[g_podcast id="15286112"]
Julia Tulipan is a nutritionist and keto lifestyle coach, author and lecturer. She wrote the Amazon bestseller "The Keto Compass" together with Ulrike Gonder, Marina Lommel and Dr. Brigitte Karner.
Julia originally studied biology and zoology, but then switched to the human field.
She has numerous training courses and qualifications, for example she is a certified personal fitness and health trainer and has a Master of Science in Clinical Nutritional Medicine from the Danube University Krems. She is also a lecturer at the LCHF Germany Academy and the Schlossberg Institute in Vienna and is the owner and founder of the low-carb and keto product manufacturer Tulipans.
10 years ago, nutritionist andketo coach Julia Tulipan was still a vegetarian. In this episode, she tells us how she fared and why she changed her diet.
We also talk about:
I am delighted to have the lovely Julia Tulipan as a guest here. Welcome, Julia.
Julia Tulipan: Yes, thank you very much for inviting me. I am very pleased.
You're very welcome. This is your second time on the show. I think the episode on ketogenic nutrition that we did together is even in the top ten.
Julia Tulipan: I'm delighted about that.
It's actually very popular. We talked about ketogenic nutrition back then spoken. Today we wanted to talk about the topic of a vegetarian or vegan diet. I believe you once ate a vegetarian diet yourself for a while. Would you like to tell us a bit about it? Why you tried it and how you felt about it?
Julia Tulipan: With pleasure. Yes, I've been a vegetarian since I was 15 years old. Back then, there was no such distinction between vegetarian and vegan. It certainly existed, but it wasn't so present in my perception.
I already ate fish and dairy products and eggs, but there were certainly often days when I was vegan. I certainly did that for 10 years.It wasn't until I was at university, around the middle of my studies in any case, that I slowly started to eat organic food. I found it increasingly difficult to give up meat. Somehow I developed a ... yes, a craving for it. I thenstarted eating meat again, especially when it became possible to buy organic food. Around 2005, you started to find more and more organic food in normal stores.I paid more and more attention to this andthenstarted to include meat in my diet again. But I stilldidn't eat much meat fora long time.Iactuallyalways tried to experimentwith alternatives: I experimented with soy, tofu and various other meat alternatives.
I then spent some time in Sweden.I spent a few years in Swedenfrom2010onwards, and there was something really funnycalled "Quorn ", for example. It was made from an egg protein, I think, if I remember correctly. Some kind of compressed imitation chicken.
I think that's also available in Switzerland, or at least it used to be.
Julia Tulipan: Exactly. In the UK, in England, it's also available in various forms. There was also soy, various soy products in the form of something like minced meat. I experimentedwith this a lot. But I simply saw that I reacted to this soy mince imitation with extreme flatulence. So that was inhumane. That was bad.
But, as I said, I ate a vegetarian diet for a really long time. That was definitely an ethical consideration for me. When I was 15, I sawmy first images of factory farming and animaltransportation, and it really, really affected me. That is also something that is absolutely condemnable. And because there was simply no alternative, the onlyoption for me was to say that I simply wouldn't eat it any more. That was the main reason why I decided to switch to vegetarianism.
Now many people do that many people do for health reasons, because it makes them feel better or they think itwill feel better feel better. Did you feel a difference? Or did you realize: Okay, I feel different since going vegetarian?
Julia Tulipan: No, not really at all. AsI said,I was 15 at the time and in a phase in my life anyway where I was simply trying to modulate my weight through exercise and calories. That actually worked quite well for a while, until maybe my early mid-20s.Until then,it worked quite well.Looking back, I was already strugglinga lot with depressive moods back then. Even in puberty and in my late teens and early twenties, I had to deal withdepression, perhaps notdepression, but very strong mood swings and depressive moods.
I also had acne, which interestingly didn't appearuntil I was 21 or 22. That's when I started to have massive skin problems, like I had in my childhood. I didn't have during puberty.No dermatologist was able to help me. It always came and went in phases. No matter what I did, it didn't help.
Then came sleep disorders. I then also started to get chronic back pain, even though I had always done a lot of sport and exercise back then. Back then, it was mainlyrunning. In Sweden,I then started doing a lot of martial arts in particular. Then also strength training. Before that, I'd always had phases where I'd become a bit, I'd almost say, "spongy".Well, not exactly overweight, but just ... "spongy". There's no other way to describe it. Just a bit bloated. I had a phase of a lot of stress before that.
Then we went to Sweden and I concentrated a lot on my diet. But I was very low-fat there, more of a vegetarian, with my meat substitutes. But also always wholemeal andlots lots of fiber. Reallyreally a lot. I 've neverhad such bad flatulence. That was terrible. For example, when I did martial arts ... I did Thai boxing, and I got kicked in the stomach. I really have to tell you about that! It was so unpleasant during training when someone kicked me in the stomach -it's not a hard punch, but a push in the stomach - a little sound escaped. That really put a strain on me because you can't control it.
Therecamea pointwhennothing I did helped any more.I initially lost weight again briefly and then itwas like a "breaking point". Really. And then I put on weight and put on weight and put on weight. I felt so bad mentally, with the back pain, knee pain, insomnia, the whole nine yards. And that's when I really started to rethink things.
I ha tstarted eating animal products again before that, of course, but I was already eating a lot of whole grains and cereals and, yes, low fat.
Well, I guess in hindsight you probably realized what caused all these symptoms, right? From my point of viewyou always thinkalways think of the gut, of course. Just everything you listed: Whether it's skin, whether it's depressive moods, whether it's even back pain or even sleep problemsare. Thiscan actually all be linked to the gut. Would you see it the same way from today's perspective?
Julia Tulipan: Yes, definitely, definitely.
It all cameoverto us from the USAat that time,andthat's how Ifirstheardabout"leaky gut".And then at some point there were actually tests that you could do. I'm sure thatmy intestines were massively permeable and that Iwas also suffering from chronic exhaustion. So, there was certainly something wrong with my gut.
I think we'll come back later to talk about how you resolved this, or why the diet you were eating - plant-based - was perhaps not ideal.
But before that, I would like to talk about it again, from your current perspective, where do you see the advantages of a plant-based diet? What do you think? In what way is it doing you any good?
Julia Tulipan: I wouldn'tnecessarilysay >"plant-based diet", but perhaps"plantsin in nutrition". When I say"plantsin in nutrition", it certainlyoffersthings like taste, consistency, texture...Theseare all thingsthat makesomething interesting and of courseexpand the range of flavors.
It certainly also contains good fiber, which serves as a nutrientfor our intestinal flora, our microbiome. Then there arealso various vitamins and minerals that you can get very wellfrom green vegetables-at least the ones that are less difficult to digest. I think that, above all, theynaturallyprovide variety.
You've already hinted at the fact that there are plants that are difficult to digest. That would certainly be one of the disadvantages of a plant-based diet. What else would you say are the disadvantages of a purely plant-based diet? What might be missing?
Julia Tulipan: Plantsnaturally havecertain strategies to protect their seeds, for example, but also to protect themselves from fungal attack orother things - including bacteria,smallerpredators and"pests".
There are components in plants that can pose a problem. You simply have to be aware of this. On the one hand, there isphytic acid, for example.Phytic acid has the task of binding minerals in the plant, and it does this primarily on itsseeds. Whenitis still in the dormant phase. This changes whenthe seed begins to germinate.Because then these minerals have to be released, and of course the seedling needs all these minerals. Accordingly, one could now also draw a conclusion, perhaps a germinated grain should be evaluated differently than a non-germinated grain.
Thisphytic acid not only binds the minerals in the plant, but can also bind minerals in the intestine and thus make absorption more difficult. I always findthe following interesting:My background is in biology, and I have also done a lot of animal nutritionbecause I also did some lectures at the University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences.In animal nutrition, you are fully aware of this.They are aware of the problem ofphytic acid in animal feed and alsothe proportion of fiber in animal feed. Because weknow that the proportion ofphytic acid in animal feed,for example, reduces the availability of nutrients for the animal.
In animal nutrition, I naturally want the animal to be well fed.I want to have a certain output. I want growth, muscle growth or other things.That means I have things like poor growth in pigs, for example.Thatwould be an example.Funnily enough , this knowledge, which is available in animal nutrition is completely ignored in human nutrition.We are very similar, especially to pigs. That's why it's often used as a model organism in animal experiments. I find it interesting that this is somehow getting lost.
We have something similar withlectins, for example. Lectins are substances that can bind to the intestinal mucosa in the intestine , for example.There,among other things, they canbreak down this mucous layer and then penetrate through the intestine into the blood.This is certainly not the case after prolonged exposure, but if you are exposed to these substances for a really long time.
