Got to text Nathan after my Senate meeting. Love him. So this duo here, they also had quite a bit of influence on the direction of our national dietary guidelines. But before Pritikin was somebody else, a guy named Walter Kempner, and he would have heard of him. Much fewer hands. He is fascinating, and we're going to talk about him. So this was a German guy. He was actually a German refugee who was Jewish. As soon as the environment in Germany became hostile towards Jews, he left for America, and he started working at Duke University. And that is where he started something called the rice diet. Anyone heard of the rice diet? Few more hands, good. This is very interesting. So 1939, after he had been experimenting with usually animal tissue to find potential cures for kidney disease and kidney failure, he came up with a theory that kidney failure might be able to be treated using a very low sodium, very low protein, very low fat diet. And so he ended up testing this theory on humans. He came up with this diet that was essentially based on rice, rice with every meal, usually in the range of 700 to 1300 calories of rice alone each day. Unlimited fruit, unlimited fruit juice. And if you have any rotten tomatoes, please prepare them for launching, because he also allowed unlimited sugar. In the range of about 100 grams a day on average, 400 calories, some patients were eating as much as 400 grams of sugar. Out of the bag, this is pure white table sugar, about 2,000 calories worth a day. So the composition of his diet ended up being 565 grams of carbohydrate a day on average. Only 25 grams of protein, 5 grams of fat, very, very, very low sodium. The reason he excluded vegetables was actually because they had too much sodium for his theory. And it's important to note that this is not a low calorie diet. People were eating between 2,000 and 2,400 calories a day, which is for this kind of diet trials of this variety, that's actually quite a bit. It was not a super low calorie diet. So what happened? Did they all have insidious weight gain? Did they all die? Actually, the results were kind of shocking. Here's two files, or two pictures from Kempner's files at Duke University, just of two patients. In the course of 11 months, this gentleman lost 112 pounds. This lady lost 121 in the same amount of time. On top of that, this was not an anomaly. In 1975, Kempner published a study of 106 patients, just a sample of the thousands that he had, that had lost an average of 140 pounds on this diet. And shockingly, to some of us, diabetics were going off their insulin or even reducing, in most cases, they're definitely reducing their amount of insulin they needed. In many cases, they could actually completely go off their insulin, even if they hadn't lost weight. This is important because we know that any diet that creates negative energy balance will probably be beneficial to diabetics. And because these diabetics were going off insulin, regardless of whether they're eating fewer calories, this is kind of big, it's kind of awesome. Abnormal EKGs and heart disease patients normalized on this diet. We're not even talking just about a short-term period either. He followed many of his patients for years, in some cases, decades, eating this diet. It was, by the way, supplemented with vitamin, if you're wondering how they didn't die. And it ended up working, being very effective for not only renal failure, but also congestive heart failure, diabetic retinopathy, people who were going blind from their diabetes could see, again, after they started eating this diet and stayed on it. And it's important to note that this low-fat diet, this was going on 14 years before Ancel Keys even made his six-country graph and supposedly started the low-fat movement in America, 14 years before Keys. We like to think that he was the guy who created all of it. We like to blame him for single-handedly changing America's direction and introducing the idea that fat is bad. He was actually a latecomer. Stuff was going on way before him. So something else quite fascinating is that as patients were eating this diet for a number of years, as their conditions were stabilizing, reversing, seeming to be cured, they ended up adding back foods slowly, very, very slowly, foods that were not allowed on the diet back into their eating plans. And if they did it gradually enough, they were able to maintain all of the benefits that they got on that diet without a recurrence of diabetes symptoms or a recurrence of heart disease symptoms. So essentially, they were more or less cured. And the reason this is really important and in my mind really fascinating is suppose we take a low-carbohydrate diet and we put a bunch of diabetics on that. We're gonna see some awesome success with many people, but it's only gonna last as long as people stay on that diet. It's a Band-A treatment, essentially. And for some people, not to trivialize people who have had success on low-carb diets, but some people love the Band-A treatment. They're fine with staying on that program for the rest of their life. Oh, look at my awesome Flintstone neon pink Band-A at all, wear it proudly. But in the case of this type of diet, there's actually a reversal of the disease itself and the ability to regenerate normal glucose metabolism, which is kind of fascinating. So of course, there were confounders. One being that this diet was obviously very hard to stay on because social reasons, psychological reasons, taste reasons, probably physical reasons, too. So what Kempner did, being the typical German he is, he used to whip his patients with an actual whip to get them to stay compliant. And this erupted into a giant scandal shortly before his death in the late 90s. And his response when people asked him why he did this, he just said, I have whipped