Death by Environmentalism: The 3 Moral cases for Fossil Fuels

“It hurts me so much, that people can break what we can’t even have.” -Stefan Molyneux

So I had a good friend ask me awhile back on what the basic arguments I would use against climate change would be. This friend, you see, was terrified of the “global warming/climate change” narrative, and we reached out to each other to talk about the issue. The following is a conversation we had via email, formatted into an article:

“”I will say, just to see if I predicted this right, that the term “climate change” is very subjective on purpose. The climate is dynamic; it is always changing. So the question is whether it is the natural change climate always goes through, or if it is the catastrophic civilization ending warming caused by humans merely existing. Very important distinction.

As you may be aware, there is a metric ton of data, facts, reason and evidence devoted to this subject on all sides, so I did a bit of thinking and I came up with a few point I believe would be a good starting point. But first I’d like to let you know where I’m coming from, and see if it parallels with your mindset:

I’m pro human: I care about us as friends, family and as a species. Whatever maximizes our ability to thrive takes top priority, meaning whatever has the best benefits as the lowest costs is the goal to shoot for. And it is my opinion that most, if not all of the people you might call environmentalists happen to be anti-human, in favor of not changing anything and basically putting us at the bottom of the list, essentially worshiping Gaia over our fellow man.

With that in mind, here’s a few points I thought would be a good starting point:

1.Plant Food: CO2, not the great pollutant, but the great fertilizer!

As you were probably told, it is the main greenhouse gas, with the finger pointed at fossil fuels, which I’ll get back to later. It’s why you see things as being “carbon friendly”, “carbon credits” for specific programs, and the like; after all, if we let CO2 get over 350-400ppm, it’ll trap so much heat that everything will melt in a blaze of glory. You should be aware of the counter arguments against this, namely that any greenhouse gas conforms to the law of diminishing returns, meaning there’s no runaway warming the more you add. Furthermore, there’s evidence that CO2 isn’t even related to global temperature at all, given that in the past there were higher levels of it without a huge rise in temperature. To note, this also takes out the “methane being more dangerous” myth, as it has nowhere near the saturation level CO2 does.

If I were to pick one thing that’s simple to understand to most people about the matter, it would be this: it’s plant air. Even if you accept that CO2 warms the planet, you know what plants crave aside from Brawndo? CO2, water and warm weather; that’s why you see fewer vegetation in places like Mt. Everest versus, say the Amazon jungle; either way, more CO2 available to plants even means they need less water as they are able to absorb more. Reasoning is hard, I understand, but you can even tell your vegan friends this: we kind of need plant life to survive, and limiting CO2 limits how we grow as a species, no matter what we eat, which brings me to…

  1. Parasitic: Sustainables are better classified as Unreliables, and are dependent on more reliable sources of energy.

People like All Gore, Bill McKibben, and others tout things like solar and wind power as the energy source of the future, because it’s “free” and “clean”. It should be noted that they oppose other forms like hydroelectric, geothermal and nuclear, for reasons that deserve a different article to address with justice. The problem, of course, is that they are intermittent forms of power, with the obvious limitations of relying on a sun that’s hidden for half the day most of the time, and moving air that isn’t always moving. However, what makes them truly parasitic and damaging is that the materials used to make them have to be mined in incredibly toxic mines, using other forms of energy (see Bautou Mines in China for reference), and despite what Tesla says, when they’re not working, they also have to be backed up by a more reliable source of energy, like fracking.

