Title: “I Didn’t Eat for 39 Hours… Then Ran 62 Miles (Fasted) — Carnivore Ultra Runner Interview”

Summary (from the video only; no sponsors, no CTAs):

• Background

• Greg describes discovering the carnivore diet via a relative (his uncle).
• Initial skepticism (“you need fiber/fruit/veg”) shifts after trying it himself.

• Pre-carnivore health/issues

• Long-standing eczema/skin problems treated repeatedly with steroid creams and pills.
• A severe rash two years prior led to more steroids; doctors framed it as “this is who you are.”

• Switching to carnivore

• Adopted a meat- and egg-based diet after conventional approaches failed.
• Within ~2 weeks he noticed significant improvement in skin/eczema.
• Reports steadier energy, reduced food preoccupation, simpler meals, and less stress about recipes.

• Training/running context

• Took up running ~1–1.5 years prior; later got into ultrarunning.
• Began experimenting with fasted training runs (dinner the night before, then run without breakfast).

• The fasted 100K (≈62 miles)

• Entered a 100-kilometer ultramarathon with a plan to remain fasted.
• Did not eat for 24 hours before the start, ate only after finishing.
• Total time without food ≈39 hours (24 hours pre-race + ~15 hours of racing).
• During the race he consumed only water and electrolytes (salt-stick type: sodium, potassium, magnesium).
• Took roughly one electrolyte capsule per hour to prevent cramps/fatigue.
• Reports no GI issues, no energy crashes, and no “hitting the wall.”
• Observed other athletes consuming large amounts of carbohydrates (he mentions ~80–100 g/hour as a common target among ultrarunners) and some experiencing bonks/crashes.

• Perceived effects/observations

• Describes stable, even energy throughout most of the race; acknowledges normal late-race fatigue but no bonk.
• Says he has “never hit the wall” since being on carnivore.
• Notes that conventional endurance advice (high-carb fueling) conflicted with his experience.

• Adaptation period & practical notes

• Warns athletes to expect an adaptation period (possibly 1–2 months of worse performance) when switching diets.
• Emphasizes electrolytes (sodium/potassium/magnesium) and hydration on carnivore/fasted runs.
• Typical pre-run approach outside of races: eat the evening meal, then run fasted the next morning.

• Social reaction & debate

• Fellow runners were surprised he attempted and completed a 100K entirely fasted.
• Mentions critics of carnivore and says he’s open to being a “guinea pig” for testing/measurement in the future.

Referenced papers (as mentioned in the video):
• None explicitly cited; no DOI-identifiable papers referenced by title or author in the conversation.

Core question

• Why do many doctors dislike or discourage a carnivore (“proper human”) diet?

Key points from the conversation

• Medical training bias: Standard guidance emphasizes low-fat, high-carbohydrate patterns (e.g., DASH/old food pyramid with multiple daily servings of grains and fruits). When patients propose the opposite, many clinicians label it “dangerous.”
• Lipids & risk markers: Rather than focusing on total LDL alone, the discussion emphasizes:
  • LDL particle characteristics (small/large particles)
  • Triglyceride:HDL ratio (target: <2)
  • Apolipoprotein ratios (ApoB:ApoA1) in the normal range
  • Inflammatory markers (CRP, ESR) in the normal range
  • Metabolic health measures: waist/belly size, blood pressure, blood sugar
• Statin default: In conventional care, elevated LDL often leads directly to a statin recommendation, without broader metabolic context.
• Fiber myth: The claim that fiber is required for bowel movements is challenged; examples given that carnivores (animals and people) have normal bowel function without fiber.
• Protein/kidney concern: Carnivore/keto are characterized as high-fat, moderate-protein (not “high-protein”). Protein is not presented as harmful to kidneys in general; adjustments may be needed for existing kidney disease.
• Evidence landscape:
  • A “Harvard study” is cited as showing favorable outcomes among people following carnivore, but it was observational; more randomized controlled trials are needed for clinician confidence.
  • Because carnivore is a ketogenic pattern, existing keto evidence is presented as supportive while awaiting carnivore-specific RCTs.
• Practice realities:
  • Many physicians lack formal nutrition education; even proponents working inside large health systems aim to educate peers and integrate low-carb care.
  • Not all patients need to be strict carnivore; many benefit from moving toward low-carb.
• Patient approach:
  • Share personal results and data respectfully; request monitoring of meaningful markers.
  • If a clinician is unwilling, consider finding a carnivore/low-carb-friendly doctor; patient autonomy over diet is emphasized.
• Institutions & outlook:
  • Mentions professional groups (e.g., Society of Metabolic Health Practitioners) working on outreach.
  • Optimism expressed about broader institutional and policy openness to metabolic-health approaches.

