 There's a great Leon Festinger quote, I don't know if you've heard it. A man with a conviction is a hard man to change. Tell him you disagree and he turns away. Show him the facts and figures and he questions your sources. Appeal the logic and he fails to see your point. You got wrong. Alright guys, welcome back to the channel. If you're new, my name is Bobby. Guys, today I'm going to review the Chris Cressa versus James Wilkes debate that was hosted on the Joe Rogan experience. Usually debates start by finding common ground and then you go from there. However, it was crystal clear to see that James Wilkes had a totally different motivation for this debate. He wants to debunk Chris Cressa. He wants to character assassinate him and he wanted to gain Joe Rogan's approval. Joe, you're going to really realize here what Chris is doing. He's misrepresenting and he's wrong, Joe. You've got to admit that in this case, do you question that I spent a thousand hours and I've spent another 2,000 hours looking at peer reviewed research since then? You got wrong. Second of all, do you see what Chris just did? Joe, come on, I've come in here. I've heard it already, yeah. So we'll get to another point because you were wrong about many other things as well. How am I doing, by the way, defending the film? So at first they're talking about the elephants in the room, gladiators. They claim that the gladiators were vegan, right? And if we can just prove they think the whole film is based on this premise. That was just like an inciting incident for me to start digging into it. First of all, Fabian Kent said they were predominantly vegetarian and I said they ate mostly plants. As James Wilkes said, there is absolutely no reason to believe that those gladiators were vegetarian or vegan. And on top of that, we do not know what other findings would have shown. We are simply talking about a few skeletons that have been examined. But either way, there is no point in talking about this. The argument was that gladiators have strong bones. Gladiators died very, very young. They lived up to 25 at most. And that of course implies that those young guys would have strong bones. That has nothing to do with their diet. Then they proceeded to talk about dairy and cancer correlation. And that was truly hard to watch. An absolute embarrassment. James Wilkes failed to understand basic math. He cited Chris Cressor's comment, which was 84% of meta-analyses on dairy consumption showed either no association or an inverse association between dairy and cancer. But big shocker, the reality of things is 71% showed no evidence and 13% showed decreased risk. Wow, mind blown. Chris Cressor debunked. You got wrong. So all that Chris did is put the 71 and the 13 together and added up to 84%, which led him to say that the 84% of meta-analyses on dairy consumption showed either no association or an inverse association. He could have said 87% showed no risk or an increased risk. Instead, he chose to summarize it saying 84%. That's the bulk of it. That's 84%. Versus 87%, it doesn't mean. No, no, no. 87% shows increased risk is only 16%. No evidence to increased risk to get 87%. That's illogical. But we're talking about something causing cancer, James. Exactly, so he shouldn't be making that claim. Increased risk is what we're looking for. 71%, the bulk of the evidence shows no evidence. That's exactly what my point. You have no risk for logic. Yet again, you can see that James Wilkes is really not interested in debunking any meat-based science. He just wants to character assassinate Chris Cressor. Which, by the way, has any of your work or your ideas been published in the scientific literature? No, I've never claimed that it has. I just wondered. You didn't wonder. No, I did wonder. I couldn't find anything. But that's not what you were saying. You were saying that to try to make it seem that he's less of an expert. Same argumentation when they started talking about low-carb. Chris Cressor had a certain definition of low-carb to moderate-carb diets for his clients. And Wilkes, on the other hand, appealed to authority for the hundredth time and said that the peer-reviewed literature shows different numbers. In philosophy, there's this illogical fallacy called appeal to authority. The World Health Organization, the FAO, the American Heart Association, the 2015-2020 Dietary Guidelines. Appeal to authority. Dr. Walter Willett, who is the chair of Nutrition at Harvard, he's one of the most published nutrition scientists of all time, if not the most published, appeal to authority. Should we trust Walter Willett, who at the time was the chair of Nutrition at Harvard, appeal to authority? You're saying that Richard Rang and the chair of anthropology that we interviewed does not represent the scientific consensus of