Beans vs. Beef: Appetite Suppression Nonsense
1 source
The provided text, an article from bartoll.se, critically examines a study comparing the satiety effects of beans versus lean beef in older adults. The author, Joachim Bartoll, strongly denounces the study's methodology and underlying nutritional science, which he believes is intentionally misleading. He argues that the use of tortillas, extra-lean beef in a small portion, and beans (which he considers toxic) skewed the results. Bartoll contends that true appetite control comes from a nutrient-dense, animal-based diet, aligning with his belief that humans are obligate hypercarnivores. He dismisses the study's finding of similar satiety between the meals as flawed and suggests that fatty beef would have demonstrated superior results. Ultimately, the article serves as a platform for Bartoll to promote his carnivore diet philosophy and critique mainstream nutritional recommendations and research.
keepSave to note
copy_all
docsAdd note
audio_magic_eraserAudio Overview
mapMind Map
Discuss Beans vs Beef.
The source, an article by Joachim Bartoll titled "Stupidity Beyond Borders: Beans Vs. Beef For Appetite Suppression"1 , discusses a study that compared the effects of breakfast meals containing either beans or beef on satiety and subsequent calorie intake in older adults2 . Bartoll strongly criticizes this study and presents his views on the nutritional differences and effects of beans versus beef.
According to the article, the study involved 35 participants (average age 72) who consumed three breakfast tortilla meals containing either black beans (135 grams), red kidney beans (135 grams), or extra-lean ground beef (80 grams)2 . Bartoll immediately expresses his disapproval, questioning the use of tortilla meals and "extra-lean" ground beef2 . He argues that the fatter the meat, the more nutrients it contains, especially animal fats and fat-soluble vitamins, and that using "extra-lean" beef suggests either a lack of understanding of human physiology or an attempt to manipulate the study's outcome as it is less filling than fattier meat3 . He also points out that the bean portions (135 grams) were larger than the beef portion (80 grams), calling this "very sneaky"3 .
Bartoll contends that the carb-filled tortilla will cause a blood sugar roller-coaster, affecting appetite and cravings later4 . He also claims that "extra-lean" beef will only serve as a protein source with some vitamins and minerals, while beans, with their "extremely harmful toxins and fiber," will cause bloating and blunt appetite due to acute poisoning as the body deals with the toxic load4 . Despite this, he suggests that even "ultra-lean" beef is thousands of times more nutritious and toxin-free than beans, implying that any similar satiety would arise from different mechanisms, especially considering the carbohydrates in the tortilla5 .
The study assessed subjective appetite for up to 180 minutes after breakfast, followed by an ad libitum pizza lunch, and participants self-measured their remaining food intake5 .... Bartoll criticizes these "research" methods as unreliable6 . The study found that appetite after breakfast did not differ between the groups, and neither did energy intake at lunch or total daily energy intake7 . Bartoll states this outcome is what he suspected, suggesting the use of "extra-lean beef" was likely to make the "extremely toxic beans look better"7 . He believes that if the subjects had consumed real fatty beef, they would have eaten less at lunch due to the higher nutrient content, as he posits that hunger is mainly governed by nutrient requirements7 ....
The article notes that while the beef breakfast contained more protein (35 grams) than the bean breakfasts (21 grams), the bean breakfasts contained more fiber (12 grams vs. 2 grams)8 . The study's findings suggested that the higher fiber content of beans compensated for their lower protein content, resulting in similar satiety8 . Bartoll dismisses this, stating that protein is only a temporary "band-aid" if someone is nutrient deficient and that fiber is "extremely unnatural and very damaging" to human intestines, as humans are "obligate hyper carnivores" designed to eat only animal-based foods8 .... He argues that fiber causes bloating and severe damage10 .... He also claims that plant-based foods with high fiber content also contain antinutrients, defense chemicals, heavy metals, and pesticide residues, making them toxic and temporarily blunting hunger as the body experiences a stress response11 . Bartoll asserts that beans, like seeds, are the most toxic part of any plant and that consuming plant-based foods, especially carbohydrates, increases heart rate and stress indicators, unlike the consumption of animal-based foods11 ....