It isinteresting to note that lectins can cross the blood-brain barrier and are probably transported there via thevagus nerve. Lectins can be radioactively labeled and then you can see where they end up. Andthenyou canfind them in the brain, for example.There are apparently interactions in this area,sothat the neurons are damaged and there may be a connection with Parkinson's or other neuro-degenerative diseases. Inotherwords, it'snot entirely straightforward.
And in which plants are therefor example suchphytins and lectins?
Julia Tulipan: They are found in almost all plants, just in different quantities. The ones that contain the most are certainly cereals - i.e. all seeds and grains - but also legumes. I had already mentioned beforethatgerminationchangessomething.If you look at traditional societies and think back to our grandmothers, there is a very specific way of preparinggrains and pulses.Often, forexample, with beans. They are often soaked for days, washed out again and again. They can be soured, they can be are fermented. And all these processes are done to break down and minimize precisely these substances.
Interestingly, this also happens with gluten, for example.If I make a sourdough andthese bacteriacan really work for 48 hours, the gluten is almost completely broken down. Once again, you can see that preparation plays a very important role. This is something that is often forgotten or no longer done.
Okay. I think you can summarize these substances as anti-nutrients. Perhaps some of our listeners have heard this before. Dhe word"anti-nutrients" includes the ones you just mentioned. Would you also include oxalates and things like that in this anti-nutrient group?
Julia Tulipan: Yes,I would include them, oxalates.Then, of course, there are alsogoitrogenic substances, i.e. substances thatcaninhibit thyroid function,for example.These are particularly widespread in the cabbage family, which is why you should perhaps be careful with too many rawkale smoothies etc., because many of these substances are already very, very low due to the cooking and processing stages.
Yes, they also say that you should really pour out the water.ssshould, for example, and not use it as well."Kale"for those who don't know, that's kale.
Smoothies are naturally very popularsspopularity, nnot just the green ones. My husband always says:"When a man says that he likessmoothies then he means fruit smoothiessmoothies." I haverecently once again because a man said that he drinks smoothies every morning.smoothies and they were actually just fruit smoothies.smoothies.So,smoothie is not the same assmoothie.
Good, then,that means now that plants arebestshould also be handled with careuandone shouldshould also consider a bit of preparation methods. You should just be aware that plants don't actually want to be eaten.
Julia Tulipan: You have to be aware of that, also because there is a bit of a mood at the moment that everything that is plant-basedalmost has a halo and everything that is animal-based is somehow abit, yes, evil.This is also partly reflected in the way we use words.If something is"animalistic", then it has a somewhat lowconnotation. You have to be careful.Of course,not everythingis harmless just because it's plant-based. You just have to do everything with a bit of sense and ask questions.
Plants in particular - because they can't run away like animals and don't have teeth or claws, they have already thought of otherwaysto avoid being eaten. Some just do it with Thorns, others do it with bitter substances,for example, or other things.Some of these things are not necessarily intended for defense, but serve the plant itself in its building system. Theysimplyneed tobe consumed with care.
In your case, you realized that there was something wrong with the intestines and that you could change your diet again. And then you actually went more in the direction of an evolutionary diet. Is that right?
Julia Tulipan: Exactly. Exactly.
Which meanssst then"evolutionary"?
Julia Tulipan:I like"species-appropriate" better. Essentially, it doesn't say anything else."Evolutionary" is just a bit of a long and difficult word. You can perhaps do more with"species-appropriate". If you imagineyou want to buy a pet, a guinea pig or perhaps something more exotic, some kind of reptile, or whether I'm looking at a zooor livestock farming: whenever I want an animal to stay as healthy as possible, to reproduce, then I think to myself: well, what do I have to give the animal so that this happens? And then I always take a look: How does the animal live in its natural environment? What does a guinea pig eat in the Andes? Or what does a lizard eat, or a gecko, or whatever I can think of at the moment? data-contrast="auto">what I would like to buy.
As aresponsible pet owner, I would then take a look:What do they eat? And then I would try to imitate that as closely as possible with the options I have. On the one hand, I would look at the diet, but on the other hand, of course, I would also look at the enclosure and the living environment. If I have a hippopotamus, I'm not going to set it uplikean elephant enclosure or like the African savannah, I'm going to offerita body of water.What seems so logical and absolutely normal to us for animals,we also manage to transferto ourselves as humans.Of course,we areonly animals.
We can also take a look:Well, what are we best adapted to? What does a natural, species-appropriate diet look like for humans? How do people eat in the wild?
We have a few possibilities to look at this. We can, of course, look at howour closest living relatives live,for example: the bonobos, the chimpanzees. We separated from them around 6 million years ago. We have long since diverged from them, but still.
But we can also look at anthropological data or archaeological data.For example,we canlook at finds from the Stone Age.Or we have the opportunity to observe hunter-gatherer societies living today that still live traditionally: What do they eat? Or what don't they eat? And I can get an idea from that.
The idea is of course simple:what has made uswhat we are todayin our evolutionary history? Why do we flywe to the moon? And why did this part that split off 6 million years ago, i.e. the apes, why didn't they go through the development that we have gone through? Why do they still live on trees?
Is there aes there really a clear answer to this? It sometimes seems to me that there is,depending on which book you you read,it saysman does not have certain teeth orcertainteeth.Some some sayit that humans were actually born as herbivores in any case. We would have a shorter intestine etc. or lack certain teeth that a creature that eats animals has. Is there a clear answer from your point of view?
Julia Tulipan: One thing is that we as humans can eat a very diverse diet, which is certainly one of the secrets of our success. That is the reason why we have reproduced wonderfully all over the world and through all climate zones. It is certainly our advantage that we are simply not food specialists. Not like akoala bear , for example, which only eats eucalyptus. They are absolute food specialists. Theywould find it difficult to gain afootholdoutside of Australia. That is certainly one aspect.
The other aspect is that in all this diversity, one thing is quite clear: the consumption of animal productshas beenwith us fora very, very long time, certainly for at least 2.5 million years, with the appearance of the first stone tools, and probably even before that.
Of course, you also have to look at the whole adaptation ofour tendons etc.from this perspective. We are descended from primarily herbivorous ancestors, just like the chimpanzee, so of course we don't havefangs, but we never needed them.Instead, we havedeveloped stone tools.It's like a kind of co-evolution. The stone tools have enabled us,for example, to open bones, open skulls, work on that even the larger sserenpredators cannot reach.
Those were certainly the first beginnings as early humans, so to speak. We weren't actually humans then, sonot yet homobutAustralopithecusearly humans.We simply waited for somelargepredator to make a kill. We then waited until theyhad finished eating and then we just went and got the leftovers. We then got to the parts that they couldn't get to. That can actually be proven in the finds.In other words, we didn't need massive jawbones. We didn't needfangs, because wedeveloped toolsinstead.And that was certainly one reason.
On the other hand, in terms of the digestive tract, we certainly don't have a classic herbivore gut, but rather a long small intestine and a short large intestine. This is typically a sign of an omnivore or an animal that is better adapted to food components that do notrequire a great deal of breakdown. Plants are very digestive.
If you look at thelarge herbivores, I've seen giant grinding teeth. The jaw also moves like a millstone. When I look at cows or horses or sheep, their jaws move like that.In other words, they grindthe plant material like a millstone. And then I need an intestine or a digestive tract that can break down this plant material.
There is no higher animal that can break down cellulose enzymatically. No higher animal has the claws to cut open cellulose.This means that all herbivores are dependent on bacteria in one way or another. The actual work is done by microorganisms.
Then there are the herbivores, which have a specially shaped,chambered stomach,in which the bacteria feel very, very comfortable. And then they are chewed again.äagain.There you can already see: Herbivoresspend many, many hours a day just eating.Eight to twelve hours or evenlonger must be eaten becauseit is it is so difficult to get these nutrients from plants.This means, I have the corresponding stomach, or I have a very long colon,in which then the fermentation happens through the bacteria andwhereabsorption of nutrients is possible. We lack that. We don't have that.
We also havea very acidic stomach, and a very acidic stomach is classicallya sign for carnivores. We are on a par with dogs and lions. So from the pH valueof the stomachs we are right up there with the carnivores.All this means that we we are definitely not herbivores.
Then there is something else that I find very exciting. Ehere are these - how it onEnglish isst"expensivetissue hypothesis". Also the"hypothesis of the expensive tissue"you could call it. We have to imagine that our brain needs a quarter of all the energy we consume each day. For such a small thing! I don't know not, that's two Kilo orlike that, I don't know exactly. A quarter! Almost 25 percent!
In a chimpanzee, the brain consumes about 9 percent. But if you compare how much energy a chimpanzee's digestive tract consumes, I can see that it is very energy-intensive, that it consumes this 25 percent. But our digestive tract consumes very little energy.