Referenced paper(s) with DOI

• Lennerz BS, Mey JT, Henn OH, Ludwig DS. “Behavioral Characteristics and Self-Reported Health Status among 2029 Adults Consuming a ‘Carnivore Diet’.” Current Developments in Nutrition (observational survey). https://doi.org/10.1093/cdn/nzab133

Scope: Speaker shows a Sam’s Club grocery delivery and breaks down what they’ll eat on a budget for ~2 weeks on a carnivore diet. Prices and quantities are as stated in the video.

Items & quantities

• Smoked salmon: 2 packs, 1 lb each (total 2 lb).
• Eggs (pasture-raised): 4 flats of 18 eggs (72 eggs total).
• Chicken thighs: 2 large packs (~5.2 lb each) at $7.38 per pack; “enough for at least 10 meals.”
• Hickory-smoked bacon: 4 lb total (brand mentioned as hickory-smoked/Wright-style).
• Frozen beef burger patties: 6 lb total.
• Optional add-on: a “couple of ribeyes.”

Notes on use/meals

• Salmon is paired with eggs; also called out as a quick air-fryer option.
• Burger patties are the main beef source (ribeye consumption reduced due to price).
• Bacon and eggs highlighted as a go-to meal.
• Chicken thighs planned across multiple meals (≥10).

Costs (as stated)

• Main order total (including delivery and tip): $110.
• Optional ribeyes: ~$30 for “a couple.”
• Estimated 2-week spend with ribeyes included: < $150.

Overall takeaway (from the video content)

• The speaker demonstrates a 2-week carnivore plan centered on eggs, chicken thighs, bacon, burger patties, and some smoked salmon, obtained via Sam’s Club delivery, keeping total spend around $110–$150 for the period.

Referenced papers

• None mentioned in the video.

Scope:

• Summary strictly reflects the talk’s content as transcribed in the provided SRT. No sponsor/advertising or off-video commentary included.

Core thesis:

• U.S. Dietary Guidelines are an “incredibly powerful policy” shaping school meals, military rations, hospitals, WIC/elderly feeding, and public messaging.
• From inception, guidance (notably limits on saturated fat and total fat) rested on weak/indirect evidence and has not delivered the intended health benefits.

Historical setup & policy influence:

• 1961: American Heart Association issues first official policy recommending Ancel Keys’s idea to cut saturated fat.
• 1980 onward: U.S. Dietary Guidelines formalize low-fat, grain-heavy patterns; ripple effects worldwide.

What the Guidelines promote (as described):

• Emphasis on fruits, vegetables, grains; non-/low-fat dairy; “protein foods” increasingly from non-animal sources.
• Explicit ~10% cap on saturated fat.
• Allowed/encouraged vegetable (industrial) oils; talk specifically mentions soybean oil.
• Sugar guideline noted at ≤10% of calories.

Trends shown/claimed (from the talk’s charts and narration):

• Americans ate more of what the Guidelines told them to increase (grains, vegetable oils) and less of what they told them to reduce (red meat, eggs); poultry increased.
• Carbohydrates as a share of total calories rose; Guidelines simultaneously raised recommended carbohydrate amounts.
• Despite alignment with guidance, obesity and diabetes rose sharply over time (presented as discordant with expectations).

