 Thank you. Today, ladies and gentlemen, I'm going to tackle a highly controversial subject that has plagued me personally as a researcher now for the last 11 years, 4 months, 24 days, and this morning and right up through this afternoon. And this is a subject regarding what my title shows here. So the question is this, are overweight, obesity and diabetes driven primarily by sugars, carbohydrates, vegetable oils or some combination of all three? That's the question that I want to try to get at today. And at the end of this, I want all of your feedback because I value your opinions. Now, if you're old enough to live through the 1980s, you will absolutely remember the low fat craze, the low fat era. We were advised, we were admonished by the American government to go low fat via the US dietary guidelines of 1980. And most of us complied with that. The evidence shows that it obviously did not work, right? And however, over the last 20 years, there's been an increasingly greater interest in low carbohydrate diets. I would say almost to the point of an obsession in at least in some circles. And it's become fashionable to blame sugar for almost everything. But is this justified? Is this valid? Does the real world evidence support this? That's what I want to know. Now, I don't really care what the answers are. It doesn't really matter to me. I have no bias, essentially, or no agenda anyway. And I'm just searching for the truth, probably like you. And so that's what I hope to achieve today. So we're going to start here with five diets that I'll review and review these in more detail before. But let's talk about this quickly to introduce this. So the Japanese diet up through 1960, 80% carbohydrates. That was almost exclusively white rice. They were fantastically healthy people. The Okinawan diet, a subset of the Japanese, 85% carbohydrate. That was almost exclusively sweet potatoes, which they'd been consuming for hundreds of years. They were fantastically healthy up until that time, around 1960. The Papua New Guineans of Tuka Senta, studied by Senate and White back in the 1960s and 70s. One of the longest studies ever completed of subsistence agriculturists. Their diet, over 90% sweet potato, 94.6% carbohydrate. Yet they were very, very healthy people, at least by Western standards. The Maasai of Kenyan Tanzania consumed a diet almost exclusively of milk, meat and blood, 17% carbohydrate, 66% animal fat. That's about 40 to 46% saturated fat. They were fantastically healthy. And then the Tochilauns, 24% carbohydrate diet. That's 50% saturated fat. Their diet was primarily coconut, fish, starchy tubers, and fruit. So they consumed around 56 or 60% of their diet as coconut. So that's 50% saturated fat. And yet they're fantastically healthy. So you can see we have macronutrient ratios all over the board. And yet these people, all of these populations fantastically healthy. But what do they all have in common? And of course, the answer is they all eliminate or have no high Pufa, highly polyunsaturated fatty acid vegetable oils, right? So I'm going to start here. This is my hypothesis for today. Vegetable oils are the primary drivers of obesity and diabetes. And as a corollary, non-processed carbohydrates play no role in obesity, metabolic disease or diabetes. Let's see if these seem to hold true. What about sugar? Is it the villain in obesity and diabetes that's been made out to be? I'm going to submit to you at this point. I'll just say I don't know. Let's leave that open, open-ended, and just see where the evidence takes us, all right? Now, just for a couple of moments here, I want to discuss observational versus randomized controlled clinical trials because I have, as you can see, I rely heavily on population studies. And I think they're extraordinarily valuable. Here's a quick couple of reasons why. First of all, this question, are randomized controlled trials even applicable to diet and chronic disease? So with chronic disease, we're talking about diseases like heart disease, strokes, many cancers, all Alzheimer's disease, age-related macular degeneration, on and on. These are obviously conditions that take decades to develop, right? How long have we controlled diets, right? Typically, if we completely control a diet, it's been done only for a few months because those people have to go into a metabolic ward in a hospital setting. They're prisoners of the ward because if they, you have to track everything that they consume, everything has to be properly prepared and measured. If they leave the ward, they might go to McDonald's, eat a hamburger, French fries, and drink a Coke, and now your study is falsified. So anyway, here's the contemporary thinking, though, on proving causality. So we make observations out in the field, out in nature, and we try to understand biological mechanisms. And from that, here's