The hypothesissays that I cannot have an elaborate brain that consumes 25 percent, and an elaborate intestine that consumes 25 percent. I couldnever eat this amount of energy in my life. That is not possible. So it's either/or. I can only either have a complicated gut to digest plant material, but then I can't afford a complex brain. Or I can manage to eat food that is so nutrient-dense and easy to digest - animal food -that I can save on the gut andhave energy for abigbrain.
Exciting. Very, very exciting. So there are some indications that we are at leastomnivores that is, animal and plant-based. Based on your current knowledge, what would you say is ideal for humans? Or how would you suggest that we could eat if we really want to be healthy and perhaps also keep in mind that we also want to have a healthy gut?
Julia Tulipan: Well, I would say that if youaremetabolicallyhealthy and your gutis otherwisein order, then I can stick to an"average" Ancestral Diet. In other words, a paleo diet with one third plant-based and two thirds animal-based.
If youlook atall hunter-gatherersocieties data-contrast="auto">, there is data on this, also very exciting. One study, , analyzed 225 hunter-gatherer societies. There is a spectrum, as we have already said, but themajority ofthemeat a one-third plant-baseddiet and two-thirds animal-based. And we're not talking about cereals, of course,but root vegetables and veryfiber-rich wild species. Fruit too. This has much less sugar in its wild form than the cultivated varieties. Most of it consists only of seeds and very little pulp.
What about leafy vegetables and the like?
Julia Tulipan: A lot of young sprouts are alsoeaten-sprouts in the sense of shoots.Things like that are often eaten.Even"leafy vegetables" in their wild forms naturally consist of a lot of fiber and often also contain a lot of bitter substances.This means that I can't eat too much of them because they are very bitter.
All our vegetables, whether it's spinach orchicory or something else, these bitter substances are bred out because they don't suit people's tastes.And of coursethe fiber contentisalso reduced,because you don't want to be sucking on green chewing gum all the time. Baby spinach is unlikely to be found in nature in this form. Wild herbs too, of course they are all eaten. But what you can already see is that the preference is always for animal foods. So they use every opportunity to get their hands on animal products. And we're not talking about antelope or the like, but also insects, small mammals, reptiles, amphibians, fish, mussels, everything that creeps andflies,<span data-contrast="auto"> is eaten.
That's a bit difficult for us now, probably.Well, we were talking about healthy people.
Julia Tulipan: Yes, exactly.
That they actuallyactuallystill tend to eat an animal-based diet?
Julia Tulipan: Yes, Iwouldsay"animal-based" in the broadest sense.I'm not just thinking of steak, but really everything that is common here. There's also seafood, and with animals there's also"nose-to-tail". That really means everything from the animal, not just the fillet, but offal also plays an important role. Which brings me back to the fact that I naturally use a lot more of the animal. I can make soup from bones.And if you think back to the old cookbooks -especially from my grandma, for example - they had everything in them. From kidneys and pig's headto ears and feet. They basicallyusedeverything.Of course, that would also be recommended.
In general, I would simply say that the vegetables are naturally lower in carbohydrates.If you're metabolically healthy, there's nothing wrong with pumpkin orsweetpotatoesor things like that. Or even a potato, why not? That works too.Just be careful with cereals, because they have actually been added very late in our evolutionary history. There are already traditional societies that use millet,for example, but not in huge quantities. It is alsooften fermented.This means that cereals certainly played a really subordinate role and only reallygained importance- if wecountgenerously - 12,000 years ago.At that time, it was really onlyavailable in the Middle East,on theEuphrates and Tigris,inthis"fertile crescent".I'm sure many people remember that from their history lessons.
Now it doesn't look very fertile, but rather verydesert-like. But what happened back then was that the climate changed. It has become warmer. Back then, at the end of the last ice age, it got warmer. Back then, everything was wonderfully green and ideal. That's why the first movement, the first wave from the hunter-gatherer way of life to the sedentary way of life took place there. Then you have to imagine thatcereals arrived in Central Europe around 8,000 years ago and in Northern Europe only 6,000 years ago. So, depending on where you have your ancestors, you have been in contact with it for even less time.
I think if you think about it in all its consequences, that meanssst means that a lot of things that many of us might eat regularly are no longer possible.sseat on a regular basis. I mean, I am always in discussions with my clients on the Gut Happiness course, about tthat certain things, especially for the gut, are not so beneficial.
How do you see this from an ethicaler and perhaps also ecologically? One counter-argument that is often put forward isthatif weall meat would eat meat,there istoo little food for the people people. After all would also like to have ethically farmed meat, i.e. raised in a species-appropriate way. We're not talking about factory farming or anything like that. How do you see this dilemma?
Julia Tulipan: That's certainly a difficult question.There are probably so many opinions on it because it is also a very complex issue.Ialways have toseparate two things. Firstly, what is possibly the best diet for me as an individual? It doesn't necessarily have to be the most ecologically sound.So, of course I have to make these two decisions for myself: Okay, what is the right diet for me as a person? And then, of course,you have to think about the ecological context.The ethical component is a third point of discussion, and that's why this whole thing is so complicated, because so many different levelscome together.
Perhaps on the ecological issue: one side, as you say, is the argument that not everyone caneat organic meat, to put it succinctly.In my opinion, this is a hypothetical consideration. I see it more as a thought experiment.Because even now, people in the world are starving, even thoughthere would be enoughfor everyone.There will never be a situation where everyone gets thesame amount. It's not distributed evenly across the whole world. On the one hand, we have mountains, not only of meat and milk, but also of bread, which is thrown away every day. Evennow,the people who have nothing to eat don't get it.This is really a hypothetical situation that is more of a philosophical question.
On the other hand, I would say that I see a lot of potential ininsect protein,especiallyindevelopingcountries orcountries that are worse off than we are. Insects havequite They have few requirements and averysmallfootprint,which means they have a very low CO2 footprint. On the other hand, they havethe highest qualityprotein, which noplant protein can compete with.
If my aim is to provide people not just with calories, but with real building materials, then this will become increasingly important. You can also see that there are a few studies on protein supplyin third world countries and then also on development,onchild development and above all on school development.I think it's extremely important that I also provide children with high-qualityprotein so that they have the capacity to go to school and then, I don'tknow, walk two hours in one direction every day so that they can be at school. And then also so thattheycan take the country forward. There are so many aspects involved, so I think that in these countrieswe shouldcertainlylook moretowards insect protein.
The second thing isthat it's notsoclearfrom an ecological point of view.If everyone were to eat a plant-based diet - also as a thought experiment - and no one were to eat animals any more. Is that really better for the planet? Nobody knows. And I dare to doubt that, for several reasons.
We needlarge herbivores that graze on grassland. If we think back, we had 10 million bison on the Great Plains, thegreat wide open plains of the USA. Those are now the most fertile lands. Corn and soybeans and all sorts of things aregrownthere now.And the savannah in Africa is also extremely fertile soil. And just think of these gigantic herds of wildebeest marching across it. And grass is one of the most resilient plant communities, growing from the wettest and coldest regions of the world to the driest andhottestesters. regions of the world can grow. Forests are very limited. There are very few areas where forest can grow. Grass can grow on much largerareas. And grass has enormous potential to bind CO2in this huge root system. But grasswants to be grazed. All I have to do is think: what do I do in the garden? I go over it with the lawnmower because that makes the grass thicker. Grass has to be"bitten". Only then can it become dense, can it grow. Andwe would miss this cycle wherelarge mammals walk on these grassy areas.
Couldn't we just let the animals graze and not eat them?
Julia Tulipan: Difficult, on the one handwe would certainly needthe areas that are suitable for plant cultivation. It certainly wouldn't become less. I think the idea that we won't cut down any rainforest is illusory. Then people would have toeat the soy and not the animals. We would probably even need more,because we can't eatlarge parts of the plant thatarefed to us. These are plant components that we can't do anything with.But animals are ingenious. Cows and otherlargerherbivores are simply ingeniousconverters of plant material that is not suitable for us into high-quality meat or fats that we can eat.
Interestingly, because these calculations are so complex,there is something called"life cycle analysis". This means that I can take a product and really calculate everything that somehow occurs in the production of this thing and say how much CO2 or how many greenhouse gasesare produced in the production of this thing.
For example, there is a company in the USAcalled"Impossible Burger". They make a vegan burger, in other words a burger patty, and they commissioned a life cycle analysis. This came to the conclusion that - although this is a high-tech process - theyproduce less CO2than if I were to make the same burger from beef. Of course, this is based on conventional factory farming.
