The information provided by this chatbot is generated by AI and intended for general guidance only; it should not replace professional advice. Always consult a qualified expert for specific dietary, medical, or nutritional concerns.
Fact-Check: ✅ Whole grains are not associated with weight gain; they may help prevent it.
Multiple long-term studies have observed that increased consumption of whole grains was inversely related to weight gain in both men and women, and associated with a lower risk of obesity (source, source). Following these findings, the researchers concluded on the importance of clearly distinguishing between refined and whole grains for weight control (source). This supports the recommendation found in nutritional guidelines to favour whole over refined grains.
✅ Whole grains may help control appetite and reduce hunger.
Conclusions from meta-analyses support the above observation that consumption of whole grains may help with weight loss objectives, especially over time. These studies found that whole grains reduce subjective hunger and increase satiety more effectively than refined grains. This effect may help regulate calorie intake and support healthy weight maintenance (source, source).
✅ Whole grains might support healthier blood sugar and insulin responses.
Many studies have found that diets rich in whole grains can improve how the body responds to insulin, especially when compared to refined grains. This has been seen in both short-term clinical trials and long-term population studies (source, source, source). A large 2023 review found that whole grains lowered blood sugar spikes after meals and slightly improved long-term blood sugar control (HbA1c), though they didn’t affect fasting insulin levels.
It is important to note that not all studies agree (source). However, there does seem to be a consensus on the overall positive effects of consuming whole grains on human health, including a reduced risk of developing type 2 diabetes. The biological mechanisms leading to these positive effects are where some researchers appear to diverge.
The bottom line is that whole grains aren’t just “sugar in disguise.” While not a cure-all, replacing refined carbs with whole grains can help support weight control and health, especially as part of a balanced, nutrient-dense diet.
✅ In children, the evidence is limited but not supportive of harm.
In children specifically, there is a lack of long-term data on the subject. However, the current evidence does not support that whole grains promote weight gain or harmful blood sugar spikes. In fact, they are associated with better appetite control, lower long-term weight gain, and potentially improved insulin sensitivity. When studies show that typical intakes of whole grains among children (and adults) is low (source, source), advising parents to avoid whole grains contradicts the available scientific evidence on whole grains and could undermine healthy eating habits.
In the UK, the recommendation is to make starchy foods just over a third of what we eat, and to favour whole grains (source). In the U.S., MyPlate replaced the Food Pyramid and recommends making half your grains whole grains (source).
With both of these, the key point is that moderation matters. While high consumption of juice may contribute to excess calorie intake and slight weight gain in young children, moderate amounts (as per pediatric guidelines) do not cause obesity and in some cases can improve nutrient intake (source). This is in the context of 100% fruit juice, and of a healthy diet rich in nutrient-dense foods.
One issue here might be the wide variety of juice and yoghurt products. It is undeniable that in a context where the majority of the population consumes too much sugar (especially free sugars), moving from flavoured to plain yoghurt is a good choice. That being said, it is also important to ask the question: what snack is that flavoured yoghurt replacing? According to the authors of a 2014 review on yoghurt consumption, “even when sugar is added to otherwise nutrient-rich food, such as sugar-sweetened dairy products like flavored milk and yogurt, the quality of childhood and adolescent diet is improved. However, if sugars are consumed in excess, deleterious effects may occur.”
To be clear, promoting healthy eating patterns among children is an extremely important endeavour. In his caption, Dr. Berg also notes that “Healthy meals for children should include proteins, vegetables, fruits, nuts, and seeds.” This is indeed an important message, and focusing on these foods while minimising ultra-processed, nutrient-poor foods is highly beneficial to reduce rates of obesity among children.
So what’s the issue? Problems arise when certain foods are demonised because they don’t fit with one specific diet plan. Why? Because the narrative that this messaging taps into risks eroding trust in well-established nutritional guidelines, or in the expertise of health professionals, which can undermine public health efforts to tackle the very problem Dr. Berg is referring to: childhood obesity.
Eric Berg, D.C. is a well-known promoter of the keto diet, with an emphasis on nutrient-dense foods. The keto diet (short for ketogenic) is a very low-carbohydrate, high-fat diet designed to shift the body into a state of ketosis, where it burns fat for fuel instead of carbs. Because whole grains are naturally high in carbohydrates, they don’t fit within the standard keto framework.
A well-planned keto or low-carb diet can indeed be nutrient-dense and offer health benefits for some people. But it’s important to plan these diets with the help of a health professional to avoid nutrient deficiencies.
The purpose of public health nutrition is to offer guidance for the entire population. That means taking into account factors like accessibility, cultural preferences, affordability, nutritional adequacy, and environmental sustainability. Whole grains have an important, positive role to play in such a framework.