what people say is, we generate hypotheses, right? And then from there, we move to a randomized controlled clinical trial. And finally, then, from that, we can draw causal inference. And it says, though, we can't draw causal inference without an RCT, a randomized trial, right? So can we skip the randomized controlled trial ever and derive conclusions? I assure you we can. For example, can we assume that being shot in the chest with a high-powered rifle is dangerous to your health? We don't have a randomized controlled trial, right? Now, mind you, no one was hurt making this photograph. This is a model. Nobody up in arms. All right. How about this? Could we assume being struck by lightning is dangerous to your health? Once again, no randomized controlled trial. But the reality, ladies and gentlemen, is, of course, we observe effects in nature and draw conclusions about causality. We infer causality constantly, all right? This is what's nature's laboratory. How about smoking? Do we have a randomized controlled trial here to prove smoking causes lung cancer? Did we ever take 1,015-year-old children, randomized 500 of them to smoke and the other 500 not to smoke and follow them for 50 years and determine that the smokers, one out of 10 of them developed cancer? No, of course we didn't. And it'd be unethical to do so, right? So how did we determine this? Well, Luther K. Terry, Surgeon General back in 1964, warned against cigarette smoking based on this. Average smokers had a nine to 10-fold increased risk of cancer and heavy smokers a 20-fold risk. Again, but no randomized controlled trial, right? And later, this is what they said on the basis of Hill's criteria, Bradford Hill's criteria for judging causality. They concluded randomized controlled clinical trials were not necessary to assert that tobacco causes an array of negative outcomes, right? Including lung cancer and death. So this is the Bradford Hill criteria for judging causality and we will come back to this, but these are considered the gold standard for assessing causal inference in medicine. All right. So back to the gist of this. So these are the oils that I've pegged as the worst of the worst, right here. And I won't name these, but I say these are poisons. These are chronic metabolic biological poisons. And the reason that they are is they're very high in omega-6, as you know. And when omega-6 is greater than about 2% of calories, that drives a physiological, pathophysiological environment that is pro-oxidative, pro-inflammatory, toxic, and nutrient-efficient. And to put these together, you develop metabolic disease and physical degeneration. That's all I'm going to say about pathophysiology today. We're going to move right into evidence. So here we're going to talk about the United States and this is what I would call our nutrition experiment in nature's laboratory. All right. This is the first slide, first graph, and you see here this is obesity versus vegetable oils from the 19th century all the way to 2018. And you see back here on your far left, obesity at 1.2%. Now that's Scott Allen Carson's work that assessed obesity in men in prisons age 18 to 80. All right. That's what the obesity was in the 19th century. But vegetable oils were about one gram a day. All right. How about, moved up to 1961. Now obesity had risen 11-fold. It's at 13.4%, right. But look at it. It's in correlation to the vegetable oils, right. And finally, clear back up here the upper left. Obesity 42.5% in 2018. Again, in striking correlation to the vegetable oils, right, which are now 80 grams a day. So we went from zero to 80 grams a day, right, while obesity went from 1.2% to 42.5%. So let's look at sugar. So here we see sugar in the green and obesity in the red. All right. Let's go back here to the 19th century, 1890 obesity, 1.2%, right. Scott Allen Carson's work. Where was sugar? Sugar is already 211 calories a day. 10.8% of calories. Now this is higher already than the World Health Organization's recommendations for sugars today. And yet we had almost no obesity. And as you'll see, almost no diabetes. All right. Move up here to 1907. Sugar now exceeds 300 calories a day. 15% of calories. You have to realize total caloric consumption was only about 1,955 calories a day using NHANES 1971 data. All right. So, but again, 300 calories a day of sugar, but obesity still probably around 1%. We don't know exactly. All right. Let's jump up here to 1930. Now this is interpolated data. That's why I have approximately there. It's based on Excel creating interpolated data because the next actual data point will be 1961. So that's the estimate. All right. Where's the sugar consumption in 1930? 