What's interesting isthat there is this movement of"sustainable farming", i.e. sustainable farm management. The idea is thatanimalsare kept inlarge herds on a pasture and are specially managed to imitate this natural grazing behavior, as the buffalo did, for example. They commissioned the same company tocarry out a life cycle analysisfor their meat.The result is that they have anegative CO2 footprint. This means that the way theymanage even CO2taken out from the whole cycle. And that is the point.
That's actually where we want to go.
Julia Tulipan: Exactly. That's where we want to go. Because there is simply a lot of farmland that is really better suited as pasture land and is less suitable for crop cultivation orcan only beused for crop cultivation atgreat cost. We are thinking of desertification or devastation of areas.These soils are not suitable for crop cultivation. And I can revitalize them through appropriate management.
That's why I think that -if you then also eat the whole animal -wewill be able to continue toprovide those in the population who now eat meatwith meat, but in a correspondingly withsustainably produced meat.In this sense, we would also be making a positive contribution to nature.
Tofollowon from the last thingyou said:couldn't we just let them graze? Yes, we could. But on the one hand, we would probably lose some of the land, and on the other hand, who can afford it? Well, theanimalswould have to be managed. They have to be looked after. That would cost billions for the animals to die of old age on the pasture.
Yes, that's right. So, I find it super exciting,really really exciting to see it from the side. It's always said: if you eat animals, you're a sinner against the environment, etc.DI think it's very, very valuable that you can see it differently. I could talk to you about this for hours, but we don't want to make it too long.
Perhaps anotherone last question: Many people say: "Yes, I have to eat vegetables and fruit because of the vitamins." If I eat more animal products now, won't I firstly not get enough vitamins and secondly over-acidify my body?I think that's the main fear that many people have.
Julia Tulipan: Perhaps, on the one hand, the question of what is really too much or too much? That would go back to the beginning of our discussion. What is appropriate?
That's a bit difficult, because it's actually always about the needto eatenoughproteinand that brings me back to: is it too much? If I eat according to my needs? Vitamins and minerals - I don't just mean meat, but animal products contain a lot of them, usually in a more readily available form than plants. Because,for example, there are none of those anti-nutrients, as we said at the beginning, whichmake absorption more difficult. It may often be in there, but can I really absorb it? That is always the question.
It shouldnot give the impression that there are only two extremes. Rather, as we have just said, if I am healthy - always with this in mind - if I have a certain illness, it is possible that I can simplydifferent needs.
But as a metabolically healthy personwith a healthy gut, there's nothing to stop me having my one-third-two-thirds split. That's a lot anyway. I can really eat as many vegetables as I want and Iget the vitamins.Especially if I also eatnose-to-tail - in other words, if I include a liver or heart or something like that - then I don't have to worry aboutit at all.But basically, if I justhavefish and seafood and mussels and things like thatwith me and eat a really varied diet, I certainly don't have to worry about that.
As for the hyperacidity aspect, I just have to say that thereisn't really any data to confirm this. There is no studyin which people ate only meat and then had acidosis. There is no such thing. I can just go and look, is there an example that would disprove that?
And that's how you do it in science. I have a hypothesisand then I look: is there anything that contradicts my hypothesis? If I only haveone example that contradicts my hypothesis, then I have to reformulate my hypothesis, because thenit can 't be right.
Ifit is said that someone who eats a lot of animal products is less healthy or has other problems, I have to say:there are hunter-gatherer societies that live almost exclusively on animal products. The Maasai are one example. There are the Inuit as an example and the pastoral peoples of Mongolia. Nothing grows in Mongolia. I can eat grass, but as we have already discussed, that will be a bit difficult. They just live off horses, sometimes they have camels or a lot of Sheep. And they eat milk in all its varieties, fermented and curdled and so on. All kinds of sheep and everything from sheep.And they are healthy. There are no autoimmune diseases. They don't just live to be 30 years old, they also live to be 70, 80 years old. They don't have any of the chronic diseases that we suffer from.
So it's falsified, it's refuted, and then I have to say: well, then it mustbesomethingelse in our Western lifestyle. It can't be the meat.Perhaps other aspects.
I think what you've said is very, very important and good, you always have to look first: How am I doing at all? Am I healthy or am I not healthy? Everyone who is really 100 percent healthy doesn't really have to worry too much.sst really have to worry too much because they are obviously doing something right.
It's different if you one or two problems, which can also accumulate over the years. We don't fall ill overnight. Most people have the feeling"Suddenly I have become ill." - but when you look back, of course it started much earlier.
That's why it's important to really take a look: What is someone's state of health? How can I thenthe diet accordingly? accordingly?
Julia Tulipan: Yes, I would say we have really covered alot of ground. As I said, we could certainly talk about this for hours. We're not saying that everyone has to completely change their diet from now on.There are alsopeople who we certainly won't be able to convince that they shouldn't eat a vegetarian or vegan diet. As I said,as long as you are doing well with your diet, everything is fine in principle. As long as there are no illnesses.
I also think it's important to be honest with yourself. There are always people who say"Iam healthy!"but they take medication or they have a thyroid problem or this or that, so you really have to be honest with yourself: Are you really healthy or not?
Dear Julia, I found it really super exciting and I thank you very much for these insights. It's clear that you've really looked into this topic in depth. Ibelieve that it is very, very usefulis alsoyour knowledge of biology,so thatyou were able to explain things differently.
From your point of view, is there anything else that we should definitely mention to make the conversation more interesting? "round" round off the interview? Or is there anything you would like to pass on to the listeners?
Julia Tulipan: First of all, I really enjoyed it. It's easy to go fromthe hundredth tothe thousandth. It's in the nature of things, of course. When you simply see:It's massively complex, and there are so many cogs that interlock, and that's always the problem when you oversimplify things. Then you run the risk ofoverlooking thebig picturesomewhere. I hope I've been able to give you a bit of an insight into this and that I've perhaps inspired some of you to do your ownresearch.
As I said,everyone has to find their own way. But I think it's also important to be aware ofcertain facts that simply can't be argued away.But if Ihave the knowledge, then I can make a decision. If Iknow, okay, these things are already the case, but I still want to choose a path, then that's okay too. But you have to have all the facts to be able to make that decision. I just think that everyone can, really has to find the right path for themselves. Otherwise, I have nothing more to say about.
Perhaps you could tell me where my listeners can find you? You have different things that you do. On the one hand, you give advice, and on the other, you have a muesli that youyou sell, together with your husband. Please tell us two or three more things about what you do and how people can find you.
Julia Tulipan: Well, the best place is www.juliatulipan.com. There are now around 500 articles on various topics in different"difficulty levels".Some are a bitgeekier. But you can also find something for beginners.I have written something on almost every topic, and you can often move on or read something again and then you can search again. There really is a lot to read up on. There are also some recipes, and you can start there.
I wrote a book togetherwith UlrikeGondercalled"DerKeto-Kompass" (The KetoCompass), because one of my specialties, which I deal with a lot, is the ketogenic diet.It's almost a specialist book, you could say,for very interested laypeople, but also for alternative practitioners, for doctors, for people from the health sector who are looking for more than just initial information and would like to delve a little deeper. That was also our aim for the book.
I also have a podcast, the"Evolution Radio Show", where you have also been a guest. We're now on the 150th episode. You can find it on YouTube as a video podcast, butalsoas audio on all the usual podcast subscription platforms such as iTunes orSpotify.
And your Lowcarb-muesli, in case anyone says: "I want to eat muesli, even if I want to avoid carbohydrates a little."
Julia Tulipan: Yes, exactly. We have alow-carb,keto granola. You can find it at https://tulipans.com/keto-granola/. We don't just have agranola, but a wide range of products related to the low-carblifestyle,such as an instantBulletproof Coffee or MCT oil powder. This is really only C8 and C10, i.e. themedium-chain fatty acids, which are also converted really quickly into ketones. We are quite proud of thisbecause the label is really very clean. It only contains acacia fibers. It only contains fatty acids and acacia fiber, and theyare really good for the gut!
Julia GruberVery nice. Thank you very much for your time and all the valuable information. I look forward to talking to you again next time.
The links to the episode are:
On Julia's websiteyou will find over 500 other articles on topics relating tospecies-appropriate nutrition, the paleo diet and ketogenic nutrition
JuliaTulipan's website: https://juliatulipan.com
Low-carb and ketoproducts: www.tulipans.com
Certified Keto Coach Training: https://juliatulipan.com/ketocoach/
Now I recommend you subscribe to the podcast so you don't miss an episode, and if you like what you hear, I really appreciate a review on iTunes or Apple Podcast. Because these reviews also help other people to find the podcast so that we can spread the knowledge about gut and health more.
Julia Tulipan is a nutritionist and keto lifestyle coach, author and lecturer. She wrote the Amazon bestseller "The Keto Compass" together with Ulrike Gonder, Marina Lommel and Dr. Brigitte Karner.