In conclusion, Bartoll believes the study was flawed from the beginning, either due to ignorance or an attempt to skew the results12 . He argues that the similar satiety observed was due to the superior nutrient density of even a small amount of "extra lean" beef compared to the "acute-stress response from poisoning the body with toxic beans"13 . He maintains that the only way to control appetite and eliminate cravings is by addressing nutrient deficiencies and toxic load through a diet consisting of animal-based foods like fatty meat, organ meats, and eggs, as humans are obligate hyper carnivores13 ....
keep_pinSave to note
copy_all
thumb_up
thumb_down
Discuss Appetite Suppression.
The source discusses appetite suppression by critiquing a study that compared the satiety effects of beans and beef in older adults1 .... The author argues that the study was flawed from the beginning, suggesting a potential bias towards making beans appear as effective as beef for appetite suppression3 .
According to the author, true appetite control comes from addressing nutrient deficiencies and reducing toxic load, which can only be achieved by consuming a diet primarily composed of animal-based foods like fatty meat, organ meats, and eggs4 .... The author claims that humans are obligate hyper carnivores, designed to thrive on animal products4 ....
The author criticizes the study's use of "extra-lean" ground beef, arguing that fattier meat is more nutritious and filling due to its animal fats and fat-soluble vitamins7 . The small portion size of beef (80 grams) compared to beans (135 grams) is also seen as a manipulation7 .
The author contends that beans, along with other plant-based foods, contain harmful toxins, antinutrients, heavy metals, and pesticide residues, which can temporarily blunt appetite as the body experiences a stress response to this "acute poisoning"4 .... This temporary reduction in appetite is different from the sustained satiety achieved through proper nourishment from animal-based foods4 . The author also states that fiber in beans is "extremely unnatural and very damaging to our intestines"6 ....
The study found that appetite after breakfast did not differ between the groups, and neither did energy intake at lunch or total daily energy intake11 . The author suspects this outcome is due to the use of "extra-lean beef" to make the "extremely toxic beans look better"11 . The study also noted that while beef had more protein (35g vs. 21g), beans had more fiber (12g vs. 2g), and suggested that the higher fiber in beans compensated for the lower protein in terms of satiety12 .
However, the author dismisses this, stating that protein's satiety effect is temporary if someone is nutrient deficient12 . While protein can temporarily reduce food intake by affecting hormones and signaling pathways like mTOR and AMPK6 ..., this effect is short-lived without adequate overall nutrition10 . Fiber, on the other hand, is described as indigestible and damaging, causing bloating and hindering nutrient absorption9 ....
The author believes that the carbohydrate-filled tortilla used in the study would cause a blood sugar roller-coaster, affecting appetite and cravings a few hours later, especially with low fat content in the meal8 ....
In conclusion, the author argues that relying on toxic beans for appetite suppression is based on a stress response, unlike the natural satiety achieved by consuming nutrient-dense animal-based foods4 . The author points to their other articles for more information on hunger, cravings, and the importance of a natural human diet5 ....
keep_pinSave to note
copy_all
thumb_up
thumb_down
Discuss Nutrient Density.
The concept of nutrient density is central to the author's argument in the provided text1 . The author strongly emphasizes that animal-based foods, particularly fatty meat, are significantly more nutrient-dense than plant-based foods like beans2 ....
Here's a breakdown of the author's perspective on nutrient density:
•
Animal Fats and Fat-Soluble Vitamins: The author argues that fattier meat is more nutritious because it contains essential animal fats and fat-soluble vitamins2 . The use of "extra-lean" beef in the study is criticized as it lacks these important nutrients, making it less filling2 .