499 calories a day. 25% of sugar consumption. A fourth of the diet is sugar. And look how fantastically healthy we all, everybody here knows that we were very healthy then, right? Now I want you to notice the sugar drops over the next 30 years to 1961 right there. But obesity continues to climb. We've got a negative correlation. All right. Now jump up here all the way to 2018 when obesity is 42.5%. Where's the sugar? 526 calories a day. All right. 24% of calories in 2016. So those are 2016 versus 2018 there. But notice the sugar is only 27 calories a day higher in 2016 than it was in 1930, right? And as a percentage it's a hair lower. It's 1% lower. All right. So we have a very strong disconnect and very poor correlation between sugar and obesity. Let's put the two of these together. And I'll just highlight here. So here we see obesity shows a striking correlation to vegetable oils. But almost no correlation at all. Even negative correlations to sugar. And we're going to come back to that. All right. Okay. So now we're moving down the time frame that we're looking at. We're looking at 1961 to 2018. All right. So here's obesity in 1961. 13% on your lower left here. And you can see it climbs all the way to 42.4% by 2018 as you saw before. Look at the correlation to the vegetable oils in the blue. But here is, I'm going to highlight that is the sugar. Look how little it changes. So what are the numbers? So during this period, 1961 to 2018, sugar is up 14%. Vegetable oil is up 230%. That's 3.3 fold. Right. And so again, striking correlation to vegetable oils. But very little correlation to sugar here. So now this is, we're narrowing down the window of evaluation further. This is 1999 to 2018. And you can see obesity here. 1999 is now 30.5% climbs all the way to 42.4% in 2018. All right. But notice, there's the trend for sugar. It's going down. So while sugar declines, after 2004, obesity escalates. In fact, it's got the highest escalation. All right. Here's severe obesity between 1999 and 2018. And you see that severe obesity in 1999, 4.7%, it doubles to 9.2% by 2018. Here's the sugar consumption trend. Right. It's on the decline. So during this period, sugar is down 8%. Vegetable oil is up 30%. And severe obesity doubles. All right. So you say, well, is it the carbohydrates? Well, we've got that data too. So take a look here. And I'm going to highlight this. This is the arrow right in the middle. You see where carbohydrates begin to decline, 1997. You see that carbohydrates decline from 1997 through 2013, while obesity elevates from approximately, right here, 29% to 38%. Here again, we have a negative correlation. So we have sugar going down, carbohydrates going down, obesity climbing, right? You say, well, but it's the calories. So we have that too. Now, take a look. If we go back here to the 19th century on your far left here in the red, you remember obesity was 1.2%. It climbed to 13.4%, I believe it was, by 1961, right? Obesity rose 11 fold, right? But look at the calories and the carbohydrates both on the decline during that period. All right. Now, move forward here on the far right to 2002. You see total calories and carbohydrates again, both declining after 2002, right here in the U.S., while obesity has its highest trend upward, right? Okay. So this is what happened. This is the metamorphosis that the average man went through over the past 150 years. So in 1870, Scott Allen Carson's work again showed us that the average body mass index for a man in the U.S. was 23.2, anyway to 148 pounds. By 2016, the average man has a body mass index of 29.3. In case you don't know, body mass index above 30 is obese. So the average male, average adult male in the U.S. now is almost obese, right? Anyways, 198 pounds. I apologize to the ladies. There was no data on women in the 19th century for this because the data is all taken from prisoners and they're almost all men. All right. So here's what happened. Between 1870 and 2016, the average man became 50 pounds heavier. 50 pounds. Why? Well, here's what I'd say. In 1870, the average man we know consumed about one gram of vegetable oils per day on average. 2016, the average man consumed 80 grams of vegetable oils per day on average. An 80-fold increase in vegetable oils. Okay. So let's move on to diabetes. So this is diabetes prevalence in the U.S. 2.8 per 100,000 in the year 1890. How do I know this? This man, Sir William Oster, probably one of the most famous physicians in the past 200 years, one of the founding partners of Johns Hopkins Hospital in Baltimore. This is his textbook pictured right next to him. This is my copy published 1893, Principles and Practice of Medicine. Here's what he said. In comparison with European countries, diabetes is a rare disease in America. The last census, which would be 1890, gave only 2.8 per 100,000 population against a ratio of from 5 to 9 in the former. Among 35,000 patients under treatment at the Johns Hopkins Hospital in dispensary, there were only 10 cases of diabetes. That's in 35,000 patients in their records. This proves how rare it was. So if you do the ratios, there were 63.1 million Americans in the U.S. in 1890. That means they had about 1,764 diabetics in the entire country, enough to fill a very small town like that red dot in Kansas, for example. Where are we today? This is how many diabetics we have in the U.S. today. 