I've got a team. Welcome to another installment of your project. Calespo and I are flying. I was going to say solo, but it's more of a duo. There's no trio tiff where sands tiff. She's out to dinner on some date or something, some kind of sordid affair. But me and Glass. But I've been here, just holding the bloody baby, just doing it. Yeah, I made How are you?
Yeah good? How are you good?
Before we jump into tonight? Are you busy? Like? Is it is work? I don't know that you ever. I don't really ever close down. I don't really have a quiet period. Maybe a little bit over Christmas. But does it get busier for you? Or is it somewhat the same through the year.
It's pretty much the same all the time. What makes me well? I decide what makes me busy? I guess, And so I'm and I guess I'm easily bored. So you know, if I get a ten minutes where I've got nothing on, I think, oh my god, I've got nothing to do on board as board as anything. So I tend to get stuff to do. So I'm always at about that level of business.
How would you I mean, if you met somebody that didn't know you, like, this is one of the things. Because I do a film. I'm not very good at anything, but I do do a lot of things. So you're an author, you're a researcher, you're a lawyer, you're a like, you're an entrepreneur. I guess you're an.
Oh sort of entrepreneur over encountered.
Yeah, I don't. Yeah, But you're also a philanthropist because you do do in that. You know, you do do a lot of stuff for people that you genuinely just want to help. You're an educator. You wouldn't call yourself that, but you're very much an educator. What where where does that like? What do you see yourself first and foremost as a lawyer because that's your background and that's your chosen career, or how do you see yourself?
It's what I describe myself as to people who I don't have time to say any more than that.
Most people know what a lawyer is.
And by the way, describing yourself as a lawyer when you go through customs is an excellent way to make sure you don't get searched. Right, describing yourself as a salesman or something like that, right, right, usually results in a strip search.
So that's hilarious.
I hope the people from customs aren't listening because now I'm probably going to get searched every time. But anyway, that's I've found over many years putting lawyer on the form. I think it protects you from searching.
And is that because they think potentially they stand a greater chance of litigation?
No, probably you're just going to be painful. Lawyers tend to be painful people. Sorry to all the lawyers out there.
Shout out, shout out to the fellow. So clearly you're the super popular in your face, right, they tend they tend to.
Be detail oriented. Let's put it that way.
You'll be getting zero Christmas cards every year?
Yes, okay, So well what's.
The stuff and we'll get to the topic of hand. Well, what's the stuff that gives you? I don't know if this is the right question, but it's like, if you ask me this, I'd have an answer for it. But what gives you the most joy or the most fulfillment? Maybe maybe it's not about fulfillment but or the most purpose, Like is it the philanthropic stuff?
No, not really, it's I mean, that's good, and I like spending my time doing that. But the thing that I find engages me the most is discovering new things, new connections, and being able to follow a thought down a rabbit hole of evidence gathering and testing whether it holds up or doesn't hold up. A lot of time it doesn't, but sometimes it does and your feel that you've discovered a new connection that either no one else is.
Aware of or very few people are aware of.
And sometimes that connection matters a lot to the way most of us live. And finding those things, I find really is the thing that drives me.
And in a time where evidence and bullshit are next door neighbors, how do you do? You know what I'm saying, like they're virtual next door neighbors, because people all the time, people are saying to me, this is science, that science. I'm like, it isn't, but that's okay. How do you do how do you find evidence? Like like does everything need to come back to high level research and studies or is there another metric?
Well, I don't have any relevant qualifications In ninety percent of the ninety nine percent of the stuff I write about, I you know, I don't have a medical qualification. I don't have a dietetics qualification, health and pe psychology.
None of them.
I have no qualifications in any of these areas. I have qualifications in commerce and law.
And that's it.
So and I never write about those things because do.
You want to sell books? You want to sell books.
Well, and also I don't you know, they're not particularly interesting areas for new research. And also I want to be able to bring the third party view to whatever I write about. I want to not care about the answer.