•
Superior Nutrient Density of Beef: Even "ultra-lean" beef is considered by the author to be thousands of times more nutritious than beans, which are described as "toxic"3 . This highlights a stark contrast in perceived nutrient density between these two food groups.
•
Nutrient Deficiencies and Hunger: The author believes that hunger is primarily driven by the body's need for nutrients5 . Therefore, consuming nutrient-dense foods like fatty beef is seen as the key to controlling appetite and eliminating cravings by addressing underlying nutrient deficiencies1 . In contrast, relying on less nutrient-dense options might lead to persistent hunger and cravings6 .
•
Beans as Lacking Nutrient Density and Being Toxic: Beans are portrayed as "toxic bean slop" with "extremely harmful toxins" and fiber, offering little nutritional value compared to beef2 .... The author suggests that any temporary satiety from beans is due to an "acute-stress response from poisoning the body," rather than actual nourishment from dense nutrients1 .
•
Protein as a Temporary Fix: While acknowledging that beef provides more protein than beans in the studied meals (35 vs. 21 grams)6 , the author suggests that protein's satiating effect is only temporary if the body remains nutrient deficient6 .... True satiety, according to the author, comes from fulfilling nutrient requirements with animal-based foods1 ....
•
Plant-Based Foods and Antinutrients: The author further diminishes the nutrient density of plant-based foods by mentioning that they contain antinutrients, defense chemicals, heavy metals, and pesticide residues, making them toxic9 .
In summary, the author of this text argues that true nutrient density is found in animal-based foods, especially fatty meat, which provides the necessary nutrients for human health and satiety2 .... Plant-based foods, particularly beans, are depicted as lacking in essential nutrients and even being detrimental due to their toxic components7 .... The study's use of lean beef is criticized for not showcasing the superior nutrient density of fattier cuts2 ....
keep_pinSave to note
copy_all
thumb_up
thumb_down
Discuss Toxic Plant Foods.
According to the article by Joachim Bartoll, plant-based foods, and especially beans, are considered "toxic" and "extremely harmful" to human health1 .... This perspective is rooted in the author's belief that humans are "obligate hyper carnivores" designed to consume only animal-based foods2 ....
Bartoll argues that beans, like seeds, are the "most toxic part of any plant"3 . He claims that plant-based foods, particularly those high in fiber, contain a variety of harmful substances, including:
•
Toxins and defense chemicals: Plants produce these as a natural defense mechanism1 ....
•
Antinutrients: These compounds can interfere with the absorption of essential nutrients3 .
•
Heavy metals and pesticide residues: Bartoll suggests these are commonly found in plant-based foods3 .
•
Fiber: The author considers fiber to be "extremely unnatural and very damaging to our intestines"1 .... He argues that humans lack the large colon necessary for the fermentation of fiber, unlike herbivores and some omnivores, and that fiber acts like "barb-wire" causing bloating and severe damage2 .... He has even dedicated entire articles to this topic, titled "Fiber is NOT needed in the human diet" and "Fiber Is Extremely Damaging And Not Needed in Any Diet"3 .
Bartoll contends that the consumption of these "toxic" plant compounds triggers a "stress response of acute poisoning" in the body1 .... This stress response, he believes, can temporarily blunt hunger as the body struggles to reestablish homeostasis1 .... He suggests that this temporary appetite suppression from "poisoning the body with toxic beans" is different from the natural satiety derived from the superior nutrient density of animal-based foods6 .
Furthermore, Bartoll claims that consuming plant-based foods, especially carbohydrates, leads to an increase in heart rate and stress indicators, which can be monitored with a "health tracker" device. He asserts that this stress response does not occur when consuming animal-based foods, especially in a state of ketosis7 .
In contrast, the author posits that animal-based foods are "completely free of toxins" and thousands of times more nutritious than beans8 . He believes that the only way to achieve true appetite control and eliminate cravings is by removing "toxic plant-based garbage" from the diet and nourishing the body with animal-based foods like fatty meat, organ meats, and eggs, which he considers the natural, species-appropriate diet for humans4 ....