When we start demonising individual foods because they don’t fit one specific diet model, we risk encouraging fear-based decisions and more importantly undermining trust in nutrition science, thus making it harder for public health efforts to reach the people who need them most.
We have contacted Eric Berg, D.C. and are awaiting a response.
This fact-check is intended to provide information based on available scientific evidence. It should not be considered as medical advice. For personalised health guidance, consult with a qualified healthcare professional.
Before moving to the specific claims made in this post, let’s outline the underlying assumptions that tie together the different parts of Eric Berg’s argument:
In the caption, Eric Berg, D.C. claims that “there are a lot of so-called ‘health foods’ out there for kids that are actually just junk.” That’s the thread tying together the foods in this post: junk, disguised as health. This is actually a common theme on social media: just a few weeks ago, Gary Brecka released an episode of the Ultimate Human Podcast titled “Why Your ‘Healthy’ Food Is Actually Harmful.” As a result, many social media users regularly post comments expressing concern and overwhelm when it comes to food choices, and who to trust.
This raises the question: are whole grains really as ‘harmful’ as juice or flavoured yoghurt, or are we comparing unlike things?
It’s important to tackle these two assumptions up front, because they obscure the real problem. This kind of narrative distracts from what actually matters: it risks focusing on the wrong enemy.
A lot of major nutrition guidelines are being reworked to promote both human and planetary health, and a major focus is shifting people away from refined grains and toward whole grains. So when posts like this suggest that whole grains are no better than any other food that produces glucose, they can sow confusion and erode trust in public health efforts.
The difference is, most nutritional guidelines don’t group flavoured yoghurt and whole grains together. They don’t encourage high consumption of products with added sugar (including flavoured yoghurts) but they don’t suggest you need to avoid them completely either.
Marketing, not nutrition policy, is what makes ultra-processed, sugary products look like healthy choices. It’s marketing that sticks “high protein” on a yoghurt that’s also loaded with sugar. These are the real problems we need to tackle, not a fundamental misunderstanding of what sugar is or where it comes from.
Indeed the enemy is also not sugar. Yes, we know that diets that are high in sugar are associated with negative health outcomes (source, source). And yes, consuming whole grains produces glucose, but this is not something to be feared inherently. Why? Because whole grains contain fibre, vitamins, and minerals that slow digestion and moderate blood sugar responses, which is why many whole grains have a low to medium glycaemic index. Similarly, fruits deliver natural sugars alongside fibre and antioxidants. Finally, the way we combine foods in meals, including fat, protein, and fibre, further shapes how our blood sugar responds. So no, it’s not as simple as saying “sugar is sugar.”
So, what exactly are whole grains, and what does the evidence say about whole grains and their effects on weight and blood sugar?
“Grains are considered wholegrain when the bran and germ of the grain is not removed during processing and refining. The bran and germ contain important nutrients that have benefits for our health. There is a breadth of evidence to support this advice. Analysis published in the Lancet took 185 prospective studies and 58 clinical trials combined to assess the markers of human health associated with carbohydrate quality. Higher consumers of wholegrains demonstrated a significantly lower risk of all-cause mortality (-19 per cent), coronary heart disease (-20 per cent), type 2 diabetes (-33 per cent), and cancer mortality (-16 per cent) compared with lower consumers. Similar results were found for fibre intake, indicating this may be the beneficial nutrient in wholegrains.” (The Science of Plant-Based Nutrition, p. 132)
Don’t fear foods just because they contain carbs: context matters. Whole grains come with fibre, vitamins, and minerals that slow digestion and support long-term health.
Eric Berg, D.C. recently shared a post on Instagram in which he advises against feeding children various drinks or foods such as juice, flavored yoghurt, and whole grains. He claims that these “can spike blood sugar and contribute to future obesity.” The main focus of this fact-check is on whole grains, to tackle the potential confusion which this post could cause, especially given the growing emphasis on whole grains in nutritional guidelines.
Claim: “Avoid serving your kids juice, flavored yoghurt, whole grains, and foods that promote weight gain, as these can spike blood sugar and contribute to future obesity. If consumed at all, they should be limited to very small amounts.
In fact, they are consistently linked to better appetite control, healthier weight, and a reduced risk of type 2 diabetes when consumed as part of a balanced diet.
Many reputable organisations, including the British Dietetic Association, highlight the important role of whole grains in a healthy diet. When social media posts portray them as no better than sugary snacks, confusion can easily grow. This fact-check examines the assumptions and reasoning behind such claims, to help readers move beyond broad categorisations that could cause unnecessary fear.