So that's so good. And this is what people sorry to understand. Yeah, this is what people don't understand. And I don't mean through research or science or scientists under the bus, but people need to understand that most people that are doing scientific research have a vested interest in
the outcome. And that's not to say that that any particular science is good or bad, but it's to say that, you know, all sciences created by humans are conducted by humans, interpreted by humans, and then disseminated the way they want to disseminate it to the world by humans. So it's not this flawless fucking thing that people all people people just think they need to say it's science and then viberty bobbedy boot it's all absolute, unequivocal truth.
Well yeah, yeah, And I mean there's that famous saying. I can't remember who said it. You're probably able to look it up, or if Tiff was here, she'd probably already know the You know, it's very hard to convince a man of something when his salary depends on him believing the opposite. And that's the difficulty with science. Even though you know not to suggest you will do things intentionally corrupt, but as you say, there's an inherent bias.
If your salary depends on you finding something and you don't find it then or you find the opposite even worse, the chances of it being published or brought to anyone's attention dropped fairly dramatically. And I think what I bring to all of the things that I write about is I don't care about the result. I'm interested in what the science says about the results, and I'm interested in
it being tested. And every time I've ever spoken publicly on radio or podcasts or anything, I've generally always said, I'm saying this is what I think the science says. If you can produce some science that proves what I'm saying is wrong, then I'm open to it because you know, I.
Mean, you don't have an emotional attachment to an outcome, right, then that's.
A financial or importantly a financial one.
Yeah, that's true. That's true. By the way, that person was Upton Sinclair.
There you go, and the.
Quote was it's difficult, which you nailed it. It's difficult to get a man to understand. We could replace that with person a person who understands something when their salary depends on not understanding it. And then chat GPT's commentary is it's a sharp insight into cognitive bias and self interest. I'm like, yep, that's exactly what it is.
That's right.
Yeah, And so I think that's what I bring to the equation is I view myself as an advocate for people who buy my books in a way that I'm their agent. I'm not the agent of the people who want to sell them things.
You know.
So, and if the evidence tells me that what I'm doing is wrong or what I have said is wrong, then I'll be the first to admit it. It hasn't happened yet, by the way, In the sense. I'm not suggesting I can never be wrong, but I have thrown out that challenge now for the very you know.
I was first started.
Appearing on radio and relation to Sweet Poison in about two thousand and eight, and that challenge has been part of just about every thing I've ever done, and not once has anyone ever been able to prove that something I've said about the science is wrong.
M And what's that seventeen years ago? Yeah, but I think what is what is a parent? And I mean this to be the fucking David Gillespie fan club show, But somebody was asked, by the way, you're the person I get most asked about, probably because you're on a fair bit, but the person, Yeah, what's what's gillspo like? And people call you Gilespo? Right, It's funny this is a person who calls me that.
So yeah.
Yeah, So if somebody ever meets you, you know, and they go go Lesbo.
Then I know where they came from.
Yeah, they're a devote. That's a very Australian thing. Just back the whack ando on the end of a boring name. It's like Craigo. I get called Craigo by friends as well. Right, So just put an EE on it or a Y on it. Cregy crego's better than harp. Oh, it's way better than that. But I think the thing that's evident with you is you don't give a fuck about money. Like, I get no sense that you're writing books to make money,
because I think you could. I think you could do do it a lot easier, Like if your focus was building wealth, I don't think you'd be writing all the books you're writing, even though you sell a lot, even though you sell plent I'm dollars.
Per hour, dollars per hour invested books are a terrible way to make money. Yeah, you know, I come from a profession that regularly charges out of a thousand dollars an hour, and you are not making that or anything even in the same postcode as that when you write past.
Yeah, yeah. Do you so like with that kind of challenge that you put out with Sweet Poison, which is seventeen years ago? Now, do you like? I've been surprised because you're quite opinionated. It's not the right word because they're not really opinions, right, that's science. So opinionated is actually an inappropriate label for you, I think, But you're quite well.
I don't have a right to an opinion because I am not an expert in the area, and I think opinions are wrong in most areas of science. Nobe, it gives the rats what your opinion is.
