Is Meat Bad for you?
The first 500 people can use this link will get 2 free months of Skillshare Premium Membership! https://skl.sh/whativelearned8
▼Newsletter signup: https://mailchi.mp/a58275fd1906/josepheverettwil
▲Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/WILearned
▲Twitter: https://twitter.com/jeverettlearned
▲IG: https://www.instagram.com/jeverett.whativelearned
・Check out the artist who made heme-chan here: audreylovegren.com
LINK TO PDF OF SCRIPT WITH LINKS TO SOURCES: https://www.patreon.com/posts/33873653
*A couple people asked me to respond to a youtuber's video response to this video. Since I expect more comments about this, I'll point out just one thing for now:
( *TLDR* : Youtuber makes a video saying I've misrepresented a study - say my words don't match the study I referenced. He was looking at the wrong study.)
At 11:22 of the video response he says "This is where things get really bad and I think he needs to correct this in some way..." and brings up the part of my video where I said "Unfortunately, it looks like iron supplements don't cut it for pregnant women. Despite taking prenatal vitamins with iron, 58% of the women had iron levels below normal." He goes on to say that he looked forever at this study that I referenced, only to find that this 58% figure was no where in the study and that I was blatantly misrepresenting the study. Moreover, he says "Worst of all, this [study] actually undermines his whole video on heme iron, because all 19 of those women were given heme iron throughout their pregnancy..." That is, he's suggesting that if there is a 58% of women who had low levels of iron despite supplementing with iron, these women were actually supplementing with heme iron and therefore heme iron is not effective for maintaining iron levels in pregnant women.
Ironically, this is a misinterpretation on his part.
The reason he couldn't find that 58% figure in that particular paper of mine he was looking at was because it was the wrong study. The source for the statement "Despite taking prenatal vitamins with iron, 58% of the women had iron levels below normal" is NOT the study he was looking at - "Maternal hepcidin is associated with placental transfer of iron derived from dietary heme and nonheme sources."
The source for the 58% figure is "Maternal prenatal iron status and tissue organization in the neonatal brain."
Видео Is Meat Bad for you? канала What I've Learned
▼Newsletter signup: https://mailchi.mp/a58275fd1906/josepheverettwil
▲Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/WILearned
▲Twitter: https://twitter.com/jeverettlearned
▲IG: https://www.instagram.com/jeverett.whativelearned
・Check out the artist who made heme-chan here: audreylovegren.com
LINK TO PDF OF SCRIPT WITH LINKS TO SOURCES: https://www.patreon.com/posts/33873653
*A couple people asked me to respond to a youtuber's video response to this video. Since I expect more comments about this, I'll point out just one thing for now:
( *TLDR* : Youtuber makes a video saying I've misrepresented a study - say my words don't match the study I referenced. He was looking at the wrong study.)
At 11:22 of the video response he says "This is where things get really bad and I think he needs to correct this in some way..." and brings up the part of my video where I said "Unfortunately, it looks like iron supplements don't cut it for pregnant women. Despite taking prenatal vitamins with iron, 58% of the women had iron levels below normal." He goes on to say that he looked forever at this study that I referenced, only to find that this 58% figure was no where in the study and that I was blatantly misrepresenting the study. Moreover, he says "Worst of all, this [study] actually undermines his whole video on heme iron, because all 19 of those women were given heme iron throughout their pregnancy..." That is, he's suggesting that if there is a 58% of women who had low levels of iron despite supplementing with iron, these women were actually supplementing with heme iron and therefore heme iron is not effective for maintaining iron levels in pregnant women.
Ironically, this is a misinterpretation on his part.
The reason he couldn't find that 58% figure in that particular paper of mine he was looking at was because it was the wrong study. The source for the statement "Despite taking prenatal vitamins with iron, 58% of the women had iron levels below normal" is NOT the study he was looking at - "Maternal hepcidin is associated with placental transfer of iron derived from dietary heme and nonheme sources."
The source for the 58% figure is "Maternal prenatal iron status and tissue organization in the neonatal brain."
Видео Is Meat Bad for you? канала What I've Learned
Показать
Комментарии отсутствуют
Информация о видео
Другие видео канала
Is Meat Bad for You? Is Meat Unhealthy?Vegan vs. Omnivore: The Debate (Breakdown of Kahn & Kresser)Sugar: The Bitter TruthThe $100 Billion Dollar Ingredient making your Food ToxicAttractive Face or Not? It depends on Tongue PostureWhy is Nutrition Science so Complicated?How We Got the Science of Weight Loss Wrong - with Giles YeoI Didn't Eat Food for 7 days. This is what happened to my bodyHow the Gut Microbiome affects the Brain and MindBig Fat Nutrition Policy | Nina TeicholzCarnivore Diet: Why would it work? What about Nutrients and Fiber?New studies show red meat is not harmfulWHY Sugar is as Bad as Alcohol (Fructose, The Liver Toxin)HOW to quit Sugar & Unhealthy HabitsCan you Cure Diabetes? | Does Fat cause Type 2 Diabetes?WHY Exercise is so Underrated (Brain Power & Movement Link)Polyglot speaks 20 languages. Here's how he did it.Eating less Meat won't save the Planet. Here's WhyGrowing a Big Brain with Meat | Amber O'HearnIs Bacon actually bad for you?