Even in the best case scenario when they’re producing a lot of energy, there’s currently no way to store it for later, meaning it has to be bled out or sold at a loss. Germany is a perfect example of this, having lived through those specific scenarios; even though they’re used as an example of how ” green” energy can work, many or their residents pay far more for energy (meaning electricity and heat) than we do, in the end having to fire up coal plants in one of the only industrialized countries that has a population in “energy poverty.” Meaning that if these people that oppose everything other than “unreliable renewables” get their way…

  1. Giver Of Life: Fossil Fuels provide 80% of the worlds energy. If you remove it, billions will die.

Wanna guess what’s the most reliable form of energy? That’s right: fossil fuels! You may also know them as hydrocarbons, which are molecules made up of carbon and hydrogen. The biggest byproduct of burning them? Since you need to mix them with oxygen, then ignite them with a hot enough spark (this is also what makes them one of the safest forms of energy in that they’re fairly stable), you get a by product of CO2 and water (Dr. Meghann Ribbens does a good explanation of this.) Of course there are other emissions from this but, if working properly, those are the main ones you get: one that is plant food as explained above, the other being what we all need to survive (BTW, not that I advocate bottling your water here, but that’s why you see water coming out of the tail pipes of cars.)

More important, outside of nuclear power, fossil fuels are the most energy dense, cheapest, and scalable forms of energy we have, and it is why we have civilization today. Unlike any other form of energy, it is also not just how we have transportation of humans, but also how we grow and transport food, how we heat and cool our homes, how we build our homes in the first place, even how we have clothes made (in the words of Alex Epstein: I bet the shirt you’re wearing was fracked!)

Far from being the death of the human race,  it is one of the primary reasons that literally billions of humans have not only survived, but arisen out of poverty and have contributed to civilization as we know it. It is the reason that we have clean drinking water and fresher air, and why we have far fewer climate related deaths than ever before, not the opposite; you need cheap plentiful energy to do all of these. And far from running out, we are finding and even creating more and more of it; several countries have enough currently detectable and accessible to keep us going for millennia, the only obstacle being legislation.

Take fossil fuels away, and you will, quite literally wipe out much of humanity. Solar and wind don’t cut it; you want a moral argument for why we shouldn’t cut those, look at the countries that don’t have access to them and have to burn wood and animal crap indoor for heat and cooking, if they even have enough of those to use. “”

So that’s the first email I wrote. And looking on this last point, I have to say: it doesn’t happen to much here in the U.S., but the people I’ve seen that couldn’t get the energy they needed is a heartbreaking experience, and since I live in the U.S. I myself have pretty much all of the energy I need and then some; some of the operations I have going on right now, as I’m writing this, could be considered excessive, since it involves a bunch of fans to control my personal environment. Yes, I’m privileged, being colored or otherwise. But there are so many people that can’t even heat their homes or their food, let alone have what I have.

There’s so many people, across many countries, that have very bright, nice, ambitious people, who because environmentalists rally against what’s arguably the best form of energy they could use, they will never achieve their goals, and will never help to advance themselves, let alone society. This is the result, once again, of ignoring the unintended and invisible consequences: Forget for a moment what the people who are here could do had they had the energy they needed; what about the people that aren’t here that could’ve changed everyone’s lives for the better? Because of these restrictive laws, who wasn’t born (or who died in childhood) that could’ve invented jetpacks or teleporters, which would solved the environmentalists’ problem of a billion cars spewing “pollution”?

In order to solve a problem, you must not only look at the root cause or, if the problem is already here, you look at the biggest part of it and work to solve that first, and work down amongst the biggest ones first. The fact that most environmentalists do the opposite, and focus on the smallest problems first, shows they don’t care about the issue, and in fact don’t care about whose lives are affected.  They do not care about mankind like I do, and I assume, since you’re reading this, you do. It’s time for us to help our fellow man, and the planet by proxy. If you really care about saving lives, how about, for example, giving Africans natural gas to cook with so 3.5 million don’t die because they have to cook with wood and animal crap? That seems a reasonable goal, don’t you think??