Evidence grading & methodological critique:

• Major clinical trials were reviewed and many did not support core low-fat/saturated-fat claims.
• Process concerns:
  • Advisory committees (DGAC) allegedly avoided direct, transparent review of relevant RCTs on saturated fat and low-carbohydrate diets.
  • Reliance on external/secondary reviews and computer modeling rather than prioritizing clinical trials.
  • Inconsistent evidence grading; associative/observational results weighed over trials even when trials exist.
  • Committee composition and conflicts of interest raised as risks to impartial evaluation.

Specific topic notes mentioned:

• Saturated fat: A 2020 “review on saturated fat” (described in the talk) is cited as emblematic of selective evaluation.
• Lipids: Total cholesterol framed as an inadequate marker; discordance between LDL-C and outcomes referenced; interest in lipoprotein subfractions implied.
• Red/processed meat: Claims of weak associative evidence with small effect sizes and heavy confounding; restrictions portrayed as poorly supported.
• Eggs/dietary cholesterol: Historical limits described as lacking robust trial support; later evidence portrayed as not confirming harm for most people.
• Refined grains: Allowances characterized as inconsistent with nutrient density and metabolic health aims.
• Sugar: The speaker argues sugar received comparatively less emphasis than fat for decades.
• Low-carbohydrate diets: Said to be under-reviewed/sidelined despite RCTs showing improvements in glycemia and cardiometabolic risk factors.

Policy stakes & international context:

• Because the Guidelines drive procurement, labeling, reimbursement, and education, misalignment with trial evidence has wide consequences.
• The talk suggests global scientists increasingly question the saturated-fat hypothesis; U.S. processes lag in updating.

Q&A highlights (end of talk):

• Audience engagement touches on current perceptions of red meat and broader acceptance of claims despite evidentiary weaknesses.

• Session ends shortly after a final audience exchange.

• BMJ 2015 feature by Nina Teicholz critiquing the DGAC evidence base: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.h4962

Video Summary (for/against context; based solely on the video)

Context

• Format: A reaction/rebuttal in which Dr. Eric Westman plays and responds to a critical video by Mike the Vegan about a ketogenic diet coronary CT angiography (“Keto-CTA”) study.
• Core dispute: Whether the Keto-CTA study’s data and rollout support the claim that very high LDL/ApoB in lean, metabolically healthy ketogenic dieters did not predict plaque progression.

“Against” (Mike the Vegan’s critique)

• Data handling / transparency
  • Accuses the authors of “gross manipulation” and burying key outcomes.
  • Claims the public rollout was mishandled, including release of a figure that a senior author later said “was not the final paper.”
  • Says some data had to be “squeezed” out of the authors and that this situation is unusual.
• Study framing
  • Objects to calling it a “trial” or “prospective trial,” asserting it’s actually a prospective cohort and that repeated “trial” language is misrepresentative.
• Missing/underplayed outcomes
  • Asks whether key CTA outcomes (e.g., percent change in non-calcified/total plaque) were “shoved under the rug.”
  • Highlights mixed outcomes across participants (some progressed, some regressed) and argues the presentation overstates safety of high LDL/ApoB.
• Authorial disagreement
  • Points to apparent discord among study authors and cites Dr. Budoff’s statements criticizing how a figure was released/handled.
• Call for oversight
  • Urges JACC: Advances (the publishing journal) to review what went wrong and at minimum issue a correction.

“For” (Dr. Eric Westman’s rebuttal)

• Primary finding defended
  • Emphasizes the study’s central observation: in lean, metabolically healthy ketogenic dieters, LDL-C/ApoB did not predict plaque progression, whereas baseline plaque burden was a strong predictor of future plaque change.
• Imaging method context
  • Stresses the distinction between CTA (visualizes plaque directly, including non-calcified plaque) vs CAC (calcified plaque scoring), framing CTA as a more granular modality for this question.
• Heterogeneous outcomes are expected
  • Notes it’s normal that some participants regress, some progress, and some remain stable over time; interprets this variability as consistent with real-world clinical experience.
• Study nomenclature and intent
  • Treats the “Keto-CTA” label as a colloquial descriptor; focuses attention on what the imaging showed over time, not on the “trial” vs “cohort” wording dispute.
• Clinical takeaway for this population
  • Reiterates the population studied (lean, metabolically healthy, long-term ketogenic dieters) and the specific result (plaque predicts plaque; LDL/ApoB didn’t in this cohort over the measured interval).