Bartoll views studies comparing beans and beef for satiety, like the one he critiques, as potentially biased or based on ignorance, as they might inadvertently make "toxic beans look better" by using less nutritious forms of beef (e.g., "extra-lean")9 . He believes that genuine satiety comes from fulfilling the body's nutrient requirements, which, according to him, can only be adequately met through animal-based sources6 ....
keep_pinSave to note
copy_all
thumb_up
thumb_down
Discuss Human Carnivore Diet.
The source you provided, an article by Joachim Bartoll titled "Stupidity Beyond Borders: Beans Vs. Beef For Appetite Suppression," strongly advocates for a human carnivore diet1 ....
According to Bartoll, humans are "obligate hyper carnivores"1 , meaning that our biology and physiology are designed to only consume animal-based foods1 . He considers this to be our "natural species-appropriate, species-specific way of eating"3 .
The rationale behind this viewpoint, as presented in the article, includes the following key points:
•
Nutrient Density: Animal-based foods, particularly fatty meat, are considered to be highly nutrient-dense, containing essential animal fats and fat-soluble vitamins2 .... Even "ultra-lean" beef is deemed "thousands times more nutritious than toxic beans"6 .
•
Toxicity of Plant-Based Foods: Plant-based foods, including beans, are described as "toxic plant-based garbage"2 containing "extremely harmful toxins and fiber"7 , as well as antinutrients, defense chemicals, heavy metals, and pesticide residues8 . Bartoll asserts that beans, like seeds, are the most toxic part of any plant8 .
•
Fiber as Harmful: Fiber, which is abundant in beans, is described as "extremely unnatural and very damaging to our intestines"1 ..., causing bloating and severe damage9 . He argues that humans lack the large colon necessary for fiber fermentation1 .
•
Appetite Regulation: Bartoll believes that the only way to truly control appetite and eliminate cravings is by addressing nutrient deficiencies and toxic load, which can only be achieved by consuming sufficient animal-based foods2 .... He argues that hunger is primarily governed by nutrient requirements10 .
•
Stress Response to Plants: Consuming plant-based foods, especially carbohydrates, is claimed to cause an increase in heart rate and stress indicators, unlike the consumption of animal-based foods11 .
•
Recommended Animal Foods: The author specifically recommends fatty meat and "the occasional organ meats and eggs" as the appropriate nourishment for humans2 .
The study comparing beans and beef is heavily criticized in the context of this carnivore diet perspective. Bartoll suggests that the study was flawed and potentially designed to make beans look better than they are. He believes that if the participants had consumed "real fatty beef," they would have experienced greater satiety due to the higher nutrient content, aligning with his view on the importance of animal-based foods for proper nourishment10 .
Bartoll also refers to several of his other articles that further elaborate on his views regarding hunger, cravings, and the importance of a natural human diet, implying that these resources provide more in-depth information about the benefits of a carnivore-focused approach2 ....
In summary, the source strongly promotes a human carnivore diet based on the premise that humans are biologically adapted to eat only animal-based foods, which are considered highly nutrient-dense and free of the toxins found in plant-based foods. This dietary approach is presented as the key to optimal health, appetite control, and the elimination of cravings1 ....
1. Executive Summary:
This article by Joachim Bartoll strongly criticizes a study comparing the satiety effects of beans versus lean beef in older adults. Bartoll argues that mainstream nutritional science is "hijacked bollocks" driven by agendas that prioritize profit and keep people unhealthy. He believes the study is flawed in its design, particularly the use of "extra-lean" beef, the inclusion of tortillas, and the unreliable methods of appetite assessment. Bartoll asserts that animal-based foods, especially fatty meat, are the only truly nutritious and satiating options for humans, whom he considers "obligate hyper carnivores." He dismisses the satiety attributed to beans as a result of their toxic components triggering a stress response. The author concludes that true appetite control comes from addressing nutrient deficiencies and toxic overload through an animal-based diet.