Julia originally studied biology and zoology, but then switched to the human field.
She has numerous training courses and qualifications, for example she is a certified personal fitness and health trainer and has a Master of Science in Clinical Nutritional Medicine from the Danube University Krems. She is also a lecturer at the LCHF Germany Academy and the Schlossberg Institute in Vienna and is the owner and founder of the low-carb and keto product manufacturer Tulipans.
10 years ago, nutritionist andketo coach Julia Tulipan was still a vegetarian. In this episode, she tells us how she fared and why she changed her diet.
We also talk about:
- The advantages and disadvantages of aplant-based diet has
- What anti-nutrients are and where to find them
- What a species-appropriate diet looks like for humans
- What our anatomy tells us about our species-appropriate diet
- Whether ecological concerns about a diet with animal products are justified
I am delighted to have the lovely Julia Tulipan as a guest here. Welcome, Julia.
Julia Tulipan: Yes, thank you very much for inviting me. I am very pleased.
You're very welcome. This is your second time on the show. I think the episode on ketogenic nutrition that we did together is even in the top ten.
Julia Tulipan: I'm delighted about that.
It's actually very popular. We talked about ketogenic nutrition back then spoken. Today we wanted to talk about the topic of a vegetarian or vegan diet. I believe you once ate a vegetarian diet yourself for a while. Would you like to tell us a bit about it? Why you tried it and how you felt about it?
Experiences as a vegetarian
Julia Tulipan: With pleasure. Yes, I've been a vegetarian since I was 15 years old. Back then, there was no such distinction between vegetarian and vegan. It certainly existed, but it wasn't so present in my perception.
I already ate fish and dairy products and eggs, but there were certainly often days when I was vegan. I certainly did that for 10 years.It wasn't until I was at university, around the middle of my studies in any case, that I slowly started to eat organic food. I found it increasingly difficult to give up meat. Somehow I developed a ... yes, a craving for it. I thenstarted eating meat again, especially when it became possible to buy organic food. Around 2005, you started to find more and more organic food in normal stores.I paid more and more attention to this andthenstarted to include meat in my diet again. But I stilldidn't eat much meat fora long time.Iactuallyalways tried to experimentwith alternatives: I experimented with soy, tofu and various other meat alternatives.
I then spent some time in Sweden.I spent a few years in Swedenfrom2010onwards, and there was something really funnycalled "Quorn ", for example. It was made from an egg protein, I think, if I remember correctly. Some kind of compressed imitation chicken.
I think that's also available in Switzerland, or at least it used to be.
Julia Tulipan: Exactly. In the UK, in England, it's also available in various forms. There was also soy, various soy products in the form of something like minced meat. I experimentedwith this a lot. But I simply saw that I reacted to this soy mince imitation with extreme flatulence. So that was inhumane. That was bad.
But, as I said, I ate a vegetarian diet for a really long time. That was definitely an ethical consideration for me. When I was 15, I sawmy first images of factory farming and animaltransportation, and it really, really affected me. That is also something that is absolutely condemnable. And because there was simply no alternative, the onlyoption for me was to say that I simply wouldn't eat it any more. That was the main reason why I decided to switch to vegetarianism.
Julia's health as a vegetarian
Now many people do that many people do for health reasons, because it makes them feel better or they think itwill feel better feel better. Did you feel a difference? Or did you realize: Okay, I feel different since going vegetarian?
Julia Tulipan: No, not really at all. AsI said,I was 15 at the time and in a phase in my life anyway where I was simply trying to modulate my weight through exercise and calories. That actually worked quite well for a while, until maybe my early mid-20s.Until then,it worked quite well.Looking back, I was already strugglinga lot with depressive moods back then. Even in puberty and in my late teens and early twenties, I had to deal withdepression, perhaps notdepression, but very strong mood swings and depressive moods.
I also had acne, which interestingly didn't appearuntil I was 21 or 22. That's when I started to have massive skin problems, like I had in my childhood. I didn't have during puberty.No dermatologist was able to help me. It always came and went in phases. No matter what I did, it didn't help.
Then came sleep disorders. I then also started to get chronic back pain, even though I had always done a lot of sport and exercise back then. Back then, it was mainlyrunning. In Sweden,I then started doing a lot of martial arts in particular. Then also strength training. Before that, I'd always had phases where I'd become a bit, I'd almost say, "spongy".Well, not exactly overweight, but just ... "spongy". There's no other way to describe it. Just a bit bloated. I had a phase of a lot of stress before that.
Then we went to Sweden and I concentrated a lot on my diet. But I was very low-fat there, more of a vegetarian, with my meat substitutes. But also always wholemeal andlots lots of fiber. Reallyreally a lot. I 've neverhad such bad flatulence. That was terrible. For example, when I did martial arts ... I did Thai boxing, and I got kicked in the stomach. I really have to tell you about that! It was so unpleasant during training when someone kicked me in the stomach -it's not a hard punch, but a push in the stomach - a little sound escaped. That really put a strain on me because you can't control it.
Therecamea pointwhennothing I did helped any more.I initially lost weight again briefly and then itwas like a "breaking point". Really. And then I put on weight and put on weight and put on weight. I felt so bad mentally, with the back pain, knee pain, insomnia, the whole nine yards. And that's when I really started to rethink things.
I ha tstarted eating animal products again before that, of course, but I was already eating a lot of whole grains and cereals and, yes, low fat.
Could the intestines have suffered?
Well, I guess in hindsight you probably realized what caused all these symptoms, right? From my point of viewyou always thinkalways think of the gut, of course. Just everything you listed: Whether it's skin, whether it's depressive moods, whether it's even back pain or even sleep problemsare. Thiscan actually all be linked to the gut. Would you see it the same way from today's perspective?
Julia Tulipan: Yes, definitely, definitely.
It all cameoverto us from the USAat that time,andthat's how Ifirstheardabout"leaky gut".And then at some point there were actually tests that you could do. I'm sure thatmy intestines were massively permeable and that Iwas also suffering from chronic exhaustion. So, there was certainly something wrong with my gut.
I think we'll come back later to talk about how you resolved this, or why the diet you were eating - plant-based - was perhaps not ideal.
But before that, I would like to talk about it again, from your current perspective, where do you see the advantages of a plant-based diet? What do you think? In what way is it doing you any good?
Advantages of a plant-based diet
Julia Tulipan: I wouldn'tnecessarilysay >"plant-based diet", but perhaps"plantsin in nutrition". When I say"plantsin in nutrition", it certainlyoffersthings like taste, consistency, texture...Theseare all thingsthat makesomething interesting and of courseexpand the range of flavors.
It certainly also contains good fiber, which serves as a nutrientfor our intestinal flora, our microbiome. Then there arealso various vitamins and minerals that you can get very wellfrom green vegetables-at least the ones that are less difficult to digest. I think that, above all, theynaturallyprovide variety.
You've already hinted at the fact that there are plants that are difficult to digest. That would certainly be one of the disadvantages of a plant-based diet. What else would you say are the disadvantages of a purely plant-based diet? What might be missing?
Anti-nutrientsin plants
Julia Tulipan: Plantsnaturally havecertain strategies to protect their seeds, for example, but also to protect themselves from fungal attack orother things - including bacteria,smallerpredators and"pests".
There are components in plants that can pose a problem. You simply have to be aware of this. On the one hand, there isphytic acid, for example.Phytic acid has the task of binding minerals in the plant, and it does this primarily on itsseeds. Whenitis still in the dormant phase. This changes whenthe seed begins to germinate.Because then these minerals have to be released, and of course the seedling needs all these minerals. Accordingly, one could now also draw a conclusion, perhaps a germinated grain should be evaluated differently than a non-germinated grain.
Thisphytic acid not only binds the minerals in the plant, but can also bind minerals in the intestine and thus make absorption more difficult. I always findthe following interesting:My background is in biology, and I have also done a lot of animal nutritionbecause I also did some lectures at the University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences.In animal nutrition, you are fully aware of this.They are aware of the problem ofphytic acid in animal feed and alsothe proportion of fiber in animal feed. Because weknow that the proportion ofphytic acid in animal feed,for example, reduces the availability of nutrients for the animal.
In animal nutrition, I naturally want the animal to be well fed.I want to have a certain output. I want growth, muscle growth or other things.That means I have things like poor growth in pigs, for example.Thatwould be an example.Funnily enough , this knowledge, which is available in animal nutrition is completely ignored in human nutrition.We are very similar, especially to pigs. That's why it's often used as a model organism in animal experiments. I find it interesting that this is somehow getting lost.
