EAT A VEGETABLE! Keto Study Retracted
Hi patron pals, enjoy this video early and ad-free until Friday morning!
Transcript:
Hey, remember Jordan Peterson? He’s the famous Canadian psychologist who hates “woke” stuff, and who helped popularize the carnivore diet. He and his daughter, Mikhaila, announced that they were thriving on a diet of only meat, salt, and water, with no fruits or vegetables or grains necessary. I discussed this back in 2019 when Mikhaila revealed that this diet cured her of fatigue, irritability, arthritis, itchiness, digestive distress, and general pain, plus a C diff infection. And here’s a good overview from just last year of how this “plant free ketogenic diet” helped her father: Peterson says he lost weight, slept better, had no more anxiety or gum disease, and more strength. Wow! I bet he’s feeling incredible a year later. Let’s take a look!
Oh wow, that seems bad. But don’t worry, it wasn’t because of his famous meat and salt diet. Things would probably be even worse if he had been eating vegetables. No, it’s “a psych med induced neurological injury” from six years ago. I wonder if that has anything to do with that time six years ago when Jordan Peterson announced that he was addicted to benzos but didn’t feel like doing regular rehab so he flew to Russia to be put into a coma until he wasn’t addicted to benzos anymore? Is that when he got the neurological injury? Well I’m glad Mikhaila is spreading the word that that’s probably a bad thing to do.
And I’m glad Peterson’s past year of mold, stress, pneumonia, sepsis, and neurological damage had nothing to do with his meat diet. I mean, Mikhaila is on that diet, too, and she seems fine. Super, um, high energy and positive.
Both the “plant free keto diet” and the regular keto diet (which does allow you to stave off scurvy with the occasional bit of fruit) are extremely popular, especially amongst the bro podcaster sphere. It’s been seven years since I went over the science of the Peterson Diet, so I thought today might be a good time to talk about research that’s been published since and whether or not the experts have changed their minds on whether it’s any good for you.
The quick answer is no. They have not changed their minds. An all-meat diet is still very bad for you, and a more flexible keto diet needs to be carefully implemented with medical oversight because it can be bad for you in certain ways, depending upon your unique situation and what you’re eating and for how long, exactly.
The long answer, while longer, is quite entertaining, because it involves a huxter publishing a study in a peer reviewed journal despite the fact that the study was essentially just a sack of red flags, and it was finally retracted a few months ago.
Come on, admit it. You want to hear the longer answer. It’s juicy, like a steak covered in salt and water.
It all started in an online beef, as detailed in this Wired article from last June. Dave Feldman, a software engineer who is really into keto, suspected that doctors were wrong that having very high LDL cholesterol was de facto dangerous because it leads to a buildup of plaque in your arteries. He suspected this, because a lot of people on keto diets tend to have high LDL cholesterol, and he likes keto, and so. Yeah. What if all the medical research on this topic to date is wrong and everything will be okay?
Enter Spencer Nadolsky, an actual doctor who specializes in obesity medicine and lipidology, who told Feldman he was wrong. The two eventually decided to team up and produce a study to settle the argument.
They decided to focus on people that Feldman called “Lean Mass Hyper-Responders,” and which I will call “lemurs,” who appear to be fit and healthy by pretty much every metric except their high LDL. They could monitor them for a year and see whether or not plaque starts building up in their arteries. Nadolsky accepted that maybe for that group of people specifically, sure, maybe very high LDL isn’t actually that big of a problem.
They ran into trouble early on, because an ethics board wouldn’t approve this study because it is unethical to make a group of people with dangerously high cholesterol wander around like that for a year without taking medication to lower it. Feldman and Nadolsky found a work-around, though, which was by recruiting a very specific set of “lemurs,” who I will call “absolute morons.” These are the “Lean Mass Hyper-Responders” who know they have high cholesterol, know they can control it with medication, but refuse to do so. Great. Ethics approval granted.
I’ll note here that already, experts didn’t think this was a great study design, because plaque takes many years, and decades even, to build up in the arteries. But whatever, they pushed on.