Many consumers choose grass-fed beef because they believe it’s more ethical, sustainable, or nutritious than conventional meat. The image is compelling: cows grazing freely in lush, open pastures. But in practice, the term grass-fed doesn’t always align with that vision. In this piece, I break down what grass-fed really means, uncover some common misconceptions, and offer guidance on how to make informed choices.
Not anymore. The USDA once maintained a voluntary standard stating that grass-fed animals must be fed only grass and forage after weaning. But in 2016, the USDA withdrew its official definition and label standard, leaving approval in the hands of the Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS).
Now, individual producers define their own criteria for “grass-fed,” and FSIS simply reviews whether a label is “not misleading.” This has opened the door to a wide range of interpretations—from animals raised on open pasture to those kept in confinement and fed dried grass indoors. For consumers, this creates a significant trust gap between what the label suggests and what’s actually happening on the farm.
Surprisingly, many do not. In colder or drier regions, or during winter, cows labeled as grass-fed are often kept indoors and fed grass in the form of hay, silage, or other forage crops. While this meets the dietary requirement, it falls short of the image of cows grazing freely in natural fields. Farmers explain that they keep cows indoors during winter to protect them against the cold climate, give the pasture a chance to recover, ensure adequate supplies of food, and improve manure management. However, a growing number of farmers are keeping cows indoors all year round.
As many producers rely heavily on confined feeding of forage, especially during finishing (the final months before slaughter), these animals may only spend a small amount of their life on actual pasture.
This distinction matters—not just for the animal’s experience, but also for environmental and welfare outcomes. The idyllic pasture image comforts consumers, but it doesn’t reflect the more industrial reality behind many products.
This is where things get even more complex. While it’s often assumed that grass-fed cattle are better for the planet, the data paints a more nuanced picture.
Grass-fed cows generally take longer to reach slaughter weight compared to grain-fed cattle. That extended lifespan leads to more methane production—a potent greenhouse gas. High-forage diets can significantly increase methane emissions, and other research shows that the carbon footprint of grass-fed beef can be up to 42% higher than that of grain-fed beef when factoring in land use, emissions, and water consumption.
So while grass-fed systems may avoid the concentrated waste and pollution of feedlots, they can carry other ecological costs—especially when scaled to meet demand.
It also depends on where the cows are being farmed. If the land is already pasture, then there is a stronger argument in support for grass-fed cows, yet research shows that simply allowing these areas to rewild free of livestock is the best thing we can do for the environment. However, if companies are cutting down lush and biodiverse parts of rainforests in order to grow grass to claim that they have grass-fed beef, we can clearly see that not farming cows at all is the more (and most) sustainable option.
Many people assume that grass-fed animals live happier, more natural lives—but the label itself offers no guarantees about animal welfare. It only describes diet—not space, social interaction, or quality of life.
Without robust third-party oversight, “grass-fed” animals could be confined in crowded barns, with minimal enrichment and no guaranteed access to the outdoors, especially during the finishing stage of production. The key distinction here is between grass-fed and pasture-raised, and even that difference isn’t always clear on product labels.
If you want to eat beef that comes from higher-welfare systems, look for certifications that include both feeding and living standards—such as Certified Grassfed by A Greener World (AGW), which requires continuous pasture access, no feedlots, and strong welfare criteria. However, beef that comes from these systems often results in higher emissions, as the cows take longer to reach slaughter weight and have greater land use. Cows farmed according to practices of regenerative grazing can contribute to improved soil health and carbon sequestration. Of course, the best way to ensure high animal welfare and minimal environmental impact is not to put animals in farms at all.
Marketing is a big reason. Food producers know that consumers associate grass-fed with natural, ethical, and environmentally friendly farming. That perception boosts sales and justifies premium pricing.
But without strong regulations or standardized definitions, the term has become a feel-good label that may not reflect meaningful differences in farming practices. Consumers often overestimate what the label guarantees, trusting imagery that rarely matches reality. This imagery is also used for meat produced from fully-indoor farms, so this issue of false marketing is not confined to just grass-fed cows.
This is why transparency matters. Ethical food systems depend on honest communication—especially when it comes to animal welfare and sustainability.
"Grass-fed beef is often marketed as a win-win, but it's a tradeoff at best—slightly better welfare in exchange for far worse land use and methane emissions. The industry uses this narrative to greenwash a destructive system and delay change. It's cultural spin, not an environmental or food security solution. The real solution is shifting to plant-based foods - and systemically making it easier for everyone to choose these better options - that truly protect animals, ecosystems, and our future." - Nicholas Carter
Unfortunately, there is no silver bullet here. The highest welfare cows have the highest environmental impact, as they require more land and take longer to reach slaughter weight.