Neutral clarifications presented in the video

• Population & duration: Lean, metabolically healthy adults on long-term ketogenic diets underwent research-grade coronary CTA; follow-up imaging assessed plaque change.
• Baseline plaque matters: Existing plaque at baseline was repeatedly described as the best predictor of subsequent change.
• Outcome mix: Across individuals, progression, stability, and regression were all observed.

Papers referenced in the video (DOIs)

• KETO Trial (baseline cross-sectional CTA) — Carbohydrate Restriction-Induced Elevations in LDL-Cholesterol and Atherosclerosis: The KETO Trial (JACC: Advances, 2024).
  DOI: 10.1016/j.jacadv.2024.101109
• Keto-CTA longitudinal analysis — Longitudinal Data From the KETO-CTA Study: Plaque Progression and Predictors in Lean Individuals on a Ketogenic Diet (JACC: Advances, 2025).
  DOI: 10.1016/j.jacadv.2025.101686

Core aims of the video

• Clarify why headlines about saturated fat often sound alarming versus what the best evidence shows.
• Keep the discussion apolitical and focused on study design and data quality.
• Offer a simple, real-food template that can include saturated fat without fear, especially for people with insulin resistance.

Why many clinicians still fear saturated fat

• The classic “diet-heart” model: saturated fat (SFA) can raise LDL; LDL is causal in atherosclerosis; therefore SFA must raise risk.
• Guidelines and medical training have reinforced this logic for decades.
• Some trials showed benefits when SFA was specifically replaced with polyunsaturated fat (PUFA), which shapes clinician perception.

What the best evidence shows (by study design)

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs)

• A rigorous Cochrane review of long-term RCTs found that reducing SFA for ≥2 years lowered combined cardiovascular events by ~17%, with little or no clear change in total mortality; benefits were greater when SFA was replaced with PUFA. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD011737.pub3

Observational cohorts

• The PURE study (18 countries) reported that higher total fat—including SFA—was associated with lower total mortality, while higher carbohydrate intake was associated with higher total mortality. Total fat and SFA were not significantly associated with cardiovascular disease (CVD) or myocardial infarction; SFA showed an inverse association with stroke. DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(17)32252-3

Broad evidence syntheses / food-based framing

• A 2020 JACC State-of-the-Art Review emphasized evaluating foods in their matrix (e.g., dairy, unprocessed meats) rather than isolating single fatty acids. It reported no benefit on CVD or total mortality from simply cutting SFA in isolation, and highlighted that food-based patterns and replacements matter. DOI: 10.1016/j.jacc.2020.05.077

How to keep the conversation apolitical

• Be precise about study designs: distinguish RCTs (causal tests) from observational studies (associations).
• Pay attention to what SFA is replaced with (PUFA vs refined starch/sugar) when interpreting results.
• Focus on clinical markers and outcomes rather than teams or headlines.

Practical eating template (especially for insulin resistance)

• Reduce refined starches and sugars.
• Within a whole-food pattern, you can include natural sources of SFA (e.g., beef, eggs, butter, cheese, full-fat yogurt) without fear when the overall metabolic context is improved.

How to track progress (not teams or headlines)

• Waist size
• Triglycerides
• HDL
• Fasting insulin
• Apo (e.g., apoB)

Bottom line from the video

• The risk story for saturated fat depends on context and replacement. RCTs suggest event reduction when SFA is lowered (especially when replaced with PUFA), large cohorts like PURE do not support harm of higher SFA within varied global diets, and modern syntheses (JACC) argue for food-based guidance rather than blanket SFA limits. The video’s practical stance: improve metabolic health first; then saturated fat from whole foods can fit.