We have something similar withlectins, for example. Lectins are substances that can bind to the intestinal mucosa in the intestine , for example.There,among other things, they canbreak down this mucous layer and then penetrate through the intestine into the blood.This is certainly not the case after prolonged exposure, but if you are exposed to these substances for a really long time.
It isinteresting to note that lectins can cross the blood-brain barrier and are probably transported there via thevagus nerve. Lectins can be radioactively labeled and then you can see where they end up. Andthenyou canfind them in the brain, for example.There are apparently interactions in this area,sothat the neurons are damaged and there may be a connection with Parkinson's or other neuro-degenerative diseases. Inotherwords, it'snot entirely straightforward.
And in which plants are therefor example suchphytins and lectins?
Julia Tulipan: They are found in almost all plants, just in different quantities. The ones that contain the most are certainly cereals - i.e. all seeds and grains - but also legumes. I had already mentioned beforethatgerminationchangessomething.If you look at traditional societies and think back to our grandmothers, there is a very specific way of preparinggrains and pulses.Often, forexample, with beans. They are often soaked for days, washed out again and again. They can be soured, they can be are fermented. And all these processes are done to break down and minimize precisely these substances.
Interestingly, this also happens with gluten, for example.If I make a sourdough andthese bacteriacan really work for 48 hours, the gluten is almost completely broken down. Once again, you can see that preparation plays a very important role. This is something that is often forgotten or no longer done.
Okay. I think you can summarize these substances as anti-nutrients. Perhaps some of our listeners have heard this before. Dhe word"anti-nutrients" includes the ones you just mentioned. Would you also include oxalates and things like that in this anti-nutrient group?
Julia Tulipan: Yes,I would include them, oxalates.Then, of course, there are alsogoitrogenic substances, i.e. substances thatcaninhibit thyroid function,for example.These are particularly widespread in the cabbage family, which is why you should perhaps be careful with too many rawkale smoothies etc., because many of these substances are already very, very low due to the cooking and processing stages.
Yes, they also say that you should really pour out the water.ssshould, for example, and not use it as well."Kale"for those who don't know, that's kale.
Smoothies are naturally very popularsspopularity, nnot just the green ones. My husband always says:"When a man says that he likessmoothies then he means fruit smoothiessmoothies." I haverecently once again because a man said that he drinks smoothies every morning.smoothies and they were actually just fruit smoothies.smoothies.So,smoothie is not the same assmoothie.
Good, then,that means now that plants arebestshould also be handled with careuandone shouldshould also consider a bit of preparation methods. You should just be aware that plants don't actually want to be eaten.
Julia Tulipan: You have to be aware of that, also because there is a bit of a mood at the moment that everything that is plant-basedalmost has a halo and everything that is animal-based is somehow abit, yes, evil.This is also partly reflected in the way we use words.If something is"animalistic", then it has a somewhat lowconnotation. You have to be careful.Of course,not everythingis harmless just because it's plant-based. You just have to do everything with a bit of sense and ask questions.
Plants in particular - because they can't run away like animals and don't have teeth or claws, they have already thought of otherwaysto avoid being eaten. Some just do it with Thorns, others do it with bitter substances,for example, or other things.Some of these things are not necessarily intended for defense, but serve the plant itself in its building system. Theysimplyneed tobe consumed with care.
Are you taking better care of your guinea pig than yourself?
In your case, you realized that there was something wrong with the intestines and that you could change your diet again. And then you actually went more in the direction of an evolutionary diet. Is that right?
Julia Tulipan: Exactly. Exactly.
Which meanssst then"evolutionary"?
Julia Tulipan:I like"species-appropriate" better. Essentially, it doesn't say anything else."Evolutionary" is just a bit of a long and difficult word. You can perhaps do more with"species-appropriate". If you imagineyou want to buy a pet, a guinea pig or perhaps something more exotic, some kind of reptile, or whether I'm looking at a zooor livestock farming: whenever I want an animal to stay as healthy as possible, to reproduce, then I think to myself: well, what do I have to give the animal so that this happens? And then I always take a look: How does the animal live in its natural environment? What does a guinea pig eat in the Andes? Or what does a lizard eat, or a gecko, or whatever I can think of at the moment? data-contrast="auto">what I would like to buy.
As aresponsible pet owner, I would then take a look:What do they eat? And then I would try to imitate that as closely as possible with the options I have. On the one hand, I would look at the diet, but on the other hand, of course, I would also look at the enclosure and the living environment. If I have a hippopotamus, I'm not going to set it uplikean elephant enclosure or like the African savannah, I'm going to offerita body of water.What seems so logical and absolutely normal to us for animals,we also manage to transferto ourselves as humans.Of course,we areonly animals.
Species-appropriate nutrition for humans
We can also take a look:Well, what are we best adapted to? What does a natural, species-appropriate diet look like for humans? How do people eat in the wild?
We have a few possibilities to look at this. We can, of course, look at howour closest living relatives live,for example: the bonobos, the chimpanzees. We separated from them around 6 million years ago. We have long since diverged from them, but still.
But we can also look at anthropological data or archaeological data.For example,we canlook at finds from the Stone Age.Or we have the opportunity to observe hunter-gatherer societies living today that still live traditionally: What do they eat? Or what don't they eat? And I can get an idea from that.
The idea is of course simple:what has made uswhat we are todayin our evolutionary history? Why do we flywe to the moon? And why did this part that split off 6 million years ago, i.e. the apes, why didn't they go through the development that we have gone through? Why do they still live on trees?
Herbivore oromnivore? What does our anatomy say?
Is there aes there really a clear answer to this? It sometimes seems to me that there is,depending on which book you you read,it saysman does not have certain teeth orcertainteeth.Some some sayit that humans were actually born as herbivores in any case. We would have a shorter intestine etc. or lack certain teeth that a creature that eats animals has. Is there a clear answer from your point of view?
Julia Tulipan: One thing is that we as humans can eat a very diverse diet, which is certainly one of the secrets of our success. That is the reason why we have reproduced wonderfully all over the world and through all climate zones. It is certainly our advantage that we are simply not food specialists. Not like akoala bear , for example, which only eats eucalyptus. They are absolute food specialists. Theywould find it difficult to gain afootholdoutside of Australia. That is certainly one aspect.
The other aspect is that in all this diversity, one thing is quite clear: the consumption of animal productshas beenwith us fora very, very long time, certainly for at least 2.5 million years, with the appearance of the first stone tools, and probably even before that.
Of course, you also have to look at the whole adaptation ofour tendons etc.from this perspective. We are descended from primarily herbivorous ancestors, just like the chimpanzee, so of course we don't havefangs, but we never needed them.Instead, we havedeveloped stone tools.It's like a kind of co-evolution. The stone tools have enabled us,for example, to open bones, open skulls, work on that even the larger sserenpredators cannot reach.
Those were certainly the first beginnings as early humans, so to speak. We weren't actually humans then, sonot yet homobutAustralopithecusearly humans.We simply waited for somelargepredator to make a kill. We then waited until theyhad finished eating and then we just went and got the leftovers. We then got to the parts that they couldn't get to. That can actually be proven in the finds.In other words, we didn't need massive jawbones. We didn't needfangs, because wedeveloped toolsinstead.And that was certainly one reason.
On the other hand, in terms of the digestive tract, we certainly don't have a classic herbivore gut, but rather a long small intestine and a short large intestine. This is typically a sign of an omnivore or an animal that is better adapted to food components that do notrequire a great deal of breakdown. Plants are very digestive.
If you look at thelarge herbivores, I've seen giant grinding teeth. The jaw also moves like a millstone. When I look at cows or horses or sheep, their jaws move like that.In other words, they grindthe plant material like a millstone. And then I need an intestine or a digestive tract that can break down this plant material.
There is no higher animal that can break down cellulose enzymatically. No higher animal has the claws to cut open cellulose.This means that all herbivores are dependent on bacteria in one way or another. The actual work is done by microorganisms.
Then there are the herbivores, which have a specially shaped,chambered stomach,in which the bacteria feel very, very comfortable. And then they are chewed again.äagain.There you can already see: Herbivoresspend many, many hours a day just eating.Eight to twelve hours or evenlonger must be eaten becauseit is it is so difficult to get these nutrients from plants.This means, I have the corresponding stomach, or I have a very long colon,in which then the fermentation happens through the bacteria andwhereabsorption of nutrients is possible. We lack that. We don't have that.
We also havea very acidic stomach, and a very acidic stomach is classicallya sign for carnivores. We are on a par with dogs and lions. So from the pH valueof the stomachs we are right up there with the carnivores.All this means that we we are definitely not herbivores.