What's important is what does the science say.
Yeah, but what I mean is you don't hold back, and you're not really because also you're not in the space. I actually think for somebody who knows how to research, and somebody who can think clearly, and somebody who can under read the science, understand the science and share what you find without having a financial or emotional interest in what you find and therefore what you share. I actually
think it's the perfect formula. But as close as we can get to objectivity, and it's very hard, you know. And as you and I have said many times before, and I feel like I shouldn't say it too many times before I finished my PhD because I could get in trouble from the university. But psychology is a pretty shit science, you know. It's it's just in that I.
Think you're flattering at calling it a science.
But anyway, okay, yeah, I rest my case, but it's you know what I mean, it's so it's so subjective.
It's like I was talking with somebody yesterday. There's a happiness scale, right, and I said, what's fucking hiparious about the happiness scale?
Is?
Well, one that depends when you ask me, Right, I could get seven different lots of You could get seven different lots of data from me on the one day, depending on when you ask me. Two Let's just say it's a one to seven scale. Right. For me, what I understand or experience of happiness is not what somebody else does, like they might call it contentment or calm
or joy or like. These are just these slippery constructs that we then brian subjectively evaluate, and then we take all of that subjectivity and compare it to you, Like the fuck is that scientific?
It's not like all of psychology. It's narrative building. You know, if you had it'd be what medicine would be. If medicine had no diagnostic tools. If a doctor couldn't X ray your leg to determine if it was broken, he might make up stories about whether it was broken or not based on I don't know, feeling it or you know, the way you look.
When, or a conversation, conversation with you.
Does your leg hurt? Yes, it does? How badly?
Does it hurt quite a lot?
How do you feel about your leg?
It could be broken?
Then that's kind of where we're at with psychology and and it's being rapidly overtaken by neuroscience, where we're starting to be able to measure stuff, and you know, it will be rendered as relevant as I don't know, attaching leeches to people, you know, to cure them of things. But for the moment, it's it's a fairly well patronized profession all right.
Now, I totally disagree with David everybody. That's just so inappropriate. Speaking of research, we've chatted about this a little bit, but we haven't done a standalone episode, and so I'm just going to read. So David put this up on where where did I get this?
This substack? To have a substack is where I put all my articles.
Now, so go there, everyone. It's called feeding Aslies. This is the name of the or the title of the article, Feeding Aslies the Food Industries grip on Healthy Eating Guidelines. Subtitle is how four decades of healthy eating left us sicker than ever. Now I'm just going to read one paragraph because it's it's a nice starting point. First Australian
Healthy Eating Guidelines were published in nineteen eighty two. It's now been four decades since our government became worried enough about our health to start telling us what to eat. There is now little doubt that it has been an unmitigated disaster. And it's a really good article everybody. There's some really nice illustrations and graphs and stuff. I love a good pie chart. There's a pie chart, no pun intended. Yeah,
so have a look at that. But so we have, it hasn't been a raging success, has it.
Well, let's do a little bit of history on this.
So before nineteen eighty two, governments didn't tell us what they thought we should eat. They the only thing they were really worried about, and this was only sort of since the end of the Second World War, was getting enough food and enough of the vital nutrients to stay
alive and avoid things like rickets and so on. So that was the concern of governments from pretty much the end of the Second World War till the early eighties, and then in the United States they started becoming obsessed with the facts that you know, US citizens were starting to get a little bit chunky, and it hadn't been a problem before, but it was starting to be quite
a big problem. And you know, the obesity and overweight rate was i think, nudging up around forty percent of the population, and they were starting to get a.
Bit worried about it.
By the way, just for context, it's now seventy percent, so we'd take forty percent every day of the week. But in the early eighties, they were starting to worry about this increasing plague of overweight and obesity, and you know, various other chronic diseases were starting to rear their head. For the first time ever, they were noticing what was then called adult onset diabetes and what we now call type two diabetes as distinct from juvenile diabetes, which was
type one, which was the type you're born with. And they were starting to see that appear in the population. Hadn't even been something that anyone bothered with prior to the early eighties, and so they were starting to think, well, maybe it's got something to do with what we're eating.