While still in the recruiting phase, Feldman presented some of their preliminary data at a low-carb conference (I cannot even fathom the lack of energy in that room when 3pm rolls around). He used the data to suggest that the lemurs were healthy because they hardly had any plaque at the start of the study; Nadolsky finally had enough of the obvious bias, so he filed a complaint with the review board and quit the study.
The board didn’t care, and so Feldman and his other authors pressed on. One of those other authors was a guy named James Earls, who at the time was Chief Medical Officer for a company called Cleerly, where he also held equity, according to Retraction Watch. Feldman claims he did not know this, so I guess it’s just a giant coincidence that Cleerly is the company that performed the scanning of the subjects. Oh, also, the other non-Cleerly-employed authors say they did not have access to the data prior to publication to make sure that they were blinded to it, but they also say they didn’t realize that Cleerly staff were NOT double blinded.
And what about the data itself? Well, critics pointed out that the original purpose of the study was to compare the progression of plaque in the arteries over the course of that year, but in the final paper, they only include a figure with no numbers, and instead focused on a finding that they saw no association between plaque and a particular protein that carries fat molecules around the body. When called on that, the authors had to admit that their study actually found that the average subject’s arterial plaque increased with the year by 42.8%! Their OWN DATA disproved their hypothesis, showing that these “healthy” patients were piling plaque into their veins at a higher rate than people with diabetes, hypertension, and metabolic syndrome. Which is bad.
Despite all of this, the paper made it past peer review and into a well-respected journal, JACC: Advances, in April of last year. It took almost an entire year of valid complaints before they finally retracted it, but unfortunately, news of a retraction rarely competes with the initial news of publication. As Wired points out, it was in the top 5% of more than 24 million papers tracked by Altmetric shortly after publishing. Obviously the podcast bros like Joe Rogan ate this shit up and spread it to their huge audiences, and I doubt we’ll see any of them cover the retraction.
And the worst part? Feldman saw all the criticism but still decided to make an entire fucking documentary about how he’s overturning decades of science on cholesterol. You can watch it on Amazon, if you hate your life that much.
So thanks to this guy, there are definitely people walking around thinking that they don’t actually have to listen to their doctor and fix their extremely high LDL cholesterol because the doctor is probably relying on old, outdated wisdom. And when the massive heart attack hits, everyone will be shocked because they cared so much about their health.
Comments (13)
Oh dear, I hate when I disagree with you Rebecca! But I am on a very low carb diet that does include vegetables, but very little and almost no fruit. My health has been transformed because of it. Jordan Peterson is a crank, imho, but I'm sure a carnivore diet helped him mentally. There is a lot of evidence for that, Brain Energy is a book by Chris Palmer who runs the psychiatric hospital at Harvard wrote that book, it's astonishing what eliminating or nearly eliminated carbs can do for some people's (many, many people's) mental health. There are lots and lot of other studies that show that a low carb diet can transform health. Also, I think Feldman and Norwitz retracted that study themselves - Norwitz is highly respected and also shows the studies that have helped me realize that a low carb, nearly carnivore diet is the way to go for me. I was diabetic, and obese five years ago. I read Dr. Fung's The Diabetes Code and it catapulted me into a new world almost like when I realized that after reading the Bible I was an atheist. I have a significant amount of my time, as an amateur, learning about nutrition and cholesterol. I think most of the mainstream medicine's advice is truly bunk. Mainly about carbs, and especially highly processed carbs. But I know that for me, and for many people I know, going without fruit and sometimes even vegetables has enormous health benefits. It has for me. Anyway, my two cents.
Why would Peterson not just trust conventional medical advice? It's simple, it was medical advice that got him on the Benzo's to begin with.
Best food
We probably all have friends doing weird meat diets, and we worry about them. Sigh. I wonder who OKed that study for publication.
I'm glad Peterson is suffering. He deserves to suffer
So following my doctor's advice on diet and medication has been the right choice all along? Who'da thunk it?