A lot of gut or a lot of brain - you can't have both
Then there is something else that I find very exciting. Ehere are these - how it onEnglish isst"expensivetissue hypothesis". Also the"hypothesis of the expensive tissue"you could call it. We have to imagine that our brain needs a quarter of all the energy we consume each day. For such a small thing! I don't know not, that's two Kilo orlike that, I don't know exactly. A quarter! Almost 25 percent!
In a chimpanzee, the brain consumes about 9 percent. But if you compare how much energy a chimpanzee's digestive tract consumes, I can see that it is very energy-intensive, that it consumes this 25 percent. But our digestive tract consumes very little energy.
The hypothesissays that I cannot have an elaborate brain that consumes 25 percent, and an elaborate intestine that consumes 25 percent. I couldnever eat this amount of energy in my life. That is not possible. So it's either/or. I can only either have a complicated gut to digest plant material, but then I can't afford a complex brain. Or I can manage to eat food that is so nutrient-dense and easy to digest - animal food -that I can save on the gut andhave energy for abigbrain.
The paleo diet
Exciting. Very, very exciting. So there are some indications that we are at leastomnivores that is, animal and plant-based. Based on your current knowledge, what would you say is ideal for humans? Or how would you suggest that we could eat if we really want to be healthy and perhaps also keep in mind that we also want to have a healthy gut?
Julia Tulipan: Well, I would say that if youaremetabolicallyhealthy and your gutis otherwisein order, then I can stick to an"average" Ancestral Diet. In other words, a paleo diet with one third plant-based and two thirds animal-based.
If youlook atall hunter-gatherersocieties
What about leafy vegetables and the like?
Julia Tulipan: A lot of young sprouts are alsoeaten-sprouts in the sense of shoots.Things like that are often eaten.Even"leafy vegetables" in their wild forms naturally consist of a lot of fiber and often also contain a lot of bitter substances.This means that I can't eat too much of them because they are very bitter.
All our vegetables, whether it's spinach orchicory or something else, these bitter substances are bred out because they don't suit people's tastes.And of coursethe fiber contentisalso reduced,because you don't want to be sucking on green chewing gum all the time. Baby spinach is unlikely to be found in nature in this form. Wild herbs too, of course they are all eaten. But what you can already see is that the preference is always for animal foods. So they use every opportunity to get their hands on animal products. And we're not talking about antelope or the like, but also insects, small mammals, reptiles, amphibians, fish, mussels, everything that creeps andflies,<span data-contrast="auto"> is eaten.
That's a bit difficult for us now, probably.Well, we were talking about healthy people.
Julia Tulipan: Yes, exactly.
That they actuallyactuallystill tend to eat an animal-based diet?
Julia Tulipan: Yes, Iwouldsay"animal-based" in the broadest sense.I'm not just thinking of steak, but really everything that is common here. There's also seafood, and with animals there's also"nose-to-tail". That really means everything from the animal, not just the fillet, but offal also plays an important role. Which brings me back to the fact that I naturally use a lot more of the animal. I can make soup from bones.And if you think back to the old cookbooks -especially from my grandma, for example - they had everything in them. From kidneys and pig's headto ears and feet. They basicallyusedeverything.Of course, that would also be recommended.
In general, I would simply say that the vegetables are naturally lower in carbohydrates.If you're metabolically healthy, there's nothing wrong with pumpkin orsweetpotatoesor things like that. Or even a potato, why not? That works too.Just be careful with cereals, because they have actually been added very late in our evolutionary history. There are already traditional societies that use millet,for example, but not in huge quantities. It is alsooften fermented.This means that cereals certainly played a really subordinate role and only reallygained importance- if wecountgenerously - 12,000 years ago.At that time, it was really onlyavailable in the Middle East,on theEuphrates and Tigris,inthis"fertile crescent".I'm sure many people remember that from their history lessons.
Now it doesn't look very fertile, but rather verydesert-like. But what happened back then was that the climate changed. It has become warmer. Back then, at the end of the last ice age, it got warmer. Back then, everything was wonderfully green and ideal. That's why the first movement, the first wave from the hunter-gatherer way of life to the sedentary way of life took place there. Then you have to imagine thatcereals arrived in Central Europe around 8,000 years ago and in Northern Europe only 6,000 years ago. So, depending on where you have your ancestors, you have been in contact with it for even less time.
Isn't a plant-based diet ecologically better after all?
I think if you think about it in all its consequences, that meanssst means that a lot of things that many of us might eat regularly are no longer possible.sseat on a regular basis. I mean, I am always in discussions with my clients on the Gut Happiness course, about tthat certain things, especially for the gut, are not so beneficial.
How do you see this from an ethicaler and perhaps also ecologically? One counter-argument that is often put forward isthatif weall meat would eat meat,there istoo little food for the people people. After all would also like to have ethically farmed meat, i.e. raised in a species-appropriate way. We're not talking about factory farming or anything like that. How do you see this dilemma?
Julia Tulipan: That's certainly a difficult question.There are probably so many opinions on it because it is also a very complex issue.Ialways have toseparate two things. Firstly, what is possibly the best diet for me as an individual? It doesn't necessarily have to be the most ecologically sound.So, of course I have to make these two decisions for myself: Okay, what is the right diet for me as a person? And then, of course,you have to think about the ecological context.The ethical component is a third point of discussion, and that's why this whole thing is so complicated, because so many different levelscome together.
Perhaps on the ecological issue: one side, as you say, is the argument that not everyone caneat organic meat, to put it succinctly.In my opinion, this is a hypothetical consideration. I see it more as a thought experiment.Because even now, people in the world are starving, even thoughthere would be enoughfor everyone.There will never be a situation where everyone gets thesame amount. It's not distributed evenly across the whole world. On the one hand, we have mountains, not only of meat and milk, but also of bread, which is thrown away every day. Evennow,the people who have nothing to eat don't get it.This is really a hypothetical situation that is more of a philosophical question.
On the other hand, I would say that I see a lot of potential ininsect protein,especiallyindevelopingcountries orcountries that are worse off than we are. Insects havequite They have few requirements and averysmallfootprint,which means they have a very low CO2 footprint. On the other hand, they havethe highest qualityprotein, which noplant protein can compete with.
If my aim is to provide people not just with calories, but with real building materials, then this will become increasingly important. You can also see that there are a few studies on protein supplyin third world countries and then also on development,onchild development and above all on school development.I think it's extremely important that I also provide children with high-qualityprotein so that they have the capacity to go to school and then, I don'tknow, walk two hours in one direction every day so that they can be at school. And then also so thattheycan take the country forward. There are so many aspects involved, so I think that in these countrieswe shouldcertainlylook moretowards insect protein.
The second thing isthat it's notsoclearfrom an ecological point of view.If everyone were to eat a plant-based diet - also as a thought experiment - and no one were to eat animals any more. Is that really better for the planet? Nobody knows. And I dare to doubt that, for several reasons.
We needlarge herbivores that graze on grassland. If we think back, we had 10 million bison on the Great Plains, thegreat wide open plains of the USA. Those are now the most fertile lands. Corn and soybeans and all sorts of things aregrownthere now.And the savannah in Africa is also extremely fertile soil. And just think of these gigantic herds of wildebeest marching across it. And grass is one of the most resilient plant communities, growing from the wettest and coldest regions of the world to the driest andhottestesters. regions of the world can grow. Forests are very limited. There are very few areas where forest can grow. Grass can grow on much largerareas. And grass has enormous potential to bind CO2in this huge root system. But grasswants to be grazed. All I have to do is think: what do I do in the garden? I go over it with the lawnmower because that makes the grass thicker. Grass has to be"bitten". Only then can it become dense, can it grow. Andwe would miss this cycle wherelarge mammals walk on these grassy areas.
Couldn't we just let the animals graze and not eat them?
Julia Tulipan: Difficult, on the one handwe would certainly needthe areas that are suitable for plant cultivation. It certainly wouldn't become less. I think the idea that we won't cut down any rainforest is illusory. Then people would have toeat the soy and not the animals. We would probably even need more,because we can't eatlarge parts of the plant thatarefed to us. These are plant components that we can't do anything with.But animals are ingenious. Cows and otherlargerherbivores are simply ingeniousconverters of plant material that is not suitable for us into high-quality meat or fats that we can eat.
Which burger has the bigger CO2 footprint?
Interestingly, because these calculations are so complex,there is something called"life cycle analysis". This means that I can take a product and really calculate everything that somehow occurs in the production of this thing and say how much CO2 or how many greenhouse gasesare produced in the production of this thing.
For example, there is a company in the USAcalled"Impossible Burger". They make a vegan burger, in other words a burger patty, and they commissioned a life cycle analysis. This came to the conclusion that - although this is a high-tech process - theyproduce less CO2than if I were to make the same burger from beef. Of course, this is based on conventional factory farming.