On the other hand, cows with the lowest environmental impact are often those in the very worst farming conditions, either tethered indoors to produce milk, or spending most of their lives cramped into feedlots.
Bearing this in mind, the best thing we can do as active consumers is:
It depends on what you expect from it. If you’re looking for beef and milk from animals fed a forage-based diet, the label often delivers. But if you're expecting open pastures, humane treatment, and lower environmental impacts, the picture is much less clear.
As more consumers ask questions and demand higher standards, there’s hope for a more honest food system—one where marketing matches reality, and where food choices can genuinely reflect our values.
By definition, this claim cannot be fact-checked without knowing exactly the impact of this post on its audience. However, it is possible to comment on its potential to trigger fear.
Acrylamide is indeed something to be aware of, and reducing exposure, by not overcooking starchy foods, toasting bread lightly, and eating a varied diet, is smart. But it's equally important to put the risk in perspective. To do so, we need to dive deeper into risk perception: how do we understand and perceive risks?
Experts and scientists evaluate risk very differently from the average person. For experts, risk is usually based on probability, dose, exposure, and strength of evidence. But for most of us, risk perception, especially when dealing with unfamiliar topics, is often shaped by mental shortcuts called heuristics. These shortcuts aren’t inherently bad; in fact, they are very helpful to make quick decisions without getting overwhelmed. Heuristics are often grounded in generalisations, and they can lead to accurate predictions, and sometimes good decisions. But they also often generate false or irrational conclusions, and it’s important to understand how this can happen.
Two heuristics play a big role here:
Importantly, the issue isn’t this one post about acrylamide. The problem lies in the broader narrative it taps into: a repeated, emotionally charged narrative that implies we’re constantly being poisoned by ordinary foods, and that no one is telling us the truth. Over time, this narrative erodes our ability to judge risk accurately and proportionally. Even when facts are later introduced, like clarifying that alleged cancer links are based on high-dose animal studies, those emotional impressions are hard to undo. Emotions have been shown to play an important part in risk perception, and this can even happen when we come to a different, more rational cognitive assessment (source).
That’s why it’s so important to raise awareness of how we perceive risk. If we understand these patterns, we can pause before reacting, and evaluate food safety claims with the full context they deserve. Just because solutions are provided, does not mean that there is no fear. In fact, the more likely damage comes from repeated exposure to similar content, which could lead to toxic relationships with food. Distorted risk perception can easily make us lose sight of the big picture. For example, by overly focusing on a single risk, we might forget the role played by one’s overall diet in counteracting that risk.
Let’s finish this fact-check by taking a quick look at the solutions provided by Eric Berg to protect oneself from acrylamide exposure. Eric Berg recommends to reduce high-heat cooking, cook with saturated fats like tallow, butter or coconut oil, eat cruciferous veggies, sip green tea and enjoy spirulina.
Reducing high-heat cooking, for example by lightly toasting rather than ‘burning’ toast, is indeed encouraged. However, the rest of those tips do not reflect the general recommendations provided by health authorities. This isn’t because they are necessarily wrong; rather there might be a lack of supporting evidence, or they might distract from the bigger picture.
For example, cooking fat type may influence acrylamide levels slightly, but using saturated fat isn’t advised by the EFSA (European Food Safety Agency) or by the FDA (U.S. Food and Drug Administration). This is because of broader health concerns related to the higher consumption of saturated fat (source).
This is a good reminder that distorted risk perception can get us to lose sight of the big picture. Moving onto the use of green tea, most of the studies demonstrating green tea’s protective effects against acrylamide were conducted in animal models using controlled doses of acrylamide that often exceed typical human dietary exposure. In these experiments, green tea extract was administered daily, sometimes in concentrated doses, and showed improvements in biomarkers of liver, kidney, neural, and reproductive health (source, source). However, most people are not exposed to acrylamide levels as high as those used in these studies. So while there is nothing wrong with sipping green tea, these measures do not reflect the advice given by health authorities, which instead focuses on variety in cooking methods, and in the diet itself:
Finally, while this might not make for compelling social media content, the EFSA reminds us of the importance of a balanced diet, which “generally reduces the risk of exposure to potential food risks. Balancing the diet with a wider variety of foods, e.g. meat, fish, vegetables, fruit as well as the starchy foods that can contain acrylamide, could help consumers to reduce their acrylamide intake” (source).
We have contacted Eric Berg and are awaiting a response.
This fact-check is intended to provide information based on available scientific evidence. It should not be considered as medical advice. For personalised health guidance, consult with a qualified healthcare professional.
Fact Check: This wording could be confusing. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) classifies acrylamide as a Group B2 "probable human carcinogen", while a “Class A” carcinogen would denote a known human carcinogen (source).