2. Main Themes and Important Ideas:
Critique of Mainstream Nutritional Science: Bartoll frames conventional nutrition as intentionally misleading and profit-driven, favoring "useless cheap plant-based garbage" over the benefits of animal products. He states, "the inverted “science” of nutrition is pure hijacked bollocks — driven by an agenda to keep you weak, sickly, docile, dumbed-down, and dependent on their system and Big-Pharma solutions while the food industry make billions on totally useless cheap plant-based garbage."
Flawed Study Design: The author heavily criticizes the methodology of the cited study, focusing on several key aspects:
Use of Tortillas: He deems tortillas as "toxic carb-ridden flatbread" that would negatively impact blood sugar and subsequent appetite.
"Extra-Lean" Beef: Bartoll argues that using "extra-lean" beef is a deliberate manipulation or sign of ignorance, as "the fatter the meat, the more nutrients it contains, especially the very important animal fats and fat-soluble vitamins." He also considers the 80-gram serving size as insufficient.
Unequal Serving Sizes: He points out the larger 135-gram serving size of beans compared to the beef, suggesting it was a "sneaky" way to influence satiety by volume.
Unreliable Outcome Measures: Bartoll dismisses "subjective appetite" and "self-measuring" of food intake as unreliable data. He sarcastically questions the inclusion of pizza for lunch: "A frikkin’ pizza for lunch? What is this? Are they trying their best to kill these poor 70-plus-year-old people?"
Superiority of Animal-Based Foods: Bartoll firmly believes that animal-based foods, particularly fatty meat, are nutritionally superior and essential for human health. He contends that "even “ultra-lean” beef is a thousands times more nutritious than toxic beans, and also completely free of toxins."
Negative View of Plant-Based Foods: He characterizes beans as "toxic bean slop" filled with harmful toxins and fiber. He claims that fiber is "extremely unnatural and very damaging to our intestines" and that plant-based foods contain antinutrients, heavy metals, and pesticide residues. He asserts, "beans, just as seeds, are the most toxic part of any plant."
Mechanism of Satiety: Bartoll proposes different mechanisms for the perceived satiety from beef and beans. He suggests that beef satiety comes from superior nutrient density, while bean satiety is a temporary effect of "acute poisoning" and the body's stress response to toxins. He states that with beans, "your body experiences a stress response of acute poisoning. Remember, beans, just as seeds, are the most toxic part of any plant."
Humans as "Obligate Hyper Carnivores": This is a central tenet of Bartoll's argument, stating that humans are biologically designed to exclusively consume animal-based foods. He emphasizes, "Remember, humans are obligate hyper carnivores. We are made to only consume animal-based foods. That is simple biology and physiology."
True Appetite Control: Bartoll believes that the only way to achieve lasting appetite control is by addressing nutrient deficiencies and reducing toxic load through an animal-based diet. He concludes, "the only way to control appetite and remove all cravings and “hunger pangs” is by addressing the cause, as in addressing the nutrient deficiencies and the toxic load. And the only way to do this is by nourishing yourself...by removing the toxic plant-based garbage from your diet and getting enough animal-based foods, as in fatty meat and the occasional organ meats and eggs."
Self-Promotion: The author promotes his coaching and consultation services for those wanting to transition to an animal-based diet and encourages donations and joining his online community.
3. Key Quotes:
"As most of you should know by now, the inverted “science” of nutrition is pure hijacked bollocks — driven by an agenda to keep you weak, sickly, docile, dumbed-down, and dependent on their system and Big-Pharma solutions while the food industry make billions on totally useless cheap plant-based garbage."
"The 35 participants (average age of 72) consumed 3 breakfast tortilla meals, which included either black beans (135 grams), red kidney beans (135 grams), or extra-lean ground beef (80 grams)."