people in order to help them. And because they say they want to be whipped. Whether or not that's true, I do not know, but we can view it in that sense as perhaps an early incarnation of the biggest loser just with less TV and more sadism. So regardless, that is important to consider because this was not an easy diet for people to stay on. And it did take drastic measures in order to help them do so. But of course, Kempner was not the only person in the middle of the last century who was doing this kind of thing with low fat diets, not the whipping, but the diet. So of course, Pritikin again, engineer, had cured his own heart disease and was very interested in helping other people do the same. So he started this clinic, which you can see a vintage picture of down in the bottom. It used to be an old hotel. He opened the Pritikin longevity center and tested the diet on others. If I had more time, I would list out some of the results that he found, but he can easily do a Google scholarship search and find some of his findings. He had great success treating not only heart disease patients, but also again, diabetics and people who were overweight. Quite a few conditions seemed to improve on his very low fat, oil-free vegan diet. And what gets very interesting to me is the rationale he had for why excess fat was bad. His first point was that it interfered with carbohydrate metabolism, which we can look at it from that perspective and see that as kind of valid. Elevating cholesterol, that's an obvious one. He was definitely a cholesterol man who wanted to keep that very low. But the very interesting thing that we don't discuss very often was the idea that eating large amounts of fat might produce tissue atoxia, basically when the tissue is not receiving oxygen. And for Pritikin, the first idea that sparked that third bullet point was a study with hamsters. Hold your disbelief, I know it's a hamster study. We're gonna talk about why this is important later. So no, fuck. So these hamsters were fed a cream meal, just a pure, heavy cream. And again, this was in 1954, so probably wasn't crap cream yet. It was not terrible. It was probably still out of those beautiful glass jars. And then their cheek pouches were observed. You know, their cheek pouches have membranes that you can, they're watching the blood go through. And basically what they found was that the erythrocytes started clumping together a few hours after the ingestion of fat. The blood became latexant. This is basically a term for being milky as chylomicrons infiltrate the blood, transport fat around. And many of their capillaries began becoming blocked. And what's interesting is the plasma oxygen level dropped to about 68% of what it was originally. So again, it's just a hamster study. I know what you're thinking. We are not hamsters, maybe we wish we were because they are so freaking cute. We're humans. So they repeated the study with humans. This is the best part of the presentation which is to listen up very carefully. So basically in 1955, again, middle of the last century, milk was probably not contaminated with a lot of horrible things yet. Some researchers took 14 patients with angina, which is chest pain related to advanced heart disease. And they had them fast overnight. They were not allowed to smoke, weren't allowed to eat or drink anything else in the morning of this experiment. And then they drank on an empty stomach a glass of heavy cream. Big ol' glass of heavy cream, nothing else. And then they waited. They waited six hours. They were monitored, given EKGs. Their blood was taken samples of, and what happened? Again, there was the influx of chylomicrons to be expected. There's also reduced oxygen carrying capacity in their blood after about five hours. Platelets and urethrocytes started clumping together. And at the peak of all of this happening when the fat was hitting the bloodstream at its most severe peak, there are 14 angina attacks. And EKGs, they were indicating that the heart muscle is not giving enough oxygen. Again, this is advanced heart disease patients. So you might say, okay, maybe that happens after anything they eat. How do we know? So the experiment was replicated using a fat-free drink. Exact same calorie content and volume bulk-wise. It was just nothing but protein powder and some refined carbohydrate as the macronutrients, which maybe from our whole foods perspective is a much worse option than a glass of wholesome cream. Again, weighted, weighted, weighted, we're tested, we're monitored. What happened after five hours? Nothing. Why? So, of course, there are a lot of confounders in this very small experiment. One being angina patients are not representative of the normal population. They're not, they may be more likely to be ApoE4 carriers who we do know may have a different form of fat metabolism and cholesterol metabolism that could make them react differently to glass of heavy cream. In addition, if they had been adapted to say a low carbohydrate diet, if they'd been eating a ketogenic diet, maybe their reaction would have been different and would have been less severe. There's of course the question of what the long term versus the short term effects of this very short experiment were. And then one question someone might ask is who's gonna drink that much butter fat in a sitting? And then I was thinking this, and oh, wait a minute. I don't, I'm not trying to scare you and I'm not just saying at all that this is a harmful practice if you're a healthy person. But there is at least one small but well designed and fascinating study that is already, what, 60 years old that did show if you have heart disease and you consume a large amount of dairy fat in one sitting, that essentially your vascular environment becomes much more conducive to having a heart