For various historical reasons, they concluded they made the giant logical leap that fat makes us fat, and then even worse, than that, they decided it was saturated fat arounimal fat that made us have heart disease and type two diabetes and various things that, of course all subsequently turned out to be totally wrong, but it didn't stop them putting out healthy eating guidelines in nineteen eighty two in the United States, which we promptly copied, which is what we do.
It seems the Australian nutritional establishment is incapable of independent thought, So if the US puts out a guideline, then we instantly get out the photocopier and there we go. We've done the Australian guideline.
So we did it.
Nineteen eighty two put out the first guidelines, and they told us a whole bunch of things to do. They told us to stop eating fat, because obviously fat makes us fat. Turns out that fat doesn't make us fat any more than eating cucumbers makes us green, but that's what they went with. Seemed logical. Twice as many calories in fat as there are in anything else. Therefore fat makes us fat. They told us to eat less fat.
So if we look at the stats between when the guidelines were released and twenty twelve, which is the most recent stats we've got. Unfortunately, on fat consumption, we dropped our fat consumption by a quarter.
So we did it.
They said less fat. We did, and anyone who.
Lived through that phase knows that's the case. Low fat.
Everything on the supermarket shelves, constant marketing about low fat, this, low fat, that.
Iron dite, drinks, diet fucking everything.
Yep, everything low fat, low fat milk, you know, trim light, blah blah blah, it's all there. By the way, low fat milk always amuses me because normal milk is three percent fat and low fat milk is two percent fat. I don't think it's going to make a lot of difference, really, but if you want your milk to taste like water, knock yourself out.
So we did.
We bought all those products, we stopped eating as much fat, knocked a quarter off our fat consumption. And on the animal fat, we really smashed it. We knocked it back by eighty five percent. So all that stuff about you know, only trimmed meat, only eat chicken, don't eat red meat, blah blah blah, all that stuff, we really listened. Eighty five percent less animal fat consumed over that period.
So all right, big tick for us. We did that.
We're also told knock back the salt, cut back on the salt, don't put the salt on your food, and we did it. One third less salt now.
As we said last time, donot eggs. For God's sake, dynat eggs.
Yeah, they're part of the fat thing. So don't eat eggs, don't eat any eggs, and don't put salt on them. We did all that. We now eat a third less salt than we did in nineteen eighty two. They said you got to eat more veggies. Eat more veggies and fruit. That's what you got to do. We did it up by fifteen percent on vegetables and seven and a half
percent on fruit. That's not counting fruit juices and some which we can come back to later, but just on the solid stuff, we did ate more fruit and veg They told us to exercise more.
We did.
In nineteen ninety five, thirty percent of us performed moderate or high levels of exercise every week. Twenty twelve that it increased to thirty two and a half. It's actually gotten even higher than that since COVID. For some reason, since COVID, we've all decided to exercise even more, so we're doing it. So they told us to eat less fat, particularly animal fat.
We did.
They told us to eat their salt, we did. They told us to eat more fruit and veg we did. They told us to exercise more.
We did. And yet now seven percent of us overweight. Nobees, Yeah, And.
I realized that I see also in that time, like this is this is a really good one too, Like obesity, not just overweight, but obesity was ten percent, which is now thirty it's so that's tripled ye in that same so doing and this is like why is this? And I mean, like when I said before, everyone like there's not an opinion in this, like this is this is just data, This is just information. These are just numbers.
This is just research. And I would think, you know, it's a pity that's twenty twelve, because I would think in twenty twenty five, it's it's signific some of that stuff is significantly worse if we could have today's data. But why is there? Is it just because it's so profitable all of those things? Is it just because the majority of people live in this this echo chamber? Like why when you and I have this conversation. And obviously we're not Channel nine or Channel ten, but we still
thousands of listeners. Why does it make even if we had this with five million listeners, Why doesn't it make a difference.