"Are you kidding me? Tortilla meals? As in a toxic carb-ridden flatbread filled with either beans or ground beef. And even worse, “extra-lean” ground beef?! The fatter the meat, the more nutrients it contains, especially the very important animal fats and fat-soluble vitamins. Using “extra-lean” simply shows that you either are completely unaware of human physiology and biochemistry, or that you try to manipulate the outcome of the study, as “extra-lean” meat is a lot less filling than fattier meat. And also, only a puny 80 grams? That’s nothing for an adult, especially if it is “extra-lean.” Also, it’s interesting that the toxic bean slop weighed in at 135 grams, making those meals larger and taking up more space in the stomach. Very sneaky."
"Subjective appetite was assessed up to 180 minutes after breakfast, and then an ad libitum pizza lunch was eaten."
"Appetite after breakfast did not differ between the groups, and neither did energy intake at lunch or total daily energy intake..."
"Protein will only be a temporary “band-aid” if you are nutrient deficient and crave several meals a day... And fiber is extremely unnatural and very damaging to our intestines as we do not have a large colon that is built for fermentation... Remember, humans are obligate hyper carnivores. We are made to only consume animal-based foods. That is simple biology and physiology."
"Also, anything plant-based that contains a lot of fiber also contains a lot of antinutrients, defense chemicals, heavy metals and pesticide residues, making it extremely toxic, which will also temporarily blunt hunger as your body experiences a stress response of acute poisoning. Remember, beans, just as seeds, are the most toxic part of any plant."
"...even a measly 80 grams of “extra lean” beef with it’s superior nutrient density compared to anything plant-based were enough to inflict the same level of satiety as an acute-stress response from poisoning the body with toxic beans..."
"And the only way to control appetite and remove all cravings and “hunger pangs” is by addressing the cause, as in addressing the nutrient deficiencies and the toxic load. And the only way to do this is by nourishing yourself, and since humans are obligate hyper carnivores, this can only be done by removing the toxic plant-based garbage from your diet and getting enough animal-based foods, as in fatty meat and the occasional organ meats and eggs."
4. Potential Biases and Considerations:
Strong Preconceived Notions: The author clearly holds strong negative views towards plant-based foods and mainstream nutrition, which heavily influences his interpretation of the study and its findings.
Lack of Scientific Rigor: The article relies on strong opinions and anecdotal statements rather than presenting scientific evidence to support its claims about human physiology, the dangers of fiber, or the toxicity of beans.
Conspiracy Theory Tone: The author suggests a deliberate conspiracy within the nutrition and pharmaceutical industries to keep people unhealthy for profit.
Promotion of a Specific Dietary Approach: The article serves as promotion for an exclusively animal-based diet and the author's related services.
1. What is the author's main criticism of the study comparing beans and beef for appetite suppression?
The author argues that the study is fundamentally flawed and potentially intentionally misleading. Key criticisms include the use of tortillas (carb-heavy), "extra-lean" beef (deficient in essential fats and nutrients), and unequal portion sizes (larger portion of beans). The author believes these factors were likely chosen to make the nutritionally inferior beans appear comparable to beef in terms of satiety.
2. According to the author, why is "extra-lean" beef a poor choice for a study on satiety?
The author contends that "extra-lean" beef lacks the vital animal fats and fat-soluble vitamins that contribute significantly to satiety. Fattier meat, according to the author, is more nutritious and therefore more effective at satisfying hunger driven by nutrient requirements.
3. What are the author's views on the role of beans in the human diet?
The author views beans as toxic and harmful to human health. He argues that their high fiber content is damaging to the intestines (as humans are not built for extensive fermentation), and that they contain antinutrients, defense chemicals, heavy metals, and pesticide residues. He believes any temporary appetite suppression from beans is due to the body's stress response to this "acute poisoning."