13%. What are those numbers? 34.1 million diabetics and climbing. That's what it is, 13% of the adults. This is an increase of 4,643 fold over a period of 126 years. If diabetes had doubled, that should be statistically significant. It went up 4,643 fold. Currently, over 51% of Americans are either pre-diabetic or diabetic, and only 6.8% of Americans as of 2018 now have optimal cardiometabolic health. What is it that is so ubiquitous in our food supply that only about 7% of us remain cardiometabolically healthy? You know what the answer is. Let's get to the data, because this will show you in case you don't believe it. Here's diabetes, 1890.0028%. That's the 2.8 per 100,000 that Osler gave us. Where was the sugar? You've seen it before, 211 calories a day, 10.8% of calories. Again, I already have issues with sugar being the driver here, because you know a lot of the people had to be consuming twice that much sugar, and maybe the other half consuming none, just for example. Yet we have an extraordinarily rare prevalence of diabetes. The next known data is from the equivalent of the NHANE study in 1935, 0.37%. It's here in the middle on the bottom. That's the obesity, I'm sorry, the diabetes prevalence at that time. Where was the sugar? At that year, sugar consumption 440 calories a day, 22.5% of calories coming from sugar, and diabetes affected, here's the number, 1 in 270 people. Pretty unusual, right? Let's jump over here to 2016. Sugar again, you've seen this before, 526 calories a day. Now compared to the 1935 number, that's up 86 calories, and sugar is 24% of calories, so it's up 1.5%. But how many diabetics do we have? 13%. Now instead of 1 in 270 diabetics like we had in 1935, there's 1 in 8. Let's look at this a different way. Here's the diabetes, 0.37% in 1935. Here's the sugar consumption as an absolute percentage of energy. Their energy consumption was a bit lower, a few hundred calories lower, but it's 22.5% of energy. Here's the diabetes prevalence in 2016, and there's the sugar consumption 24%. So here's the conclusion. As an absolute percentage, the sugar consumption is up 1.5% from 1935, and yet diabetes climbs 35-fold, 3,400% increase. Now this makes no sense whatsoever to me, no logical sense to blame sugar for diabetes. Let's look at this one more way in case that doesn't really make sense. So we see sugar here as an absolute percentage increase between 1935 and 2016. I'll bring this arrow up real slow. It went up 1.5%, but here in the blue there, that's the increase in vegetable oils during that same period, 1935 to 2016. It went up 21.5%. So in other words, more than a fifth of the diet was replaced between 1935 and 2016 with vegetable oils, more than a fifth of every plate of food. And what happened to the diabetes? Up 3,400%. Let's jump a little farther forward. This is 1991 to 2016. We're looking at diabetes in the U.S. still, and here's the diabetic prevalence, 2.97% in 1991, climbs all the way to 13% as you've seen before, but again, look at the trend line with sugar. It's on the way down. We have a negative correlation once again. But look at the striking correlation with vegetable oils, which are almost always going up. All right. So there in the blue is the trend line for vegetable oils. Okay. So let's talk about the United Kingdom. This is their nutrition experiment. And you see sugar in the green there at the top. And we'll highlight here that in 1961, their sugar begins to drop. Vegetable oils, you can see, I'll bring that up in a minute. So vegetable oils you can see climbing since the 1960s in the blue there. Right below that is the Linnolake acid, Omega-6 Linnolake acid in the body fat. You can see it climbs in parallel with the vegetable oils, which it always does. That's where they come from. Right? Then we see obesity 7% in 1980, climbs all the way to 28% by 2019. And then you see diabetes 2.5% in 1994, climbs to 7.5% by 2019. Right? So you see LA in the body fat and obesity and diabetes all in parallel with the vegetable oils. Right? While the sugar is on the decline. Right? So let's make this a little easier to see. So one of my colleagues just created trend lines for this. So this is what happened during this period. Sugar is declined to 28%. Vegetable oils doubled. Linnolake acid in the body fat more than doubled. Obesity quadrupled. Diabetes tripled. Right? All while sugar is on the decline. Okay. Let's move on to Australia. This is their nutrition experiment. Take a look. So the first thing you see in the top again with