anthropology. Appeal to authority. This has been evaluated by hundreds of PhD researchers. Appeal to authority. The Defense Health Agency has reviewed this film in detail appeal to authority. And these are master's degrees in nutrition, PhDs in nutrition, to get that accreditation appeal to authority. So what does that mean? Is James Work's correct and Chris Cressa is a liar? No, not at all. It depends on context. That is the main important thing here. Are we talking about athletes? Are we talking about sick people? Or to immune disorders and whatnot? Every single person needs a different approach. And the funny thing is that James Work's will even agree with me. He debunks himself by saying... I'm not advocating high carb or low carb. I think that people can do healthy and well. I think for athletes, they need a lot more carbs, which of course getting those from plants. I think there's certain athletes that can, if it's slow and steady state where you're getting more fat oxidation, I think that, you know, slow and steady state athletes can do, but like an MMA fighter, a soccer player, a basketball player. Exactly. Athletes have different needs. And therefore Chris Cressa is absolutely correct here to use the percentage that he needs in order to provide results for his clients. He does not need to appeal to authority in order to set a percentage of carbohydrates which is needed for his clients. So then they move on to B12. Precious B12, vegan's favorite topic. And finally, finally, James Wilkes caught Chris Cressa. This is why he is here, right? Experts and their opinions are not Chris Cressa in his opinion. So you see what Chris did to represent this. He finally can prove him wrong. He can show how bad Chris Cressa is and that he is a liar, a scam artist, not an expert. So Chris, would you consider yourself a nutrition expert? But honestly, what did he catch him on? If you really look into it, it is absolutely ridiculous. Wilkes says that it's common practice to feed B12 to animals. Cressa, on the other hand, says that that never happens. So in order to debunk Cressa, Wilkes shows couple of B12 supplements for animals on Google. And that is his proof. That is his evidence. Great, we can play the same game here on Instagram and we can show what Sean Baker just reposted. Here we have a farmer saying, tough to listen to that podcast. He was so annoying and obviously struggled to prove himself over the evidence Chris uses. I don't get why Joe thinks the vegan did so well. By the way, I'm a rancher. We don't give B12 and I don't know any rancher who does. We do chickens, pigs, and a lot of beef cattle. None of our animals get given a B12 supplement. I've also never even heard of it in the industry, let alone it being a common practice. So there you have it, yet again, another vegan claiming something without being exposed to the industry. Here on this channel, we are in contact with real farmers, but somehow a vegan will show up, show me a study that disproves what the farmer said. It is absolutely ridiculous, as yet again another appeal to authority fallacy. But hey, let's entertain the idea. Let's say that James Wilkes has a point. Every single animal in the animal industry, factory farming, gets supplemented with B12. Let that be so. Still, even if that would hold true, it would be nothing but an appeal to majority that completely excludes everybody that follows healthy eating habits, somebody that would source grass, fat, beef, or wild caught fish. But yet again, this does not prove anything. If anything, Wilkes got a point because Chris Cressor didn't know how many animals get supplemented in reality. But let's face it, neither does Wilkes. The best way to get B12 is to take a supplement, period. And you're wrong if you think otherwise. The most frustrating aspect of this part of the debate was that Wilkes recommends everybody has to take B12 supplements. Just because he looked into vegans and standard American dieters, this is why he recommends a supplement for everybody, right? Amazing, vegan logic. Not just all supplement, doesn't matter. Why should we eat whole foods? If you eat grass, fat, beef, there is absolutely no supplementation whatsoever in those animals. The healthy ruminants that create their own B12, you get supremely bioavailable healthy whole foods. Even when they looked into the science of B12, Wilkes still failed. All he said is, yes, true, vegans have low B12 levels, but if they supplement, they are accurate. Great in the blood plasma. However, Chris says, how about the holotranscobalamin levels, right? That is the real indicator for depletion. And he even shows a study where vegans have lower holotranscobalamin levels, no matter if they supplement or not. And that is the whole point here. It does not matter that you supplement, you're