4. How does the author explain the similar satiety levels observed between the bean and beef groups in the study?
The author suggests that any similar satiety reported in the study was achieved through vastly different mechanisms. He posits that the "extra-lean" beef provided some protein and minimal nutrients, while the beans triggered a stress response and temporary blunting of appetite due to their toxic nature. He also points to the carbohydrates in the tortillas as a factor that would likely lead to increased hunger later, especially with low fat intake.
5. What is the author's perspective on fiber in the human diet?
The author strongly believes that fiber is not needed and is in fact damaging to the human digestive system. He argues that humans, as "obligate hyper carnivores," do not possess the necessary large colon for the fermentation of fiber and that it acts like "barb-wire" in the intestines, causing bloating and damage. He also links high-fiber plant foods to the presence of toxins.
6. What does the author believe is the true driver of hunger and how should it be addressed?
The author asserts that hunger is primarily governed by nutrient requirements and the body's need for essential substances. He believes that the only way to effectively control appetite and eliminate cravings is by addressing nutrient deficiencies and reducing toxic load. This, according to the author, can only be achieved by consuming a diet primarily consisting of fatty animal-based foods, including meat and occasionally organ meats and eggs, while eliminating plant-based foods.
7. What evidence does the author suggest individuals can use to verify his claims about plant-based foods?
The author suggests that individuals can use "health tracker" devices to monitor their body's response to different foods. He claims that consuming plant-based foods, especially carbohydrates, will lead to an increase in heart rate and stress indicators, while consuming animal-based foods will not produce such a response, especially in those who are fat-adapted and in ketosis.
8. What is the author's proposed solution for individuals seeking to improve their health and eating habits?
The author advocates for a transition to a "natural species-appropriate, species-specific way of eating," which he defines as a primarily animal-based diet consisting of fatty meat, occasional organ meats, and eggs, while completely removing "toxic plant-based garbage." He offers coaching and consultation services to help individuals make this dietary shift.
Borders: Beans Vs. Beef For Appetite Suppression"
Key Concepts and Arguments:
Critique of Mainstream Nutrition: Understand Bartoll's central argument that conventional nutritional science is "hijacked bollocks" driven by agendas that prioritize profit over health. Identify the characteristics he ascribes to this "inverted science."
Deconstruction of the Featured Study: Analyze Bartoll's specific criticisms of the randomized crossover trial comparing beans and beef for satiety in older adults. Note his objections to the study design (participants, meals, measurements) and his interpretation of the findings.
Beans vs. Beef Argument: Detail Bartoll's contrasting views on beans and beef regarding their nutritional value and impact on the body. Understand his claims about the toxicity of beans (antinutrients, defense chemicals, etc.) and the superior nutritional density of (specifically fatty) beef.
Satiety Mechanisms: Compare and contrast Bartoll's explanation of how protein and fiber might temporarily affect satiety. Understand his argument that true appetite regulation comes from addressing nutrient deficiencies and toxic load.
Human Dietary Nature: Explain Bartoll's assertion that humans are "obligate hyper carnivores" and what this implies for the ideal human diet.
Role of Carbohydrates and Fats: Understand Bartoll's perspective on carbohydrates (especially in processed forms like tortillas) and the importance of animal fats in a healthy diet.
Critique of Plant-Based Diets: Summarize Bartoll's overall negative view of plant-based foods and the reasons he provides for this stance.
Emphasis on Nutrient Density and Toxicity: Recognize the recurring themes of nutrient density (animal-based foods are superior) and toxicity (plant-based foods are harmful) in Bartoll's argument.
Call to Action: Understand Bartoll's recommendations for achieving optimal health and appetite regulation through a species-appropriate diet.
Bartoll argues that the primary motivation behind the "inverted science" of nutrition is an agenda to keep people weak, sickly, docile, dumbed-down, and dependent on the system and Big-Pharma, while the food industry profits from cheap plant-based foods.
Two specific criticisms Bartoll raises about the study's methodology are the use of "toxic carb-ridden" tortilla meals and the inclusion of only 80 grams of "extra-lean" ground beef, which he believes is insufficient and less filling than fattier meat.