So here’s some stuff to look up if you’d like, matched with the points you asked for:

  1. CO2 is a plant food, not a pollutant: this is from a blog, but that doesn’t mean the reason and evidence isn’t sound (saying this as someone who runs one, full bias disclosure!). Anyway, what is said here seems to check out:

  1. Sustainable=Unreliables, are parasitic on other forms of energy: This highlights some of the environmental costs producing the materials used to make wind & solar power. Of note: aside from the other pollutants such as sulfuric acid and acid water, it produces more radioactive waste than actual nuclear power plants. By the way, much of spent nuclear power fuel can actually be reused:

And since I brought it up, here’s some stuff to read regarding Germany, Big Green’s project country:

  1. If you ban all fossil fuels around the planet, people will die. It is 80% of the energy used worldwide. Just the proof for that, and other interesting stats on fossil fuels, such as the fact they they, perhaps single handedly, simultaneously helped save both the rain forests and the whales, by being a far better energy source than both: “”

Extras: 3.5 million Arficans die from respiratory illness due to cooking with biomass:

Pic Credit:

Leftism Through Sophistry: Why No Smart Conservative Will Challenge Tom Leykis

“There are not two sides to this story; this is wrong!” -Tom Leykis

This may put some cross hairs on my head, I may lose some friends, and I may get blocked from the show. I don’t have the luxury to care: it’s my job to tell the truth, no matter who it pisses off, so I’m very sorrowful for those that this offends and repels away friends I’ve made through the show, but the reality must be laid out, else we shall suffer in darkness.

So, at the time I’m writing this, I had planned on doing an audio recording of the latest article on the war on fat. Instead I find myself listening back to one of the last podcasts of The Tom Leykis Show(6-19-2018), in which he’s talking about the current immigration issue in which children are being separated from their parents, after attempting to cross the U.S./Mexico Border. Now, I will provide some counter-arguments to his narrative (and believe you me, this is a narrative), though that’s not the main point of this article. But I have no issue with someone having a different opinion from mine; in fact I welcome it, because either I sharpen my debating skills against it, or I find my position was flawed and adjust my viewpoints accordingly. In the end, it the reality that matters, not my opinion, nor yours.

Tom Leykis, in case you are unaware, was a radio personality for decades, and a damn successful one at that, dominating just about every market he appeared in. Today he does pretty much the same thing under his own company called The New Normal, which is now a live stream call in show over the internet, and can be found under his own app and website, as well as other streaming apps. His work is indeed great: I myself am a subscriber, and will continue to be so as long as he is around. I would still suggest you yourself become one as well (go to to listen, to subscribe).  So, given my love of Tom and his work, let alone the difference his influence has had on my life and, by proxy, the lives I’ve affected, it is with a heavy heart that I have to write the following.

Tom has lost the argument when it comes to most political issues today. He was a great maker of arguments, called the “Master Debater” and a “Cunning Linguist”, and still is capable of making great arguments today; he’s not a dumb guy by any stretch of the imagination. But in this arena, he has become a sophist, a dealer of “feels” rather than facts. And nothing makes it plainer than the topic of this episode being the recorded audio of a compound somewhere in Texas containing the children brought to the border with what may or may not be their parents (more on that later).

Time for the disclaimer most people will ignore later: I agree with Tom, and I imagine most decent moral people do. It is a horrible situation going on right now, at the time of this writing, what’s happening at the border is a truly horrible situation, and those children don’t deserve to be put through the hell they’re getting right now. I don’t care where you come from, what race you are, gender, what the fuck ever: children are the most dependent class of people there are, and therefore they should be the most taken care of; this issue is terrible, and no child should be subjected to dealing with this kind of horror. Say what you will about me or any group you dislike: most will agree they care about children, at least the ones close to them; I myself wish to see the best outcomes possible for any child. Like any issue, if you care about children and want the best for them, you want to not only solve any problem plaguing them, but find the root cause so you can prevent the problem in the first place. So how did Tom approach this current issue, which we can likely agree is awful, to help solve the problem?

“But it’s about the children!”

“Don’t you care about the children!?”

“It’s not about what the parents did, what about the children!?!?”