the sugar in the green is a near steady decline in sugar after 1961. Right? It's not a huge decline, but it's a decline. You see vegetable oils on the incline as almost always. Right? Here's the obesity 9% in 1980 climbs all the way to 31.3% by 2018. So it more than triples and you see the diabetes in the purple and the chronic disease in the black. Those are short lines because that's all the data points that they had. Right? But you can see sugar is on the decline while obesity skyrockets. Right? But what's it in? You can see what it's rising with. Now I'm just going to highlight here in your upper left. Sugar consumption here is higher in 1961 in Australia than it was in the United States in 2016. Yet look how low their obesity probably was. I mean, that was 1961, but their obesity in 1980 was only 9%. I say only, but still compared to where most Westernized countries are. All right. Let's move on. You say, well, maybe it's the carbohydrates. Well, here's the carbohydrates in Australia. And you can see that the carbs decline after 1970. Right? Now they go down over those several decades. There are a couple of hundred calories a day, but once again, as the vegetable oils incline in the blue, and again, you see the obesity climb markedly from 9% to 31.3% in near perfect lockstep correlation with the vegetable oils. Okay. Let's look at Israel. Now, Israel is unique because they've had extreme high vegetable oil consumption for a long time as a percentage of their total fat. So take a look at vegetable oil in the blue there at the top. And then I'm going to bounce right down here to their diabetes and we'll come back to sugar in just a moment. Here's their diabetes in 1996, 3.4%. This is where it climbs to by 2019, 9.7% in the black there. But notice that the sugar took a steep decline. So while the diabetes was going way up, their sugar was on the decline. And if you look at the very bottom, you can see how low their added animal fats and butter and ghee, they have almost none. Those total around 6% or 7% total in their diet. All the rest is coming from vegetable oils. All right. This is China. All right. And so you'll notice like almost all countries, look at their vegetable oil in the blue, climbing since 1961 steadily. And then you see the sugar down below that. We'll come back to that in a moment. Let's get right to the overweight and obesity. This combined overweight and obesity, 15.3% in 1991, climbs all the way to 42% by 2015. All right. So a market increase. All right. Now, this is not a talk about cancer, but I'm going to mention very quickly here that cancer elevated threefold during that same time, cancer incidents. All right. Here's what I want to bring your attention to. It's hard to see these when you go quickly, but if you look at the far left, y-axis, you'll see the kilocalories per capita per day. You see how low the sugar consumption was. 60 to 80 calories a day in recent decades. That's 2.5% of their consumption. All right. 4 to 5 teaspoons of sugar a day. And I'll bring up another high pop up over here. China's sugar consumption is the eighth lowest in the world. All right. So why is there overweight obesity going through the roof, right? And their cancer going through the roof. All right. It's related to the vegetable oils. All right. Let's look at New Zealand. And you're going to see here that New Zealand's very interesting. The reason I brought this one in is because they have extreme high sugar consumption. You can see since 1961, they were bouncing between 450 to 500 calories a day. And then in more recent decades, you can see they climbed above 500 calories a day. All right. But I want you to look over here. Look at their vegetable oils, how low they were in 1961. Now, they didn't have their first obesity study till 1977, which I'll highlight right here, was 10%. All right. And then, look where obesity climbed to in New Zealand, which is a lot of the Maori Pacific Islanders, 50%. 50%. But look, it's in lockstep correlation to the vegetable oils. Now, all of the Pacific Islanders are exquisitely genetically susceptible to seed oils and to processed foods in general, but particularly to the seed oils. They have extraordinarily high rates of obesity. They have all the top nations in the world. If you look at all countries, all the top nations in terms of obesity are in the Pacific Islands. All right. Okay. This is Japan, the quintessential nation I've always said to illustrate all these points. First, let's go through their food consumption data. So you're going to see here that here's the total calories. And these numbers on your left are going to range between 1958 and 1961, okay, just to make that clear. So here's their total calories around 1960, 2837. They dropped by 2009 to 1850. Calories went down about almost a third, right, around a third. Carbohydrates, when they were fantastically healthy in 1960, 84%, all right, dropped down to 56%. Here is their sugar consumption around 1961. 