What's interesting isthat there is this movement of"sustainable farming", i.e. sustainable farm management. The idea is thatanimalsare kept inlarge herds on a pasture and are specially managed to imitate this natural grazing behavior, as the buffalo did, for example. They commissioned the same company tocarry out a life cycle analysisfor their meat.The result is that they have anegative CO2 footprint. This means that the way theymanage even CO2taken out from the whole cycle. And that is the point.
That's actually where we want to go.
Julia Tulipan: Exactly. That's where we want to go. Because there is simply a lot of farmland that is really better suited as pasture land and is less suitable for crop cultivation orcan only beused for crop cultivation atgreat cost. We are thinking of desertification or devastation of areas.These soils are not suitable for crop cultivation. And I can revitalize them through appropriate management.
That's why I think that -if you then also eat the whole animal -wewill be able to continue toprovide those in the population who now eat meatwith meat, but in a correspondingly withsustainably produced meat.In this sense, we would also be making a positive contribution to nature.
Tofollowon from the last thingyou said:couldn't we just let them graze? Yes, we could. But on the one hand, we would probably lose some of the land, and on the other hand, who can afford it? Well, theanimalswould have to be managed. They have to be looked after. That would cost billions for the animals to die of old age on the pasture.
Yes, that's right. So, I find it super exciting,really really exciting to see it from the side. It's always said: if you eat animals, you're a sinner against the environment, etc.DI think it's very, very valuable that you can see it differently. I could talk to you about this for hours, but we don't want to make it too long.
Is there a risk of acidosis?
Perhaps anotherone last question: Many people say: "Yes, I have to eat vegetables and fruit because of the vitamins." If I eat more animal products now, won't I firstly not get enough vitamins and secondly over-acidify my body?I think that's the main fear that many people have.
Julia Tulipan: Perhaps, on the one hand, the question of what is really too much or too much? That would go back to the beginning of our discussion. What is appropriate?
That's a bit difficult, because it's actually always about the needto eatenoughproteinand that brings me back to: is it too much? If I eat according to my needs? Vitamins and minerals - I don't just mean meat, but animal products contain a lot of them, usually in a more readily available form than plants. Because,for example, there are none of those anti-nutrients, as we said at the beginning, whichmake absorption more difficult. It may often be in there, but can I really absorb it? That is always the question.
It shouldnot give the impression that there are only two extremes. Rather, as we have just said, if I am healthy - always with this in mind - if I have a certain illness, it is possible that I can simplydifferent needs.
But as a metabolically healthy personwith a healthy gut, there's nothing to stop me having my one-third-two-thirds split. That's a lot anyway. I can really eat as many vegetables as I want and Iget the vitamins.Especially if I also eatnose-to-tail - in other words, if I include a liver or heart or something like that - then I don't have to worry aboutit at all.But basically, if I justhavefish and seafood and mussels and things like thatwith me and eat a really varied diet, I certainly don't have to worry about that.
As for the hyperacidity aspect, I just have to say that thereisn't really any data to confirm this. There is no studyin which people ate only meat and then had acidosis. There is no such thing. I can just go and look, is there an example that would disprove that?
And that's how you do it in science. I have a hypothesisand then I look: is there anything that contradicts my hypothesis? If I only haveone example that contradicts my hypothesis, then I have to reformulate my hypothesis, because thenit can 't be right.
Ifit is said that someone who eats a lot of animal products is less healthy or has other problems, I have to say:there are hunter-gatherer societies that live almost exclusively on animal products. The Maasai are one example. There are the Inuit as an example and the pastoral peoples of Mongolia. Nothing grows in Mongolia. I can eat grass, but as we have already discussed, that will be a bit difficult. They just live off horses, sometimes they have camels or a lot of Sheep. And they eat milk in all its varieties, fermented and curdled and so on. All kinds of sheep and everything from sheep.And they are healthy. There are no autoimmune diseases. They don't just live to be 30 years old, they also live to be 70, 80 years old. They don't have any of the chronic diseases that we suffer from.
So it's falsified, it's refuted, and then I have to say: well, then it mustbesomethingelse in our Western lifestyle. It can't be the meat.Perhaps other aspects.
I think what you've said is very, very important and good, you always have to look first: How am I doing at all? Am I healthy or am I not healthy? Everyone who is really 100 percent healthy doesn't really have to worry too much.sst really have to worry too much because they are obviously doing something right.
It's different if you one or two problems, which can also accumulate over the years. We don't fall ill overnight. Most people have the feeling"Suddenly I have become ill." - but when you look back, of course it started much earlier.
That's why it's important to really take a look: What is someone's state of health? How can I thenthe diet accordingly? accordingly?
Julia Tulipan: Yes, I would say we have really covered alot of ground. As I said, we could certainly talk about this for hours. We're not saying that everyone has to completely change their diet from now on.There are alsopeople who we certainly won't be able to convince that they shouldn't eat a vegetarian or vegan diet. As I said,as long as you are doing well with your diet, everything is fine in principle. As long as there are no illnesses.
I also think it's important to be honest with yourself. There are always people who say"Iam healthy!"but they take medication or they have a thyroid problem or this or that, so you really have to be honest with yourself: Are you really healthy or not?
Dear Julia, I found it really super exciting and I thank you very much for these insights. It's clear that you've really looked into this topic in depth. Ibelieve that it is very, very usefulis alsoyour knowledge of biology,so thatyou were able to explain things differently.
From your point of view, is there anything else that we should definitely mention to make the conversation more interesting? "round" round off the interview? Or is there anything you would like to pass on to the listeners?
Julia Tulipan: First of all, I really enjoyed it. It's easy to go fromthe hundredth tothe thousandth. It's in the nature of things, of course. When you simply see:It's massively complex, and there are so many cogs that interlock, and that's always the problem when you oversimplify things. Then you run the risk ofoverlooking thebig picturesomewhere. I hope I've been able to give you a bit of an insight into this and that I've perhaps inspired some of you to do your ownresearch.
As I said,everyone has to find their own way. But I think it's also important to be aware ofcertain facts that simply can't be argued away.But if Ihave the knowledge, then I can make a decision. If Iknow, okay, these things are already the case, but I still want to choose a path, then that's okay too. But you have to have all the facts to be able to make that decision. I just think that everyone can, really has to find the right path for themselves. Otherwise, I have nothing more to say about.
Perhaps you could tell me where my listeners can find you? You have different things that you do. On the one hand, you give advice, and on the other, you have a muesli that youyou sell, together with your husband. Please tell us two or three more things about what you do and how people can find you.
Julia Tulipan: Well, the best place is www.juliatulipan.com. There are now around 500 articles on various topics in different"difficulty levels".Some are a bitgeekier. But you can also find something for beginners.I have written something on almost every topic, and you can often move on or read something again and then you can search again. There really is a lot to read up on. There are also some recipes, and you can start there.
I wrote a book togetherwith UlrikeGondercalled"DerKeto-Kompass" (The KetoCompass), because one of my specialties, which I deal with a lot, is the ketogenic diet.It's almost a specialist book, you could say,for very interested laypeople, but also for alternative practitioners, for doctors, for people from the health sector who are looking for more than just initial information and would like to delve a little deeper. That was also our aim for the book.
I also have a podcast, the"Evolution Radio Show", where you have also been a guest. We're now on the 150th episode. You can find it on YouTube as a video podcast, butalsoas audio on all the usual podcast subscription platforms such as iTunes orSpotify.
And your Lowcarb-muesli, in case anyone says: "I want to eat muesli, even if I want to avoid carbohydrates a little."
Julia Tulipan: Yes, exactly. We have alow-carb,keto granola. You can find it at https://tulipans.com/keto-granola/. We don't just have agranola, but a wide range of products related to the low-carblifestyle,such as an instantBulletproof Coffee or MCT oil powder. This is really only C8 and C10, i.e. themedium-chain fatty acids, which are also converted really quickly into ketones. We are quite proud of thisbecause the label is really very clean. It only contains acacia fibers. It only contains fatty acids and acacia fiber, and theyare really good for the gut!
Julia GruberVery nice. Thank you very much for your time and all the valuable information. I look forward to talking to you again next time.
The links to the episode are:
On Julia's websiteyou will find over 500 other articles on topics relating tospecies-appropriate nutrition, the paleo diet and ketogenic nutrition
JuliaTulipan's website: https://juliatulipan.com
Low-carb and ketoproducts: www.tulipans.com
Certified Keto Coach Training: https://juliatulipan.com/ketocoach/
Now I recommend you subscribe to the podcast so you don't miss an episode, and if you like what you hear, I really appreciate a review on iTunes or Apple Podcast. Because these reviews also help other people to find the podcast so that we can spread the knowledge about gut and health more.