Similarly, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) lists acrylamide as a probable human carcinogen (Group 2A) (source). In an editorial published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, researchers note that “the body of evidence [on the links between acrylamide and cancer risk] is still cloudy, even after 20 years of research,” explaining why this classification has not been updated.
As more research is needed, health agencies recommend minimising exposure as low as reasonably achievable. In her book The Science of Plant Based Nutrition, Registered Nutritionist Rhiannon Lambert explains that for example, “compared to cooking in oil, air frying helps to lower levels of acrylamide.” Importantly, she also reminds us that “it is very unlikely that we are consuming enough acrylamide to cause [the development of cancer]”.
Fact Check: At high doses, particularly in industrial or occupational settings, acrylamide has been shown to cause nerve damage. This has been well-documented among workers exposed to large quantities (source).
However, the amounts found in food are typically far lower. Therefore, the claim lacks context as it fails to make that distinction, which has been shown to be significant (source). In a literature review on the neurotoxicity of acrylamide, researchers concluded that:
“It is clear that acrylamide is neurotoxic in animals and humans. The neurotoxic effects, however, seem to be only a problem in humans with high-level exposure. The lower levels of exposure estimated from dietary sources are not associated with neurotoxic effects in humans, but further studies are needed on low-level chronic exposures to determine cumulative effects on the nervous system.”
Fact Check: Acrylamide is indeed not listed on food labels. That's because it's not an added ingredient. As Eric Berg states here, it's a by-product that forms naturally during high-temperature cooking (above 120°C or 248°F), particularly in starchy foods like potatoes and grains.
This occurs during the Maillard reaction, a chemical process responsible for browning and flavour. The reaction involves the amino acid asparagine and reducing sugars, such as glucose or fructose (source). While the label doesn’t mention acrylamide, its formation is known to scientists and food safety authorities, which assess the potential risks for public health and work with food manufacturers to reduce acrylamide in food (source).
Calling it the “most dangerous (ingredient)” seems sensationalist, as simple measures like avoiding burning toast for example can reduce consumer exposure. While Eric Berg does offer solutions such as reducing high-heat cooking, the framing of this post can significantly affect the public’s risk perception, an important issue we’ll come back to in detail at the end of this fact-check.
There’s no need to panic about acrylamide. Most of the fear-based information you see online comes from animal studies, which test extremely high doses far beyond what people would ever consume. These studies are important for identifying potential risks but don’t directly reflect how humans eat or process acrylamide.
Unfortunately, this important nuance is frequently ignored by unqualified wellness influencers, such as Eric Berg, who’ve gained popularity by promoting fear-based messaging and frequently distorting science to spread misinformation.
Decades of toxicological research and ongoing evaluations by international health authorities, including the World Health Organisation and the European Food Safety Authority, show that the levels of acrylamide typically found in food are far below those linked to harm in animal studies. Human research has not found clear evidence that dietary acrylamide causes health problems. Based on current data, global experts agree that acrylamide in food is safe when consumed as part of a balanced and varied diet.
Avoid emotional language: Sensational or emotionally charged wording can distort risk perception and make it harder to see the bigger picture.
In a recent Instagram post, Eric Berg shares information about acrylamide, which he claims is lurking in everyday foods, and that you won’t even find on food labels. While this might sound scary, Eric Berg says this is not fear-mongering and shares several tips, from reducing high-heat cooking to sipping green tea. Let’s break down and fact-check some of the key claims made in this post.
Acrylamide is a naturally occurring compound that forms when certain foods are cooked at high temperatures. Its potential health risks have been, and continue to be studied extensively, mostly in animal models using high doses not typically encountered in human diets. Although reducing acrylamide exposure is a valid public health recommendation, especially by avoiding overcooked or burnt foods, the post’s tone, combining alarming language and visuals, does not reflect what the evidence currently shows about dietary exposure in humans.
This kind of narrative oversimplifies complex issues and can undermine scientific literacy. Most people don’t assess risks the way scientists do. Sensational messaging makes for compelling content, but when it comes at the expense of understanding, our perception of risk is more likely to be shaped by mental shortcuts (known as heuristics), rather than by evidence.
This fact check goes beyond the facts on acrylamide. It explores how our perception of risk can be influenced by emotion, repetition, and framing. Because facts matter; but how we frame those facts matters too.
Anecdotes can be powerful, especially in a fast-paced society where issues like fatigue are common, for example among women juggling many demands. This makes the promise of a diet that claims to be the ‘key’ to feeling better or solving a wide range of health problems especially appealing. However, this kind of messaging is a hallmark of nutrition misinformation. It oversimplifies complex issues, often attributing improvements to a single factor without considering other changes, such as reduced intake of ultra-processed foods high in fat, salt and sugar, or increased physical activity.