196 calories jumped up to 384 calories peak in 1989. I'm not giving you all the data points just to make this simpler, okay. And then it comes back down to 282 calories by 2010. On your lower right, I'll give you a pop-up here that their sugar dropped 27% between 1989 and 2010. Now, if you look down here, this lower in the purple, you see the total fat was 5%. One of the lowest total fat consumptions in the world, 1961, again, when they were very healthy, here's where their total fat went to 27% by 2009. And then their saturated fat, lower right, only 7%, the lowest in the developed world, all right. But here's the critical numbers, the vegetable oils in the blue. And I highlight the numbers in red, 81 calories in 1961, nine grams, that was tolerable. That's where the US was in about 1908, all right. Where did their vegetable oils get to? 351 calories per day by 2010. Let's see what happens to them, all right. So here's obesity in men, all right. And you're going to see here right in the middle. So in the red, you see obesity climbed from 16% in the late 1970s up to 31.2% by 2009. So it doubles, right. Again, while calories, carbohydrates, and sugars are all on the decline, obesity doubles in men, all right. So this is diabetes in the red curve, all right. Look how low their diabetes was, 1954, 54.02%. That's 2% per 10,000, all right. Extremely low. Where does it get to? 6.9% by 2009. Look at that in lockstep correlation to the vegetable oils. Once again, that's what their diabetes does, while the calories, carbohydrates, and sugars all decline, all right. Diabetes up 345 fold between 1954 and 2007. Okay. Very quickly, like I said, this is about obesity and diabetes, but I can't pass up just showing you that their breast cancer went up five fold along with the vegetable oil between 1975 and 1999. And their age-related macular degeneration, leading cause of blindness in people over the age of 60, went up 82 fold in relation to their vegetable oils. Moving on. So what's driving all this? It's right here, their dietary omega 6 coming from the vegetable oils. Look where it was over here on your lower left, 1% of their calories. As I've said many times, omega 6 needs to be under 2% to be ancestral. This is where they were, 1%. This is exactly where Americans were in 1865 before we ever consumed vegetable oils. Where does their omega 6 get to on your far upper right? 7.8%. Look at that. Again, I hate to keep using this term, but in lockstep correlation to their vegetable oil consumption. So let's look at the whole world. All right. So this is our data. Soon to be published, if you look on the far lower left, this is where total vegetable oil consumption was globally. Now, it never would have reached zero, but it approaches zero grams per person per day in 1865 worldwide. Look where it gets to in your far upper right, 65.4 grams a day per person, right? Okay. That's a near infinite increase in vegetable oils since 1865 globally. What does that do to us? If you look at the red curve, this is what we estimate happened to chronic disease, right? A near infinite increase in chronic disease. All right. Let's look at, this is again globally, this is obesity in men versus vegetable oils and sugar. And here's where obesity was in 1975, 3.2% on your lower left climbs all the way in the red curve there to 10.8%. So more than triples, but oops, let me go back here. Sorry about that. But while the sugar is virtually flat, flat. So the sugar is up 5% during this period. Vegetable oil is up 85%. That's almost a doubling and the obesity rises 3.4 fold. Here's obesity in women. You can see that it is in lockstep correlation to the vegetable oils already, 6.4% in 1975 all the way to 14.9% by 2014 while the sugars are virtually flat. You say, well, what about carbohydrate? Well, let's look at the BMI versus that because you've already seen the obesity. So here's the BMI 21.7 in men in 1975 climbs all the way to 24.2% by 2014, right? And look at that near perfect correlation with vegetable oils while the carbohydrates slightly declined. Now, the carbohydrates only went down 1.5% there, but they did slightly go down. Again, this is all global data. Let's average weight gain for men here, 18 pounds. Let's look at women. So here's the BMI in women, 22.1%. In 1975 climbs all the way to 24.4% by 2014, again, while the carbohydrates are flat. So average weight gain for women here, 14 pounds. All right, here's diabetes in men globally. You can see it was 4.3% in 1970 or 1980, climbs all the way to 9%. It more than doubles. All right, again, while the sugar is flat. Let's look at women. So 4% diabetes in 1980, lower left here. All right, all the way to 7.9%. It doubles again while the sugar is virtually flat. And flat