He played audio someone recorded of children crying because their parents were detained and separated. And let’s not mince words here: there’s no other reason to use that audio other than to invoke an emotional response, reflected just in some of the callers alone. There were no facts, no reasoning in it; it is totally feels based. He himself made the topic about how it made you “feel” and to think about how those poor kids’ voices would be ringing into the night, not about how to actually solve the issue; I understand it’s his job to “stir the pot” and get callers on the line, but this is nothing more than sophistry; this is emotional manipulation.

Before I get into the meat of the matter, just some quick facts about this, and some rebuttals to what Tom said:

“Who cares what the parents did, we’re talking about the kids!” O.K., big problem here. Tom completely ignores the parent’s role in the kids being in this situation, instead focusing on just the kids themselves, and the use of force on them(mainly as a shot at Trump). Not only is that ignoring the fact that the kid’s lives are completely in the hand of their parents or caretakers (meaning where they end up is their responsibility), but this also puts all the blame on Trump, and therefore all of the agency over their lives. And I’ll tell you this: there are few things you can do to a group worse than take away their agency; so the parents have less responsibility for bringing their children not just from Mexico, but from central american countries through what could be considered very hostile territory, let alone any of the policy makers from their countries of origin? Call me crazy, but if you’re dragging your kids through rape country, you have more responsibility than someone enforcing the rules, leading to my next point:

Children separated from their parents: That sounds horrible, and it is, if those are their parents to begin with. It’s not news (or it shouldn’t be) that some families will send their kids with other people to get them across the border, paid or otherwise, if they aren’t sent by  themselves. See, they don'[t just separate children from their parents for shits and giggles: they only do it if they find out the kid’s not theirs, they’re dangerous to said kid, or they’re committing felonious acts and are detained, which is why this is such an issue now, since the new policy is to prosecute all adults.

Felony Border Crossing: Related to the above, Tom is right in saying that crossing the border illegally is a misdemeanor. That’s the first time you get caught; the subsequent offenses are, in fact, felonies, meaning that if you get caught crossing twice, you are a felon.

Betting Tactic: Tom used this tactic a couple of times, a bet of $10,000 that there’s no prior case or recording of children being treated this way, just  to prove a point. Not only is that highly specific (the recording used in the show being fairly random itself), this is a distraction to the issue, not an argument. Related: the Elias Gonzales issue would count, since he was separated from his remaining parent. If the fact that he was reunited with his father after everything was said and done doesn’t count, that means every case in which the kids separated from their parents end up being reunited in this story would also not count, making this a self-detonating statement.

False Equivalency: This is the label Tom used to condemn the comparison of an illegal border crosser or cartel member killing a border patrol officer to a border patrol officer killing an illegal border crosser, which should be a bad enough argument that I’ll leave you to have fun squaring that triangle. Funnily enough, the subject about Laura Ingraham popped up because she speaks out against this, even though she has immigrant children. Here’s the problem: her immigrant kids were adopted, meaning they’re legally in the country. Since this is an issue about illegal border crossing, if you really want to call “False equivalency”, this would be the case in which to do so.

MS-13: Tom brought up a very good point that much of that horrid groups’s origins started because of our government’s involvement in central american countries, destroying a lot of families that their surviving children will remember and, as Tom stated, will resent Americans for. And, given I agree it is terrible that we intervene in other countries in such a horrible way, that’s a good reason to bring groups of people that resent americans into America, really?

I’m not writing this to answer and debunk the whole immigration issue, as that is a complicated subject matter; I’m simply pointing just a few things out that came up in this episode of the show that I can make decent arguments against. I myself am usually not able to call in, but would I have, given that I have decent arguments against what Tom’s narrative is? No, there’s no use. I’m, to be clear, am not a conservative, I’m a voluntarist; I don’t want any of what’s going on right now to happen, because I am against force initiation, which is what’s happening to these kids and why they ended up there in the first place. Here’s why: you’ll never get your point across, because he controls the conversation. This is most evident in this episode, because of how he treated his callers.

Honestly, I expected most of the callers into this episode to simply agree with Tom and say “Trump is horrible, we need to save the children and open the borders etc.”. Though there were a significant amount of them for sure (most of them “dreamers” themselves, shocking, I know), I was pleasantly surprised to hear that more than half the callers actually had some push back on the narrative here, though it was soundly shut down, and not by reason.