"Quacks hate this one weird trick!"
In January 2026, the same authors posted a preprint on medRxiv expanding on these claims, making the JACC: Advances retraction essentially meaningless to them. How did I know to look for this? Because this is how grifters in the MAHA space are playing the scientific literature — well, at least one way. Our book about how this came to be (and more) is coming out soon, so I figured there would be more than one attempt to seed the literature with their BS. Funny, Harlan Krumholz is the head of the JACC journals and also head of medRxiv. He will never remove anything from medRxiv because he argues preprinting is free speech.
Before we talk about our diet for eternal life, you go to Costco and you see "wild caught salmon". I went to the butcher and asked if they had any "tame caught salmon"; that could play circus horns, ride the unicycles under the big top, or swim on their tail backwards like they do in Marine world. "Wild caught salmon" creates the illusion that the fish is not farm raised and that bearded Captain Bob is out there in his 100 year old fishing scow with his environmentally friendly fishing net catching salmon that will not spoil as it's shipped "fresh" from Alaska to Elmhurst Illinois. Point is that all salmon is wild caught, as is the gold fish from PETSMART. We sort of know this, but then again we don't. I looked at some videos of trout that were caught at Santa Ana Lakes by "Rosita", and wondered why we don't see any trout caught at Santa Ana Lakes by "Heather" (as Peter Zeihan would point out). Heather would probably catch her trout from a cool mountain stream in Colorado someplace. However, Heather may consider herself to be environmentally friendly not realizing that the trout that she caught was probably hatched at the Colorado DWR, funded by the taxpayers. So if the trout were stocked in her favorite river or stream on Monday and she and her niece went fishing in that stream on Friday, and she caught three trout, and those trout had eaten all the bugs, minnows, and whatchamacallit's just like the "incumbent" trout, how does she know that the three trout that she caught are farm raised or were wild native to that stream. The NIH says that the math concerning the amount of omega-3 in king salmon caught in Copper River Alaska is more than the king salmon raised at state salmon farm. The NIH says that the difference in the omega-3 levels is statistically insignificant; the math is correct but gives the wrong impression. But I can catch that same Salmon from Lake Michigan but without the social media fanfare. There was a YouTube video saying that "seed oils are poisonous". Naturally, I asked the channel presenter if they had contacted the Department of Justice because poisoning a population is a crime. No comment of course, but also noticed that when they crush olives to make olive oil, that the Italian farmers are not taking out the seeds from the olives and are crushing the olives with the seeds. PBS did a real good video on "FAT what they won't tell you" and basically said that if you remove gluttony as a variable, that scientists really have difficulty understanding why people get fat. But they correctly pointed out that we don't need as much red meat as are told. You see on social media with somebody is eating a Tomahawk steak with all the sides, but the human stomach is smaller than the Tomahawk steak; so is this the new form of module proclamations.
Interesting talk this week. I myself have attempted a ketogenic diet-- although I have usually included vegetables, because I can't nothing but meat in my diet. It works for me (when I have the discipline to stick to it properly) because I am diabetic, and don't need excess carbs, and I see a doctor every month for checkups. I definitely do like a higher protein diet than most, but instead of avoiding carbs, I avoid the ultra-refined, simple carbs (and watch how much fruit I consume). I find that to be quite sufficient for my health. And, of course, I've got the docs watching over me. I was once taken in by the strict 'ketogenecists,' I must admit; there are several online. And after doing some better research, I found that while diabetes had once been successfully treated by the 'all meat diet,' it had been considered just that; a treatment for a metabolic disease, NOT a permanent lifestyle change for those who had no metabolic conditions that needed treatment. *shrug* Anyway, good video, as ususal.
It sounds like you take care of yourself. My friend who does an all beef diet has digestive issues and urinary issues, and what helps one harms the other. The bad diet is, unfortunately, what leaves her most comfortable.
Why are we hiding under the bed? (10:20) It is either fireworks or a visual metaphor? XD
I was packing for my ride and he was supervising from under the bed!