What’s missing in these narratives is evidence. Current research does not support claims that the carnivore diet improves hormonal health or leads to sustainable weight loss. It also overlooks potential long-term risks associated with such a restrictive eating pattern, such as risks we have explored in this article, including increased risk of cardiovascular disease and cancers.
Importantly, while influencers may say they "feel great" on this diet, subjective feelings don’t reveal hidden health issues, including the development of heart disease, which often has no early symptoms. Algorithms also tend to amplify success stories while suppressing negative experiences, creating a skewed perception of effectiveness.
Ultimately, to truly evaluate health claims, we must rely on high-quality scientific evidence, such as randomized controlled trials, clinical studies, and systematic reviews, not social media testimonials.
We have contacted Bella (‘Steak and Butter Gal’) and are awaiting a response.
This fact-check is intended to provide information based on available scientific evidence. It should not be considered as medical advice. For personalised health guidance, consult with a qualified healthcare professional.
Fact-Check: Steak and Butter Gal claims that women “go high-fat carnivore and feel the best they’ve ever felt”. Participants in the 2021 study following the dietary intake of individuals following a carnivore diet did report that their diet enhanced their general health, physical and mental well-being. But ‘feeling good’ does not equate to ‘being healthy’. Many serious health conditions, such as high blood pressure, atherosclerosis, osteoporosis, or even cancer, can develop silently, without noticeable symptoms. Moreover, this self-reported survey didn’t include clinical assessments like blood tests, scans, or long-term disease outcomes, so we can’t draw conclusions about the diet’s actual impact on long-term health.
It is well established that diets lacking in fruits and vegetables are consistently linked to a higher risk of various health conditions, including heart disease, certain cancers, and an increased overall risk of death (source).
Consuming large amounts of red and processed meats has also been strongly connected to heightened risks of several illnesses, such as colorectal, breast, and colon cancers, as well as cardiovascular disease (source 1, source 2). According to NHS guidance, individuals who consume more than 90 grams of red or processed meat daily, roughly equivalent to three thin slices of roast beef, pork, or lamb, should aim to reduce their intake to 70 grams per day to lower their health risks.
Fact-check: It is important to note that the impact of the carnivore diet on hormonal health has not yet been properly researched. The claim that the carnivore diet is “amazing” for hormonal health is not backed by peer-reviewed human trials, and may ignore potential long-term risks, especially given what we know about hormonal sensitivity to dietary patterns (source, source).
It’s also essential to recognise that each individual’s body responds differently to dietary changes, and there is no universal approach that works for everyone.
Fact-check: an exaggerated claim
The carnivore diet is typically high in fat. One of its well-known advocates, ‘The Steak and Butter Gal,’ promotes a fat-heavy eating pattern. While some fat is essential, helping the body absorb fat-soluble vitamins like A, D and E, excess fat that isn’t used for energy or cell function gets stored in the body.
Fat, regardless of type (saturated or unsaturated), is calorie-dense, providing 9 kilocalories (37 kilojoules) per gram: more than double the energy found in proteins or carbohydrates, which offer 4 kilocalories (17 kilojoules) per gram (NHS).
Excessive intake of saturated fat can elevate levels of LDL cholesterol, generally referred to as "bad" cholesterol, in the blood, therefore increasing the risk of cardiovascular diseases, including heart attacks and strokes. According to NHS recommendations, women should limit their saturated fat intake to no more than 20 grams per day. To illustrate, a single pound of ground beef, as featured in Steak and Butter Gal’s breakfast, contains approximately 51 grams of saturated fat.
The diet proposed by Steak and Butter Gal is a high-fat carnivore diet, therefore one low in carbohydrates, suggested to aid weight loss. However, there is limited scientific evidence to support that a high-fat diet leads to sustainable weight loss. In fact, a 2021 clinical trial found that in a 10 week intervention, a low-carbohydrate high-fat diet group did not achieve any favourable weight loss outcomes when compared to a normal diet.
The carnivore diet is extremely restrictive and may be difficult for many individuals to sustain over time. Similar approaches, like the ketogenic (keto) diet, have also been linked to weight loss claims but come with comparable limitations. Both diets cut out entire food groups, making them hard to stick to over time (source). Therefore, the claim that women on a carnivore diet lose weight ‘effortlessly’ is not representative, as this diet is in fact highly restrictive and unsustainable for most.
The major issue with these claims about the carnivore diet and women’s health is that they rely heavily on feelings and personal testimonials rather than solid evidence - likely because very little research is available, as is too often the case in women’s health. This creates a skewed picture that overstates potential benefits of the carnivore diet while ignoring the growing body of evidence showing that plant-rich diets are consistently linked to better health outcomes.