It's mostly about the food supply. So you can read Healthy Eating. Whenever you criticize the Healthy Eating Guidelines, some smart ass dietitian will pop up and say, yeah, but no one actually eats according to the Healthy Eating Guidelines, so what you're saying is a lot of rubbish. And the point I'm trying to make here is actually we do.
We have been doing exactly what the Healthy Eating Guidelines tell us to do, and not because we all went out and got our own personal copy of the Healthy Eating Guidelines and started eating that way, but because the people who supply our food do follow the guidelines. They see the guidelines as an opportunity to market, which is why you've got low fat everything. It's why you've got people who've got gym memberships to sell, promoting exercise. It's
all of these things are ways to sell products. If the Healthy Eating Guidelines says eat less fat, eat less salt, then what do you do You create a product that's got less fat and less salt and say it's in accordance with the health eating guidelines. Instant health washing of
your product. So that's how it ends up that in our food supply, and regardless of what you do or don't know about nutrition, the food supply is being manipulated by the people who have got money to make from it, and they are doing it simply on the basis of whichever thing gets them the health halo. So it comes back to the people designing the guidelines who say this is what will get you a health halo, and so
the people do it. That's the same as with the healthy Eating stars that we've talked about before, where you really should be doing the opposite of what they say, because they are after the health halo of having five stars. And if the calculation of the five stars is garbage, that doesn't bother them because they want the five stars. So if you want to change what people are eating, you have to change the healthy eating guidelines. So let's look at how that flowed through. There was one guideline
we didn't follow in nineteen eighty two. The guideline on sugar was you should eat it in moderation. What does that mean who knows.
For most people, it.
Means whatever I'm currently eating is eating it in moderation.
In subsequent revisions of.
The guidelines, I think by about two thousand and four, they actually put a number on that and said twenty percent. You should eat no more than twenty percent of your diet from sugar.
To me, that's a lot.
One in five calories coming from sugar. That's still a.
Lot, all right.
You might exceed it if you if your breakfast, if your diet consists entirely of cocoa pops, but you really shouldn't be getting one in five calories from sugar, particularly given what we now know about the science of how destructive sugar is. So that's the one we didn't obey. And the reason we didn't obey it is because the Healthy Eating Guidelines, aside from mentioning it, kind of ignored it. The Heart Foundation in fact, put out a TICK system
that completely ignored the sugar content of food. So the Heart Foundation tick did not have sugar as a criteria, which is why they were able to give the TICK to products that were seventy two percent sugar like fruit roll ups, which we've discussed before. Because sugar wasn't actually a criteria, so everyone kind of avoided the thing about the whole sugar thing because the food industry didn't want anyone mentioning sugar. It was the elephant in the room.
And the reason they didn't want anyone mentioning it is because it's addictive, and they know it's addictive. They know that products with sugar sell an awful lot better than products without sugar, so they don't want any kind of clamp down on sugar in their products, and they will
resist that even to this day. So the only healthy guideline we've ignored is the one about sugar, and the reason we've ignored it is that while it is in the guideline, although a bit odd at twenty percent of your diet, the food industry doesn't mention it.
Ever. They're quite happy.
To go with low fat, low salt, eat more fruit and varage, exercise more. They're all good things that they can make money out of. The last thing they want to tell you is to eat less sugar, because then you might start looking at how much is actually in the products, which is a considerable amount. Because of that, everything has gone the opposite way of what the guideline said. The guideline said, if we do all these things, which
we did, we should all lose weight. We should all not have type two diabetes, we should all not have kidney disease, we should not have cancer, we should not have you know, you name it. All of those things should go away if we follow these guides. Well, we
followed the guidelines except for the sugar bit, and what happened. Well, as you said, overweight and obesity went from four forty percent so well, in nineteen eighty forty percent of us were overweight, and that included ten percent who were who are obese, So thirty percent overweight, ten percent OBEs now seventy percent overweight and obesity is tripled.
So that didn't work out so well?