popping some pills and your plasma blood level goes up. Of course it will. However, how about your body? Does it get absorbed? And Wilkes cannot prove that either. And you're wrong if you think otherwise. Then they proceed to talk about peanut butter sandwiches and how peanut butter is so protein rich. Amazing. James Wilkes tells Chris Cressor that he lied again because if you look at a peanut butter sandwich, it is not only the peanut butter that has protein, but the bread as well. And if you combine the bread and the peanut butter, you have even more protein than a regular steak. How amazing is that? Yet again, vegan logic. Completely fails to admit that we are talking about processed junk food. We're talking about bread and peanut butter and we're comparing it to grass-fed beef. In which universe does that make sense? Of course, in vegan fairy tale land where people are completely macro focused, right? It has enough protein. It has just as much protein. It is the same. If you look at the nutritional profile of peanuts or bread and compare it to grass-fed beef, what will you find? Of course, yet again, you don't have B12. This is why you have to supplement. Take a supplement, period. But on top of that, you have problematic anti-nutrients. You have gluten in the bread. You have aflatoxins in the peanut butter. How is that a healthy food? I could compare a pea protein isolate to steak and say that the pea protein isolate has more protein, but that is not the point. And that is the whole debate in a nutshell. Of course, they talked about a couple of other things. I don't know about you guys, but looking at James' works, I can say the vegan deficiencies are kicking in. He already has those vegan eyes and he's super aggressive. You see him being agitated, aggressive, psyched out, licking his lips all the time. He does not seem balanced at all. His whole argument isn't at home attack based on nothing. He fails to prove that meat and dairy is bad for you. But there's no evidence that meat is bad for you. No, we can get into that. But this is something that's actually recently been established by mainstream medicine. You understand that, right? There is absolutely no evidence supporting his claim. All the studies that he himself listed didn't prove anything. They definitely did not prove that meat is bad for you, dairy is bad for you or whatnot. He didn't even prove that meat predominantly plant-based. I say usually you can say who's right or wrong in the debate by the way they are conducting themselves. The need for approval, the aggressive nature, the constant ad hominem attacks shows me that James' works is not confident in what he was saying. Overall, it was really, really hard to watch. I tried watching it on twice the speed, but I couldn't keep up with James' works as it is. He looked as if he was on speed or Adderall. From the comments that I've seen so far, not even the vegans are on James' works side because of his aggressive behavior and his delivery. Nobody seemed to be too happy aside from Joe Rogan. And I'm quite shocked. I still hope and believe that Joe Rogan is trolling us with his Instagram comment. All right guys, but this it for today's video. If you liked it, leave it a thumbs up. If you haven't subscribed already, please do so. And if you want to support the channel, all the links are in the description box below. We have Amazon links for you. You can head over there, buy whatever you might wanna buy and it doesn't cost you anything extra. We get a small share that is a fantastic way to support Bobby's perspective. If you want grass-fed beef delivered to your doorstep, butcher boxes for you. And we have CBD links as well. On top of that guys, consider supporting Bobby's perspective through Subscribestar or Patreon. We have a VIP community there where we have Skype group calls every single week where we can discuss any topic no matter if it is health, lifestyle or nutrition related. On top of that by joining, you straight away receive your comprehensive nutrition guide. It is an e-book that teaches you the basics of nutrition but goes beyond as well and is catering to your personal goals no matter if you're keto, primal, paleo or even raw. All right, but this is it. Thank you very much for your support and as always, much love and peace. And I am a combatives instructor, okay? I've heard that. Right, so I'm just saying, I'm putting myself down. I understand. I'm not like a super intelligent guy. That's the general consensus. Can I just finish with that? And I'm gonna show you. I'm not like a super intelligent guy. Joe, you're gonna really realize here. I'm not like a super intelligent guy. Rather than appeal to authority. You just said yourself that's a rhetorical fallacy. No, it's a fallacy unless it's the appeal to valid authority.