When encountering diet and nutrition content on social media, it's important to remain skeptical of claims that a single diet can solve all health problems. Evidence-based nutritional guidelines (NHS) support a balanced diet that includes a variety of foods in the right proportions to promote overall health and maintain a healthy weight.
On May 9th, lifestyle influencer known as ‘Steak and Butter Gal’ took to Instagram to credit her carnivore diet for a range of health benefits, including “amazing hormones, clear glowy skin, amazing hair growth, and zero bloat.” She went on to say, “I have seen women go high-fat carnivore and feel the best they’ve ever felt, they lose weight effortlessly.”
As many women increasingly turn to social media for advice on how to improve hormonal balance, skin and hair health, and manage weight, it becomes important to distinguish between credible health guidance and unverified personal anecdotes. This article will fact-check the claim that a high-fat carnivore diet can improve hormone function and promote effortless weight loss in women, using the best available scientific evidence.
The claims in this video rely solely on anecdotal evidence and lack scientific support. Research shows that high intake of saturated fat increases the risk of heart disease, while excessive consumption of red and processed meat is linked to negative health outcomes, including certain cancers. There is no conclusive evidence that a carnivore diet promotes weight loss or improves hormonal health. In fact, restrictive diets like this one can lead to adverse effects such as irregular or missed menstrual cycles and are often unsustainable, offering no unique benefits over other restrictive diets.
Women’s health, particularly when it comes to hormones, skin, hair, and weight, is often underserved in mainstream medical research and can be difficult to navigate. This lack of clear, accessible information leaves many women turning to social media influencers for guidance. But while personal anecdotes may sound convincing, they don’t carry much weight unless backed by solid scientific evidence. Misinformation can lead to decisions that negatively affect your health and wellbeing. That’s why it’s vital to examine claims like this one through an evidence-based lens, so you can make informed, safe, and effective choices for your body.
The post’s framing suggests plant-based diets are environmentally harmful because of plastic pollution from greenhouses. However, a comprehensive review by Poore and Nemecek (2018) in Science found that plant-based diets still have a far smaller environmental footprint—including lower greenhouse gas emissions, water use, and land use—compared to diets high in meat and dairy.
A 2023 meta-analysis in Nature Food reinforced these findings, showing that vegan diets contribute 75% less greenhouse gas emissions than diets high in animal products. The net ecological benefit of plant-based diets remains positive, even when accounting for intensive crop systems.
While the image is real and plastic agriculture in Almería is a serious environmental concern, attributing this problem primarily to plant-based diets is oversimplified and misleading. The greenhouse agriculture sector supports global food demand across all diets, not just veganism.
The crops grown in Almería—tomatoes, peppers, cucumbers, courgettes—are staples in omnivorous, vegetarian, and vegan diets alike. While demand for plant-based products has increased, these vegetables have always been widely consumed, regardless of dietary preference. Research shows that the largest driver of land conversion and deforestation globally is livestock, or more specifically, growing food for farmed animals to eat.
According to research from Ritchie & Roser (Our World in Data, 2020), only a small proportion of greenhouse-grown produce can be tied specifically to vegan diets. The largest share is linked to general food consumption patterns, especially in high-income countries seeking out-of-season fresh produce.
Yes, the satellite imagery is authentic. The NASA Earth Observatory has published similar comparative visuals documenting the transformation of the Campo de Dalías in Almería into one of Europe’s largest greenhouse hubs. By 2022, over 40,000 hectares were covered in plastic greenhouses.
Satellite images confirm the rapid expansion of intensive horticulture in southern Spain, especially since the 1960s. The vegetables grown here are exported across Europe, contributing to the year-round availability of fresh produce in supermarkets.
🥔 Dig Deeper: Images can be powerful, but they don’t always tell the full story—especially when used without context.
Posted by FarmingUK on Facebook (7 June), an image shows two satellite images (from 1974 and 2000) illustrating rapid expansion of plastic-covered greenhouses in Almería, Spain. It suggests that this expansion is directly linked to the growing demand for plant-based diets and implies negative environmental impacts of such diets.
“This satellite image shows 26,000 hectares of plastic greenhouses in Almería, Spain... Producing tomatoes, peppers, cucumbers and courgettes year-round… A plant-based diet is not some rainbow and sunshine diet!”
Greenhouse agriculture in Almería serves a global market that includes both plant-based and omnivorous eaters. While the region raises valid concerns about plastic waste, labor conditions, and water usage, attributing it primarily to veganism distorts the broader agricultural reality.