Yes, why well, the science is pretty simple on this. You want to make people fat, feed them sugar job done. So that's what the food industry has done with a sort of you know, free pass from the healthy eating people for the last forty years, and the result is as predictable as day following night. You want to make people fat, feed them sugar done, tie two diabetes. Less than one percent of the Australian population in nineteen eighty nine had type two diabetes less than one percent.
Wow, yep.
And now twenty twenty two it is five point three percent.
Now that's I mean, I know that's a five hundred and whatever a percent increase. I mean, like that is five x. And I know it's only five percent in inverted commas, but it was less than one, so it's probably great. It's probably six or seven hundred percent. But
do you know what else I find interesting? I don't know if you'll find this interesting, but from my background, right, so I started working in gyms coincidentally in nineteen eighty two when this we're referencing nine eighty two here, and you know, then there were no twenty four hour gyms. There were no ladies gyms, there were no boutique gyms. Really, there was no you know, CrossFit, there was no forty five, and there were no personal trainers. There were no personal
training centers. You know, I set up the first personal training center in Australia in nine ninety. There's been an absolute proliferation of fitness options and training options, and you know, fucking pilates and group this and commando programs and boot camps and indoors and outdoors and and I'm not saying this is causal, but I'm just saying and at the same time everything, you know, everything's still gone through the roof. You know. It's like, and I'm not saying.
That there'd be a sane argument to make to say that the gym's cause obesity.
Yeah, but clearly they don't.
But what I'm saying they don't. But the state It's interesting.
For me though, is like people are working out more so it just tells me how fucking terrible our diet is. Because despite the fact that more people are training and more people are working out, more people are aware, there's still a lot of people who don't work out and don't do any structured exercise, of course, but it is probably more than it's ever been in the last one
hundred years where people are intentionally going working out. But I think also another factor while I'm banging on is incidental and occupational activity a down somewhere around eight hundred calories a day, I think based on a couple of generations ago. So we just as a population, we don't move much.
Although there was that really interesting study and I don't know the reference off the top of my head, where they. I think they went into the darkest parts of Africa and found a tribe that was essentially untouched by Western civilization and measured their calorie intake and their exercise, and the average urban dweller in the US I think in that study consumed considerably more calories but also did considerably
more exercise than these people. Mostly what they did was lie around and do nothing because food was hard to come by and they didn't want to expend energy unless they were going to end up getting some food out of it. So, you know, the thing is, lumberjacks eat a lot of calories. Office workers eat not many, and that's all automatically controlled if you haven't stuffed up the automatically controlled by consuming sugar.
Yeah, but some office workers eat lumberjack calories. That's the problem.
And the only way they can do that is by consuming a chemical which interferes with your appetite control system.
Yeah.
Yeah, No matter how much we want to attribute it to a character flaw, it's actually biochemistry.
Yeah. Yeah. When you were and I don't want to open any door that you don't want to open, but when you were kind of integrating this thinking and this way of eating being living into your family, into your home. Did you have any pushback from anyone or did you like or did you just do it and they caught on or did you go listen, toeam, here's our protocol.
Well, I did it when two of them weren't born, so they didn't get a choice.
So they they grew up in it.
Yeah, the old cult, that's the oldest. The oldest one was eight, then the next one down was six. They theoretically had a choice and probably didn't go with it entirely at the start, but eventually it's I mean when it's the only thing you're offered at home, and home controls most of what you're eating, you know, either at home or at school. Giving you don't you're not independently wealthy, which they weren't, then you're really controlling most of what they eat, even if they do go out and have
the occasional binge with their mates. Yes, you know, almost all of what they eat is being controlled by home life. So yeah, initially some pushback. Ultimately no, by the time they were teenagers, they could read the books and the science themselves. And and that's what I find about this is if you go to the trouble of understanding why people do understand it and do it. And that's not just in relation to sugar. It's in relation to everything
I write about. You know, people say, oh, you know, I go and talk with schools about teen brain for example, and the dangers of addiction to devices, and if you just bang on the way everyone does about our devices are evil and so on, most teenagers tune out at about sentence number two. But if you explain the biochemistry to them and in detail and have them understand why and how it exactly works, I'd say about a third of them instantaneously change the way they interact with technology.