“Well they try to distract you and they try to divert you from the actual issue….” What these people that called in were doing was providing an analogy to show a principle behind the current situation. The one that comes to mind that was brought up was if someone broke into your house to rob you, then got caught, and whether the person that broke in should get to keep the stolen goods he obtained. If you’re simply going to ignore it or write it off as some Insert Label Here, you’re simply admitting you have no principles behind your motive. So what exactly is driving Tom’s argument? I believe, and he has stated multiple times as such, is his hatred of Donald Trump.

Tom has said as such that he would oppose The Orange Man in any way he can, because of his history with the family. I have no doubt the Trump family has shady dealings, and hasn’t been the bastion of morality throughout it’s lineage; I myself have no love for them either. But Tom’s hatred for them has been proven as irrational. The best example is through his coverage of politics, and through his callers. His coverage of politics, though there was one instance I remember of him praising Trumps ability to throw an opposing debater off like Tom can, has been pretty biased; if anything bad happens, it’s Trumps fault, for any reason.

This episode in particular was very telling. This has happened in multiple shows, but in this one in particular, the callers he agreed with, he let go on with whatever they had to say, even though they really had terrible arguments, if they had one at all. Anyone that called to talk against his narrative, whether they had a good point or not, he interrupts before they can even finish a sentence, and will drop their call as soon as he gets the opportunity. Sure, he’ll keep you around if he thinks you’re good entertainment and will draw more listeners, but this clearly is not an open platform for debate; either you agree with him, or you get shouted over and hung up on if you try to assert yourself. Even if I was a Trump supporter (which he has negative labels for, another sophist move, to automatically make you evil without evidence), and I could argue his points effectively, why bother; I would simply get cut off before I could make my argument.

In short, The Tom Leykis Show is no longer an open platform for open conversation, not if you disagree with Tom himself. And Tom is not going to take anyone on, Twitter aside, that is on an even platform. Therefore, there is no reason to try to engage Tom in this field. Love Tom to death, but why waste your time calling in to reason a man out of a belief he hasn’t been reasoned into?

To Tom: I doubt you actually took the time to read this, but if you are, please take these words into consideration: I have no hatred of you, I have no intent of trolling you; I wish to, and will continue to support you and all you do. That will not change no matter what you do with this. But all of us have our areas in which we are fallible, myself included. This is one of yours. And to not say anything when you are making an error would be wrong of me, as a truth seeker, this would be immoral on my part. I hope you understand where I’m coming from. The argument could be made, though you call yourself a libertarian and don’t want government in our faces, that you act as though you are a leftist through several of your actions. I don’t see you that way; I see you as more of less on my side of things, but your actions speak far louder than your words do, and your actions are those of the same kind of people that follow the Alinsky Rules For Radicals, whose main point is that they don’t have principles themselves, but they understand principles that other people have enough to use them against those they oppose.

An example pertaining to this: everyone cares about children and their well being. That’s a principle most people will agree on. a Leftist will use that principle to use the kids as a tool to get their policies passed for their own gain, usually political power in this case (poor children are being separated from their families, and that’s horrible! Give them all amnesty because that’s humane!…. and also they always vote for us!). Please understand: I’m not calling you a Leftist, that would be a grave insult, as I believe you actually do care about the plight of those kids.; I can hear it in your voice. However, you’re using the same tactics they do, and that I cannot get behind. You have a genius level IQ like I do, and it shows; shouldn’t you be using that to Make Arguments Great Again?