Participants

• Host: Dr. Shawn Baker
• Guest: Prof. Tim Noakes

Core Thesis

• The prevailing narrative that high-carbohydrate intake is essential for peak athletic performance is overstated. Human performance can be supported—and in many cases improved—by relying more on fat oxidation, with carbohydrate needs being lower than commonly promoted.

Key Points

Metabolic Priorities & Fuel Use

• Muscles preferentially burn carbohydrate when insulin is elevated; high-carb eating keeps insulin high and suppresses fat oxidation.
• At rest, using “jet fuel” (carbohydrate) makes little sense metabolically; fat should be the dominant fuel outside of high-intensity bursts.
• Muscle glycogen appears to act more as a regulator/signal of carbohydrate oxidation rather than a strictly limiting fuel during most efforts.

Glycogen: Role, Misconceptions, and Evidence

• Classic glycogen-loading concepts have been overemphasized; performance does not track linearly with “topping up” muscle glycogen.
• Studies cited from the 1990s: subjects with high muscle glycogen at rest still preferentially burned carbohydrate due to hormonal signaling (insulin), not because glycogen was limiting.
• Infusion experiments (described) suggest carbohydrate burning can be driven by carbohydrate availability/insulin rather than necessity.

Hypoglycemia & Performance

• Performance drops are linked to falling blood glucose during exercise; athletes often interpret this as “needing more carbs,” yet the underlying issue is metabolic inflexibility driven by chronically high-carb intake.
• Training/lifestyle that improve fat oxidation reduce susceptibility to exercise-associated hypoglycemia.

Carbohydrate–Insulin Model & Metabolic Health

• A high-carb pattern (especially frequent feeding) elevates insulin chronically, promoting carbohydrate dependence and insulin resistance over time.
• Many modern athletes show signs of insulin resistance despite high training volumes; shifting to lower-carb patterns can improve metabolic health and fuel flexibility.

Low-Carb / Fat-Adaptation in Sport

• Fat adaptation (weeks to months) increases the body’s capacity to oxidize fat at given workloads, decreasing reliance on frequent carbohydrate dosing.
• For submaximal endurance intensities, fat provides ample energy; carbohydrate needs cluster around higher-intensity efforts.
• Practical takeaway: prioritize fat-based fueling for most training/competition, with situational carbohydrates for decisive high-intensity segments if needed.

Hydration, Sodium, and “Electrolyte” Messaging

• Sweat sodium loss is often overstated; the body adapts by conserving sodium with reduced sweat sodium over time.
• Hyponatremia risk is driven more by overconsumption of fluids and excess sodium intake patterns than by sweat losses alone.
• The sports drink/electrolyte narrative has commercially amplified sodium and carbohydrate needs beyond what physiology requires for most athletes.

Elite Performance Context

• Success of East African runners is tied to lifelong habits, body composition, altitude exposure, and training culture—not to high supplemental carbohydrate regimens per se.
• Training quality and metabolic health trump aggressive carb-loading in explaining elite outcomes.

Aging, Training, and Monitoring

• Maintaining performance with age is feasible via consistent training, strength preservation, and metabolic health.
• Personal monitoring (glucose, insulin context, performance metrics) can guide individualized fueling rather than defaulting to high-carb prescriptions.

Industry Influence & Narratives

• Historical sports science was influenced by commercial interests (carb drinks/“electrolytes”), shaping guidelines that overprescribed carbohydrate and sodium.
• Re-examining these narratives with physiology-first reasoning suggests lower carbohydrate requirements and more reliance on fat for most athletic work.

Actionable Summary

• Train the ability to burn fat (dietary pattern + aerobic base).
• Use carbs tactically for high-intensity efforts rather than continuously.
• Avoid overdrinking and unnecessary sodium loading; let thirst and adaptation guide.
• Track personal responses (energy, glucose trends, performance) to fine-tune fueling.