Yeah, yeah, I know we've spoken about a little bit, and I know you've got to go. But how much how much of an impact do you think, Like you having raised a whole tribe of kids who basically most of them from you know, either from very young or from birth, didn't it didn't have any sh in their diet, you know, like very few chemicals, very little sugar, very little processed food, you know, very few chemicals in the house. And of course you don't have a b sample to
compare your tribe too. But how much of an impact do you think that the way you know, what was put in their body and what their bodies were exposed to more broadly kept them mentally well because we know there's a relationship between food and mental health, among other things.
Well, touchwood doing okay so far.
Yeah, Yeah, youngest ones are now twenty one and doing okay so far. I think it's more the case of a good setup. Everyone's healthy till they're twenty. You know, the human the human body is extremely resilient. It can take a lot of punishment in the younger years, but some of the stuff you do to it then can set you up for bad outcomes later on.
And I probably fall into that category.
You know, I probably wrecked my teeth through the way I ate until my early thirties when I started reading and doing something about sugar. And they've been fine since then, but you know, I didn't give them a good start. And I think it's not just teeth that are in that category. Lots of people are doing lots of damage with no visible symptoms until they hit their thirties and then they start to worry about it. And sometimes it's too late. Sometimes it's reversible, but sometimes it isn't.
Yeah, that's so true. I mean, obviously, depending on what you're doing and how much you know shit, you're either eating or exposing yourself to or doing or not doing. But I feel like, having worked with lots of people face to face, one on one with them their bodies and with them the inhabitants of said body, that people can kind of get away with some pretty rubbish lifestyle
habits and behaviors till around thirty. But yeah, if somebody's flogged themselves or they're forty five or fifty, you can improve, but it's pretty you can't reverse it, like you're never gonna You can improve, and you can make better decisions and choices, and you know, upgrade their physiology somewhat. But yeah, there's a there's a point of no return, I reckon.
Yeah, I think a lot of things are reversible, particularly the sugar related damage. Seed oil is less so, but the sugar related damage. You know, you can be pre diabetic and cut the sugar out and reverse that and really swerve away from type two diabetes, you know, kidney disease. The damage is cumulative and relatively permanent, and that's another consequence of sugar consumption. Luckily, we can get by on kidneys that only work five percent of the time. Well,
you know, at five percent efficiency, you know. But sadly, between twenty and one and twenty twenty two, for example, kidney dialysis admissions tripled in Australia. We've gone from a non existent disease to a serious, serious, chronic disease. And then that's a very bad one because kidney dialysis is a daily thing just to keep you alive. And before
we were talking about those type two diabetes stats. Five point three percent is a fairly dry stat but that means every day twelve people in Australia will have an amputation because of type two diabetes. Every day, twelve to day, another twelve tomorrow, another twelve the day after, and twenty seven more are admitted to hospital for complications of diabetes.
So this is starting to be a seriously, seriously bad story, and it just gets worse and it's accelerating, and the only way to change it is actually have our healthy eaty guidelines be healthy eaty guidelines, have it that a five star rated food is actually something that's full of saturated fat and has no sugar in it.
Yeah, and the thing with type two diabetes too, is without you know, trying to be insensitive. It's like completely self created. It's like we do it.
Is, but there's no judgment in that.
I mean, it's I mean that, Yeah, of course it's it's a consequence of doing what they told us to do.
That is true. Yeah, yeah, it's always fun, sir. Do you want to steer our audience towards anything? I know you're the worst self promoter of all time, But.
Well they can go and have a look at that substack I put.
I put a new article up every couple of days there so, and we talk about one or two of them every fortnight. But there's always interesting stuff there if you want to have a look at it.
All right, I appreciate you as ways, we'll say goodbye fair but again thanks for your time, buddy.
Pleasure