With rising awareness around sustainability, these kinds of claims can unfairly undermine plant-based diets using out-of-context visuals. This can create confusion and backlash, especially when backed by agricultural lobbies with vested interests.
The term “humane slaughter” refers to practices intended to minimize animal suffering during the killing process. In many countries, including those in the E.U., the U.S., and the U.K., slaughter laws require that most animals be rendered unconscious before being killed—a process known as stunning.
This includes:
But while these methods are considered best practices, there is no global consensus on what constitutes “humane.” And more importantly, these practices are often imperfectly implemented—especially at the scale required to meet global meat demand.
Unfortunately, no. Stunning is not always effective, particularly in high-speed slaughterhouses where time pressures reduce the chance of proper technique.
Even when done correctly, stunning does not erase the stress, fear, and suffering animals often experience during transport, handling, and pre-slaughter confinement.
Slaughterhouses that process thousands of animals per day operate on tight schedules. Speed and efficiency are prioritized, leaving little room for individualized care. This creates conditions where:
Multiple undercover investigations from The Animal Justice Project documented how industrial meat plants regularly fail to uphold even minimal welfare standards. In some facilities, animals are routinely subjected to painful procedures and handled roughly by undertrained or overburdened workers.
The industrial context directly undermines the possibility of truly humane treatment.
Many animal welfare scientists and ethicists argue that the phrase “humane slaughter” is fundamentally contradictory. Taking a life—especially of an animal not in pain or distress—is inherently a moral dilemma.
While pain can be reduced, death is never painless in the existential sense. The animal loses everything. And even in best-case scenarios, the fear and stress leading up to slaughter are difficult, if not impossible, to eliminate.
This tension has led critics to question whether “humane slaughter” is primarily a marketing term—designed to ease consumer guilt rather than reform the system.
Because the industry—and many certification bodies—promote the idea. Labels like “Certified Humane,” “RSPCA Assured,” and “Animal Welfare Approved” offer consumers reassurance, even though their standards vary widely and are not always well-enforced.
Consumers understandably want to reduce harm. Choosing “humanely raised” products feels like a middle ground between concern for animals and dietary habits. But that middle ground may be more symbolic than substantial, especially when the reality of slaughter doesn’t match the rhetoric.
Not everyone agrees on whether humans should eat animals, but for now, many still do. That’s the reality: more than 70 billion land animals are killed every year for food. If we include fish, the number reaches into the trillions.
This raises an important question: If we can’t stop all animal slaughter overnight, what can be done to reduce suffering in the meantime? This is where harm reduction and welfarism come in.
Harm reduction means trying to make things less bad. It doesn’t solve the root problem, in this case, the killing of animals, but it aims to reduce the pain and suffering involved. Think of it like a first step, not a final goal.
Some examples:
Welfarism is the idea that while animals are still being used and killed by humans, we should at least try to treat them better. This could mean:
Welfarism is often seen as a compromise, a middle ground between doing nothing and going fully vegan. But it’s controversial. Some argue it creates a false sense of progress and makes consumers feel more comfortable with animal use, instead of challenging it.
On the other hand, abolitionism is the belief that using and killing animals is fundamentally wrong—no matter how “nicely” it’s done. This is the core of the modern vegan movement: a push not just for less harm, but to end animal exploitation altogether.However, abolitionism isn’t always easy for the general public to embrace. That’s why welfarist measures often gain more support—they feel more practical or less extreme to people who aren’t ready for major lifestyle changes.
The question of humane slaughter leads naturally into a larger conversation about our food system, and whether truly compassionate alternatives exist.
Animal-free foods, cultivated meats, and plant-based options are evolving rapidly. While not without challenges, these emerging technologies offer a pathway toward reducing the need for animal slaughter altogether.
Just as the concept of “humane slaughter” aims to reduce harm, a transition toward alternatives can eliminate it.
“Humane slaughter” may be seen as less harmful by some sections of society, rather than overt cruelty, but it is not a solution. It’s a compromise within a system that prioritizes speed, scale, and profit over sentience. By questioning these terms, and looking more closely at what they obscure—we can move toward a food system based on transparency, empathy, and evolution.
Dive into our collection of resources to uncover the facts behind today’s food system. From the environmental impact of food choices to the truth about nutrition claims, we’ve got you covered. Equip yourself to make informed, empowered decisions every day.
Take ActionEvery day, we work to uncover the truth about our food system, empowering informed choices for a healthier planet. Support from people like you helps us research, publish, and advocate for transparent food policies and honest labeling.
Join us in driving meaningful change!
You Have The Power To Make A Difference 3 Times A Day.
Join us in promoting honest nutrition and wellness, whilst challenging misinformation.
.svg)