Bartoll believes "extra-lean" ground beef is a poor choice because the fatter the meat, the more nutrients it contains, especially important animal fats and fat-soluble vitamins. He also argues that it is less filling than fattier meat, potentially skewing the study's outcome.
Bartoll suggests beans can temporarily blunt appetite due to their high fiber content, which he believes can cause digestive issues and a feeling of fullness, and also due to the body's stress response to the toxins and antinutrients present in beans.
According to Bartoll, beef, especially fatty beef, has superior nutrient density compared to beans, providing essential nutrients without the toxic load associated with plant-based foods like beans.
Bartoll argues that fiber is unnatural and damaging to human intestines because humans lack the large colon necessary for its fermentation, as seen in herbivores. He believes fiber acts like "barb-wire" causing bloating and severe damage.
By "obligate hyper carnivore," Bartoll means that humans are biologically designed to exclusively consume animal-based foods. This forms the basis of his recommendation to eliminate plant-based foods for optimal health.
According to Bartoll, the primary way to truly control appetite and eliminate cravings is by addressing underlying nutrient deficiencies and toxic load through a diet consisting of animal-based foods.
Bartoll suggests that individuals can use a "health tracker" device to monitor and verify their body's stress response (e.g., increased heart rate) after consuming plant-based foods compared to the absence of such a response when consuming animal-based foods, especially in a state of ketosis.
Bartoll views the featured study as "botched from the start," either due to ignorance or an intentional effort to manipulate the results and make toxic beans appear comparable to nutrient-dense beef in terms of satiety.
Essay Format Questions:
Analyze Joachim Bartoll's critique of the nutritional science establishment as presented in "Stupidity Beyond Borders." What are his main accusations, and what evidence (if any) does he provide to support these claims?
Discuss Bartoll's arguments for the superiority of a meat-based diet and the purported dangers of plant-based foods, particularly beans. Critically evaluate the biological and physiological claims he makes in support of his "obligate hyper carnivore" perspective.
Examine Bartoll's deconstruction of the study comparing the satiety effects of beans and beef. What are his primary methodological and interpretative criticisms, and how do these criticisms align with his broader nutritional philosophy?
Compare and contrast Bartoll's explanations for how protein and fiber might influence satiety. How do these explanations support his overall argument about the optimal human diet and the nature of true hunger regulation?
Evaluate the tone and rhetorical strategies employed by Joachim Bartoll in "Stupidity Beyond Borders." How does his writing style contribute to the persuasiveness (or lack thereof) of his arguments?
Glossary of Key Terms:
Satiety: The feeling of fullness and satisfaction after eating, which suppresses further hunger.
Randomized Crossover Trial: A type of study design where participants are randomly assigned to different treatments (in this case, breakfast meals) and then "cross over" to the other treatment(s) at a later point.
Ad Libitum: Latin for "at one's pleasure" or "as much as one wants," often used in dietary studies to describe unrestricted food intake.
Washout Period: A period between different treatments in a crossover study where the effects of the previous treatment are expected to dissipate.
Nutrient Density: A measure of the amount of beneficial nutrients in a food relative to its calorie content.
Antinutrients: Natural or synthetic compounds found in plant-based foods that can interfere with the absorption of nutrients.
Obligate Hyper Carnivore: An animal whose diet consists solely or primarily of meat and requires a very high intake of animal protein.
Ketosis: A metabolic state characterized by elevated levels of ketone bodies in the blood, often resulting from a very low-carbohydrate diet.
Homeostasis: The tendency toward a relatively stable equilibrium between interdependent elements, especially as maintained by physiological processes.
Big-Pharma: A colloquial term referring to the large pharmaceutical industry, often used with negative connotations regarding profit motives and influence on healthcare.
convert_to_textConvert to source
NotebookLM can be inaccurate; please double check its responses.