sugars are down 1.7% there. So anyway, vegetable oils are killing us, and they're hidden everywhere. This junky plate of processed food loaded with vegetable oils, these kinds of fast foods, I estimate this contains 75 grams of omega-6. That's the best job I could do to estimate that. Optimal is 2.2 to 5 grams a day. All right, that's what you should be getting. So that means the omega-6 in all of this this assortment of processed foods is enough to serve you. It should serve you over 15 to 30 days. So take this, contrast this, the omega-6 in all of this food, in these plates, I tried to add all this up. Now, this is ancestrally raised, ancestrally prepared food. This is 3.5 grams of omega-6 versus the roughly 75 grams in the previous image. Now, again, this has to be ancestrally raised, ancestrally prepared. So let's wrap up here. So obesity and diabetes have escalated in direct proportion to seed oil consumption with little or no relationship to sugar consumption. Obesity and diabetes have also escalated while sugar, carbohydrates, and even total calories have all declined. We've seen it repeatedly, and this is that there's more it could give you if we had more time. So vegetable oils are the primary drivers of obesity and diabetes. I don't have any question in my mind about this whatsoever. Vegetable oils and high omega-6 diets account for, I would submit to you 90% of obesity and around 99.7% of diabetes. I know that's a very bold claim, but this is what all the evidence leads me to believe. All right? A warning, however. So corn and soy-fed pork and chicken plus nuts and seeds all contribute to high omega-6 diet, so they're devils in the details. You have to understand this. I will submit, non-processed carbohydrates play no role in obesity, metabolic disease, or diabetes whatsoever. Non-processed carbohydrates, that is. All right? Is sugar the villain? It's been made out to be. I would say this. Sugar plays only a minor role in obesity. And the primary problem with sugar, it runs with seed oils in processed foods, so it has a lot of guilt by association. Now, I'll get to this. I'm not defending sugar here, all right? I'm getting to that. So sugar is obviously a processed nutrient-deficient food, but will contribute to nutrient deficiencies if the amount is enough, and it will lead to physical degenerative diseases or further contribute to those, just as Weston Price showed us in the 1930s and 1940s. Nobody knows that better than myself. All right. So what about diabetes? So sugar plays, again, little or no role in diabetes. Diabetes and metabolic disease are diseases of seed oil and high omega-6 consumption, period, at least in my mind. All right? All right. So have we met the Bradford Hill criteria to prove, I'll use this in single quotes, okay, to prove causality with regard to obesity and diabetes? Well, let's go through these very quickly. Strength of the evidence. You've seen a 35-fold increase in obesity, a 4,643-fold increase in diabetes prevalence since 1890. I'll call that a check. Consistency of the evidence. We've got evidence that the individual population after population studies, global level, that's a check. Is this plausible? Yes. I've laid out the biological mechanisms, and it's pro-oxidative, pro-inflammatory, toxic, and nutrient deficient. Check. Temporal relationship. The exposure always precedes the effect. So you get the oils and then the disease, that's a check. Dose response relationship. You've seen it here over and over. Increased exposure, more oils, more disease. Specificity. This is not exactly the way that Bradford Hill thought of it because he thought of one cause, one effect. And in this scenario, it's that vegetable oils are poisons. They poison all of our systems. So you have numerous myriad effects and myriad chronic disease. I'm going to call that a check. Do we have experimental evidence? You bet we do. And I've reviewed that before. We've got human and animal data. That's a check. And there's plenty of analogous evidence. For example, the highly toxic, heavy metals like arsenic drive the pro-oxidative effects and cause similar diseases. That's a check. I believe we've met the Bradford Hill criteria to prove, use that term in quotes, causality here. Our motto is seed oil free is the key to being disease free. I do have a book coming out here in the next few months on this subject. 100% of royalties will benefit ancestral health foundation and cure AMD foundation or non-profit organizations. And it has, for example, evidence like this, that vegetable oils, we believe, have driven more than a billion deaths just since 1990. So I represent cure AMD foundation and ancestral health foundation. So I want to thank Dr. Aaron Blaisdale, all the organizers of the ancestral health society. And I want to thank all of you. It's been an honor and a pleasure. Thank you.