A few sources to consider:  (this is likely the article Andrew from North Carolina was referring to) (thought this was worth bring up as well, shows an incentive to immigrate here)
Pic source;

Saturated Suicide: The Reality of the “War on Fat”

“Don’t blame the butter for what the bread did.” -Unknown

It’s been over 40 years now since the first guidelines were made in the U.S. limiting dietary fat intake, the primary focus being on saturated fats and food sourced from “red meats”., with the goal of curbing some of the dietary caused diseases affecting Americans at the time. I wrote a while back a bit on this in the article “The 3 ingredients that killed Fast Food”, and will be doing a more complete analysis on what I’ll be coining the Western Fast Food Diet, but I think the “War on Fat” needs to be addressed specifically, as there’s new information that’s come out, some of which may be life-saving. It is my hope, dear reader, this information will help prevent some of the consequences and casualties stemming from, in no small part, with the “War on Fat”.

So let’s start with some basic information: not the only person, but certainly one of the most cited, a guy named Ancel Keys published the “Seven Countries” study in the 70’s, with the conclusion that dietary saturated fat caused heart disease. This, along with other flawed studies, led to the dietary recommendations to limit fat from your food, primarily saturated fats, as that at the time was thought of as the cause. Replacing them would be foods high in carbs, added sugar, and unsaturated fats, polyunsaturated in particular. So what the hell does all of this mean?

Here’s what the term Saturated vs Unsaturated mean in regards to fats: it refers to the amount of double bonds at the molecular level.  There are 3 main categorizations: “Saturated” means there’s no double bonds, MonoUnsaturated means there’s one double bond, PolyUnsaturated (of which there are two main types, Omega-3 and Omega-6) means there’s 2 or more double bonds. Not only does this mean the fats are more stable the more saturated they are (this is why butter and bacon grease are more solid at room temperature than corn or canola oil, for example), it also means they’re far more resistant to oxidation and breaking down or going rancid, both qualities you really want in any fat you consume, especially if you’re cooking with it. It is important to note that no fat source is completely one type of saturation; even coconut oil, with the highest concentration of saturated fat, is about 90% at most.

As stated above, saturated fats have been demonized for decades, with polyunsaturated fats, Omega-6 heavy types in particular, being promoted over them as the “healthier option”. But is it a healthier option, or, like many narratives today, is it the complete opposite of the truth? Looking at just saturated fat, and what it does in particular, I think we can answer this question. References will be included at the bottom to try to keep this a bit more readable, but here are the basics:

Vitamins: many vitamins (such as A,D,E, and K) your body needs not only come from foods that are high in saturated fats, but are fat soluble themselves; you cannot get these vitamins where they need to go without fatty acids, and while there’s little evidence which type of fat stores them better, you might want the most stable of them to do so. Either way, cutting back on dietary fat makes it harder to get these vitamins, and process other minerals you need, such as calcium (which needs Vitamin D) .

Cholesterol: First off: cholesterol is a steroid every cell in your body needs, so much so that your liver produces it when you don’t get it from your diet; if you don’t have enough, you will die. To make this short: when doctors talk about cholesterol, they’re usually referring to the vehicles that transport it among other things, called lipoproteins. These are generally labelled as High Density versions (HDLs), or the Lower variety (LDLs). Even more complicated, LDLs can be either larger, or VDLDLs (Very Dense), which are the versions of LDLs that actually cause heart disease and other problems. Saturated Fats not only stabilize HDLs, but transform VDLDLs into HLDLs, which would help prevent heart disease.

Brain: This one is simple, really: over half of your brain is made up of saturated fat. And since everything in your body eventually breaks down and is rebuilt over time, and particularly since your brain uses almost a third of the resources allocated to your body, it is imperative it gets what it needs to function. If your body does not get enough saturated fats to supply the brain, it can make the materials from other things. The problem, which is why you want the base materials themselves, is that the conversion process is very inefficient, therefore getting the building blocks you need directly is imperative to your health. If you don’t get what your brain needs, it can’t function as well, which explains most Vegan arguments.