attack. We haven't looked at this. So moving on, of course there's been additional experiments showing very similar things using low fat diets to treat heart disease. And again, the problem is they're always very confounder-ridden, but nonetheless, I think they're worth looking at and trying to prune apart to see why they're working. We have Esselstyn who's famous for his oil-free vegan diet that he used on Bill Clinton to, you can see Clinton down here. So he made Clinton heart attack proof apparently and also turned his hair gray. Yeah, good job. And so he used, in addition, to keep his patients' cholesterol below 150. If diet alone could not get it that low, he would put them on statins. So that's another confounder. And nonetheless, his first study did show that he halted progression in 100% of his adherent patients and reversed, had actually reversed heart disease, showed some signs of that in 73% of his patients. Unfortunately, those percentage points might not mean a lot because he only used 18 people. So that has been a big criticism of Esselstyn for a long time and a reason that both myself and many other people have not taken his study all that seriously. Lo and behold, June 2014, just a couple months ago, he came out with a new, bigger study. This time he used 198 people. 177 were adherent and the other people just couldn't stick with his diet. So the cardiac event rate for his adherent group was only 0.6%. 62% of the people who didn't follow his diet but were enrolled in the program ended up getting either a stroke, heart attack, or something else along those lines. So that's a pretty big difference. And again, it's so hard to say whether this was due to the fact that his diet was low fat, that it eliminated animal products, that it eliminated refined grains, that it was low in Pufa, that people were not smokers. There are many, many, many variables here. But one of the key points we might be able to take away from this is that all of this reversal or halting of progression happened despite the fact that his patients had very low HDL that was not improved by the vegan diet and also had very high triglycerides. And so that doesn't really make sense with our current world view. We usually think, okay, the low fat, high carb diet that creates this horrible LDL pattern B where the LDL is very small and dense and more prone to contributing to heart disease. Doesn't it raise your triglycerides? Isn't that really bad? Doesn't it cause low HDL? Doesn't it spike your insulin? And if you adhere to the idea that you can get a tired pink race, you know, that's a bad thing. I don't personally believe that but it's definitely a theory that's out there. And so this is kind of a head scratcher. Why is this going on? How come his version of the low fat diet as well as the other people who are kind of preaching the same message, how come they're having success? Isn't, don't we have a lot of studies showing low fat diets don't work? And here's the problem. Most of our low fat research uses this arbitrary standard of 30% of the diet as fat being low fat. Any of these low fat plant based diet doctors will tell you that this is not low fat. This is moderate fat if anything. It's far too high to achieve the kinds of effects that they've been seeing with their patients. And they will also tell you that once you hit that point around 10 to 15% of the diet being fat, something happens. And there's a very consistent message going on with people who are of this persuasion. The ones we have often included myself, considered the enemy, considered wrong, considered illogical, considered blind, considered dogmatic. They all have many, in many cases independently, come to the same conclusions by working directly with patients. So with that in mind, even Walter Kempner noticed way back in 1949, he said smaller minimal additions to the diet may spoil the entire therapeutic effect. You had to stick to the diet 100%, be so, so super low fat in order to see results. Even a tablespoon of oil in Kempner's diets would make the diabetics go back on their insulin. So with that being said, I've developed a very scientific diagram here. So here we have a spectrum of percent of calories as fat. And I know it's not peer reviewed yet one day. So we as the ancestral community have often focused, where's the clicker thingy? To pretend I'm shining in a green light on the upper end. Oh, here we go. So we've focused up here. We've looked at ketogenic diets very intensively. We've looked at low carbohydrate diets. And we haven't really looked at this end of the spectrum. And large part in my opinion because butter, because bacon, chocolate. Nobody wants to give up those things. It's not fun down here. This is where all the good stuff happens. Nonetheless, I have come to the idea, the hypothesis theory, whatever, that perhaps there are two unique metabolic states that can be achieved by manipulating macronutrient ratios. And when we're up in the swamp land of, I'm gonna call this the macronutrient swamp land that exists between these two extremes, research seems to corroborate that you can tweak fat levels, you can tweak protein levels. It's gonna have very minor effects, if anything. Going from a diet of 35% fat to 30% fat, which we've had a lot of low fat diets don't work, studies that do exactly that. It's not gonna show very much result. We're not gonna see anything beneficial happening there. It's not until you get way down to one of the end of the extremes that something unique happens. I'm gonna call it magical. There's probably an actual biochemical explanation for it, but I haven't seen it investigated thoroughly yet, at least on the lower end. We have ketosis on the upper end, I'm gonna call it carbosis on the lower end. And if you actually think about it in terms of human history and evolution, perhaps there was an advantage to being able to survive on a very high carbohydrate diet for periods of time when animal foods were scarce, when plant fats were scarce, they're very hard to find in the wild. So why not be adapted to two ends of the spectrum here when that fit perfectly with human history and evolution? Just an idea. And what we do know is when we get down to this low end of the spectrum, and again, it has to be below 15% more or less of the calories, usually below 10% is when the best results are achieved, we see increased insulin sensitivity and glucose tolerance regardless of weight loss. And we do have quite a few studies that are showing that at this point. In addition, the paradoxical effect here is when you reduce your fat intake to very low levels, your serum DHA actually increases due to a change in metabolic pathways. And if you think about things like the potato diet, the potato hack that I know a lot of people have been trying in order to kickstart the weight loss, improve blood glucose levels, is it really working just because of resistant starch? Or is it also because those diets are extremely low and fat and inducing some kind of special state here? So my takeaways are again, I'm definitely playing devil's advocate and I could argue against every position that I've taken on the podium today from another angle. So I don't want you to think that I've really jumped off the deep end here. It's just to inspire some cognitive dissonance that will get us thinking. But one option that I've been pondering is perhaps going on an ancestrally adapted low fat diet for a while, temporarily, whatever, perhaps that can be used therapeutically when people are not doing well on high carb or high fat diets. You know, there are people who go into ketogenic diets and have fabulous results treating whatever condition they're aiming for and there are other people who do the same thing. They're LDL skyrockets without a concurrent rise in HDL. They're feeling worse, bad things are happening. Maybe there are other options for them. So the people who might do best on this very low fat kind of diet, again, just maybe temporarily, people who are high amylase producers who have better starch tolerance than others, people who are ApoE4 carriers who might respond less favorably to high fat diets. And of course, this can be adapted to ancestral food sources. You don't have to eat an entire bag of sugar a day. You don't have to drink fruit juice if you don't want. You don't have to use gluten. You can create a diet like this based on entirely ancestrally acceptable food sources. And the most important benefit in my mind from looking at all of this is this kind of diet might actually be able to heal and restore glucose tolerance, which is something that generally does not happen again on low carbohydrate diets. And as a final take home point, I just think that this kind of thing, you know, in this community elsewhere, in the universe at large, I think this is just a general philosophical point that we should always consider other options and never close our minds completely to other people being right. We have to ask ourselves at some point, is our goal to own the truth and hoard it, or is it to seek the truth? Because you really can't do both things at once. Thank you. Any questions? All right, yep. So I think Denise is probably willing to stay as long as she needs to to answer questions. Go to lunch though, if you're hungry, I won't be offended. But you're free to leave for lunch. We're gonna gather again at 2.05 here for the next talks and also at Bancroft Hall at 2.05. Go ahead. Hi there. I think it's amazing your message, you know, to keep questioning, but is it not true that some options are so impractical that they're useless? So, I mean, you could say this about global warming as well. We could just all stop having babies and that would solve the problem. Or with this option, you know, I could just fall on my sword and that would solve the high HD LDL2, right? But so it's just not useful because it's not practical. I would say that's definitely a possibility, but the fact that we have had so many people being successful in this kind of diet, it shows at least a portion of the population may have the motivation and the incentive to stick to that kind of diet. Like, I mean, I ate a low-fat raw vegan diet for a year and, you know, I had to stop because I was falling apart, but I was able to stick with it because that motivation was there even though it was very impractical lifestyle-wise. So I think basically, yeah. Yeah, it's all a matter of the motivation. Okay, thank you. Yeah, thank you. Hi, hi. This is less of a question, more of a potential comment for Future Avenue of Research. Sure. Is that human beings have developed in different areas of the world for different time spans. So do you think it's maybe possible that some people are evolutionarily more adapted to one of these versions versus the other depending on where they evolved? I think that's absolutely possible and it's probably how it's working out. Even if you look at Caldwell-Assistan studies, you'll see that there are always at least a few people in his group, especially his larger one, where their health just deteriorated. He had one stroke in his really big group of people. So there's clearly gonna be people who are gonna react adversely to that kind of diet and I think it might be what you're saying. It could be a genetic thing, it could be just where your ancestors have herald from. Definitely plays a role. Thank you. Great talk. Thank you. You made one really interesting observation about the Kempner diet, which you said that after they achieved these great benefits, they could maintain them after you, if you gradually reintroduce normal foods. That seems kind of implausible to me because you think after some point of time, right, you would get back to the beginning state but if that's true, why would that be true and why would that not be the case with the low carb or paleo diets? You know it very well could and I just haven't seen that explored or demonstrated yet but with Kempner's diet, the one caveat there is that they couldn't go back to eating how they were before necessarily is more of an expanded, lowish fat vegetarian diet. They could add back some lean animal products but probably eating a fatty steak was never gonna be in their cards for the future. Thanks. Dr. Gonzales talks about a spectrum of diets for different people. And one of the things he talks about is that there are very few people who do very well in his opinion on the plant-based diet. No meat at all. And other people at the other end who do meat three times a day and thrive. Yeah. So, but the interesting thing to me was that some of those people on the plant-based, low-fat diets would be people like Nathan Pritikin and people like William Kelly. They both killed themselves. Relations and causation but... They healed their incurable illnesses. Right. Absolutely. But then they were feeling so bad they killed themselves. Well, that's a good point too. I mean we do know with very, very low-fat diets that may affect the brain for some people if not everybody adversely. Although I would say it's definitely not a universal thing. There are people who are gonna react differently. Some people have alleviated their depression going on a MacDougall-style diet. But with the case of Pritikin, my understanding was that he had lymphoma due to being exposed to radiation when he was younger and he had actually kept it at bay for about 27 years longer than his doctors predicted. And eventually it went to the point where his, I think as chemo treatment, it was shutting down his organs and it was just such a miserable existence that he did kill himself. But that's always a good point to look at the mental health effects too because that's so important. Kind of thing, it's like it'll cure one thing but then there's another problem. How do we get the right balance? Exactly. Great point. I think it was a great talk. It highlights the complexity of the human organism and how it can move in ways that we don't anticipate. The thing I would remark is that you show some of this data which only has one or two metrics like weight or reduced whatever they're called, heart attack events. I would suggest that what's really necessary is a whole lot more biometrics. And just two that come to mind would be cortisol and say HDH because high sugar is gonna suppress all the HDH. So you may be thin on the outside but you're not getting any growth hormone. So I'm just saying that I think you have to look at the whole universe of complexity. Right. And so I don't know if you have any thoughts on that. Yeah, that's a fantastic point. I would add to that too just total mortality data because if you're dying less of heart disease but dying more of cancer that's also a point to consider. Definitely a global perspective is necessary. Thank you. So the debate seems to have been framed between high fat animal-based diet and high carb plant-based diet. But that's just of course how it was framed. And then there's like what actually happened. And I don't think I heard much about the potential for the high carb diet actually being low protein that may have been protective maybe by up regulating autophagy or something to that extent. So do you know what the protein intake was? Like were they eating tofu like gangbusters or was it really just leafy greens? The best of my knowledge a lot of the protein sources for plant foods were also kind of fatty like tofu. And so those were eliminated as a byproduct of that system. So I think that I actually wanted to talk about glycine and methionine and I just didn't have enough time in this presentation. But I think the protein perspective is another really important issue to look at that we can also glean information from that might be relevant to the ancestral health community. Yeah. So I really loved your chat. Thank you. Your talk was really, really interesting. So I was curious, there's been a lot of talk about the ketogenic diet and how wonderful it is, but primarily seems to be focused in men. Men get great results, but with women it seems to be a little bit more all over the place. Just any thoughts about anything you've come across with women when they do a ketogenic tends to be more adrenally taxing. I think it could definitely be something along those lines. I haven't looked into that research very thoroughly, but I know based on just emails I get, I know this is anecdotal. It's exactly as you say, there's a very strong gender division between reactions, not only to ketogenic, but to the paleo diet that's maybe even a little bit higher in carbohydrate and not ketogenic. So I would say there's definitely something either hormonal interaction or could be that, gosh, I really don't know, but you know, I've gotten that question so many times, it's probably about time to research it. Thank you. A, I love the open-mindedness. I think that we are always evolving and unfolding and adding new information to what we learn from previous generations. So my area of focus in nutrition is primarily in supporting birth and postpartum, and I have done a lot of research, specifically reading a lot about Dr. David Barker's research in how the, I'm sorry, we're going to have to quit because the audio video people need to leave. Thank you. We can, if you want to continue these last two questions, talk to Denise. Yeah, you guys all hang out here for a while. Please come and talk to me or I like hugs too, so come hug me. So we'll see you at lunch.