Liver:  This is what prompted me to write this, is the effect on your liver, particularly if you happen to enjoy a tasty alcoholic beverage now and then. There is new research out that shows that the reaction of alcohol and certain types of fats determines if you have fatty liver disease, liver inflammation, and related problems. Saturated fats were clearly shown to reduce pretty much all of the effects of drinking, while, conversely, heavily unsaturated fats increased said risks. Meaning that, since the “War On Fats” has started, a lot of deaths related to alcohol can very plausibly be linked to the fats you eat, which I’ll get back to in another article about how to avoid death by alcoholism.

Health Risks: As stated, Saturated fats have been blamed for the increasingly vast amount of health related issues, including CardioVascular Disease (CVD), Coronary Heart Disease (CHD), Stroke, and Type 2 Diabetes. Since then, there’s been plenty of research involving hundreds of thousands of perticipants on just this matter, and the results: Saturated fat is neutral in the worst case scenario. In fact, given the benefits of it stated above, and some of the research that it actually helps in some of the disease issues, Sat fat actually has a positive effect on your health. Disclaimer: this does not mean I advocate in any way putting butter in your coffee, or eating a ton of saturated fats in some other uungodly manner; I do advocate using it in place of the following.

Replacements: the powers that be, since fats, particularly the saturated variety, were called evil, had to have a replacement for them, not the least of reasons being that fats help give food it’s flavor . The answer, of course, was carbs from highly refined wheat, added sugars, and other things that used vegetable-based oils, including trans-fats, like Crisco and margarine in place of bacon grease and butter. These substitutes, as I covered in another article called “The 3 ingredients that Killed Fast Food”( Here:, have been devastating to the average American’s physique, let alone leading to the, well, leading causes of their deaths:

All numbers are yearly, so let’s start with Cardio Vascular Disease: Recent numbers are at 610,000, or about ¼ deaths total. Coronary Heart Disease: somewhere between 370,000-480,000 per year, about 1/5th of deaths. Diabeetus (AKA Diabetes, if you aren’t familiar with Wilford Brimley) accounts for over 80,000 deaths. And finally, Losses to Fatty Liver Disease, as best as I could find from either variety (there’s reasons I have found that there’s no real difference between the alcohol induced type and the other, but that’s another conversation) is about 21,000. These numbers are debatable; I had trouble nailing them down myself. The question is how many of these people could’ve been lowered had we been given the right information, rather than what we were told, which was to take all fats from our diets, and eat carbs instead. The evidence, as you can read through below if you are so inclined, points to this shift in nutrition being very damaging to our bodies. So when I personally look at these numbers, which are the most recent I could find per year, I have to ask: do the people that keep preaching the same diet that could have very well stacked up so many bodies not know this, or, even worse, they know this and have preached these points anyway?

To include a personal story, as I usually do here: I was a fat kid growing up. During my very early ears, I was actually anorexic, and needed nutrition shakes to keep myself fed well enough, only for a few years later to have the opposite problem. These days, and I’m very happy to be doing so, I’m actually working on a visible six-pack, let alone the incredible shape I’m in today. But back then, I was a fat kid, and even some of the nutrition training I got was incorrect, the info of polyunsaturated fats type stands out to me in particular. I did lose lots of weight when I started biking full time for transportation, only to gain it right back when I stopped, because I kept up the same diet that powered it. It was only after I figured out what I know now about nutrition, and applied it to what I do now, whether I exercise or not, that I now have the level of health and good looks that I do now.

Even so, though I have quite considerable strength and speed given my muscle mass, and I have virtually no actual “belly fat”, I still have trouble getting rid of most of the fat I gained when I thought eating lots of sugar and vegetable oils was a good idea, and though they’re not as visible today, I’ll certainly never get rid of the stretch marks from them.  I have to wonder, had I been given the dietary knowledge I have now, what I would look like these days, let alone how my health would’ve been throughout my teenage years, when I was at my worst. And I have to wonder, when I see so many fat, unfit, and frankly unhappy people I see, what they would look like, let alone how healthy and happy they would be, had the “War On Fats” had not been enacted on, given how disproven it is and, given the inertia of ideas, how the misinformation continues to spread.  Don’t you?


Picture Credit: