Luca D. A-Barzz

Luca D. A-Barzz I help vegans build muscle so they can live stronger & healthier
↘️ Apply here ↙️
www.plantygains.com

🛑 “84% of vegans quit.” This number is often misinterpreted. In the Faunalytics analysis, it was not only about vegans, ...
04/06/2026

🛑 “84% of vegans quit.” This number is often misinterpreted. In the Faunalytics analysis, it was not only about vegans, but vegetarians and vegans combined. When separated, the recidivism rate was 86% for vegetarians and 70% for vegans.

Still high. But not the same as saying: “84% of vegans quit.” Even more important: many quit very early. 34% of former vegetarians/vegans lasted 3 months or less. 53% lasted less than 1 year.

At the same time, 58% of current vegetarian/vegan respondents had been doing it for more than 10 years. That does not suggest that veganism “doesn’t work”. It suggests something else: the early phase matters a lot.

According to the analysis, health was not the main reason people stopped. Common issues were more about everyday life, social environment, taste, habits, lack of support and feeling like their diet made them stand out from the crowd.

It is similar to exercise. Many people sign up for the gym and quit after a few weeks. But nobody serious would conclude from that that training fundamentally does not work. Usually, what is missing is not evidence. It is structure, a realistic plan and an everyday routine people can actually stick to.

With a plant-based diet, it often seems similar. If someone only removes animal products but does not build a new structure, they make it unnecessarily difficult. This is exactly where simple meals and realistic routines matter.

Reference:
https://faunalytics.org/a-summary-of-faunalytics-study-of-current-and-former-vegetarians-and-vegans/

💊 I personally get my supplements from – all their products are lab-tested, and they take a very transparent approach. Use my code LUCA for 5% off on everything sitewide. They ship across Europe, and everything they sell is 100% vegan! 💪🏻🌱

🛑 “Soy milk is healthier than cow’s milk.” Yes, this is not clickbait.Cow’s milk often seems automatically healthier bec...
26/05/2026

🛑 “Soy milk is healthier than cow’s milk.” Yes, this is not clickbait.

Cow’s milk often seems automatically healthier because it is seen as “natural”. Soy milk, on the other hand, is often dismissed as processed. But health is not decided by which product sounds more natural. It is decided by what actually happens in the body.

A 2024 meta-analysis summarized 17 randomized trials with 504 adults. In the median comparison, 500 ml of soy milk per day was directly compared with 500 ml of cow’s milk.

The result: soy milk performed more favorably across several cardiometabolic markers. LDL and non-HDL decreased. Blood pressure and CRP decreased as well. For blood sugar and body weight, no disadvantages were found.

Important: this does not mean every soy milk is automatically perfect. As a cow’s milk replacement, it should be properly fortified, especially with calcium, vitamin B12, vitamin D and ideally iodine.

Because cow’s milk is not simply a nutrient source because of “nature”. The iodine content of cow’s milk depends strongly on feeding practices, especially iodine supplementation in animal feed. It can also be influenced by iodophor disinfectants used in milk production, meaning iodine-containing products used for cleaning and udder disinfection.

Vitamin B12 in ruminants is produced by microorganisms in the digestive system, with cobalt from the diet playing an important role. Calcium is naturally present in cow’s milk. Vitamin D is added in some countries and products.

Bottom line: cow’s milk is not automatically the healthier choice just because it sounds more natural. In direct human trials, fortified soy milk looks very strong.

Reference:
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11340166/

💊 I personally get my supplements from – all their products are lab-tested, and they take a very transparent approach. Use my code LUCA for 5% off on everything sitewide. They ship across Europe, and everything they sell is 100% vegan! 💪🏻🌱

✅ For evidence-based plant-based coaching, comment “Coaching” below.

🛑 “Animal protein is better.” Better for what? If people mean protein scores, then yes, animal proteins often look stron...
15/05/2026

🛑 “Animal protein is better.” Better for what? If people mean protein scores, then yes, animal proteins often look strong on paper. Systems like PDCAAS and DIAAS assess how well a protein provides essential amino acids and how well those amino acids are digested. But these scores have limits. They often look at single foods or isolated proteins, not full meals, full days of eating, mixed protein sources, or real training outcomes.

And that is where the debate changes. When protein, calories and training are matched, the best direct human studies so far do not show a clear muscle-building advantage for animal protein. Muscle mass and strength develop similarly when total protein intake is high enough.

This does not mean protein quality is irrelevant. It can matter more when protein intake is low, calories are low, diets are very one-sided, or in certain older or clinical populations. But it does not prove that animal protein is automatically superior in a well-planned diet.

For long-term health, the picture shifts even more. Substitution and long-term studies consistently lean toward replacing animal protein sources, especially red and processed meat, with plant protein sources. Even +3% of energy from plant protein was linked to lower all-cause mortality.

And for climate and resources, the difference becomes clearer again. Plant protein sources usually require far less land, feed and resources. The detour through animals is simply inefficient.

So no: animal protein is not inherently superior. For muscle growth, plant protein can work very well when total protein and training are in place. For long-term health and climate, the overall evidence often leans even more toward plant protein sources.

💊 I personally get my supplements from – all their products are lab-tested, and they take a very transparent approach. Use my code LUCA for 5% off on everything sitewide. They ship across Europe, and everything they sell is 100% vegan! 💪🏻🌱

✅ For evidence-based plant-based coaching, comment “Coaching” below.

12/05/2026

🛑 3 raw milk sounds natural, but natural does not automatically mean safe.

We stopped drinking contaminated water for public health reasons. Not because water became “unnatural”, but because people were dying from pathogens. The same logic applies to raw milk. Before pasteurization became widespread, raw milk was a major vehicle for diseases like tuberculosis, scarlet fever and typhoid fever. The CDC states that millions of people became sick and died from diseases that were spread through raw milk.

And this is not just old history. From 1998 to 2018, CDC documented 202 outbreaks linked to drinking raw milk, causing 2,645 illnesses and 228 hospitalizations. Researchers also estimated that unpasteurized dairy products cause about 840 times more illnesses and 45 times more hospitalizations than pasteurized dairy.

And regarding the hygiene argument: clean branding is not microbiological safety. In 2026, CDC and FDA investigated a multistate E. coli outbreak linked to raw cheddar cheese and raw milk sold by Raw Farm, a brand whose label used claims like “tested”, “seasonally grass-grazed”, “Certified Humane”, “Non-GMO” and “truly raw”. Hygiene can reduce risk, but it does not replace pasteurization.

References:
https://www.fda.gov/food/buy-store-serve-safe-food/dangers-raw-milk-unpasteurized-milk-can-pose-serious-health-risk
https://www.neha.org/Images/resources/NEHA-Policy-Statement-Raw-Milk-Oct2020.pdf
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5443421/
https://www.cdc.gov/ecoli/outbreaks/rawcheese-03-26/index.html
https://www.fda.gov/food/outbreaks-foodborne-illness/outbreak-investigation-e-coli-o157h7-raw-cheddar-cheese-march-2026
https://rawfarmusa.com/difference

💊 I personally get my supplements from – all their products are lab-tested, and they take a very transparent approach. Use my code LUCA for 5% off on everything sitewide. They ship across Europe, and everything they sell is 100% vegan! 💪🏻🌱

✅ For evidence-based plant-based coaching, comment “Coaching” below.

10/05/2026

🛑 do you need a reverse osmosis water filter? Reverse osmosis can be very effective. It pushes water through a tight membrane and can reduce microplastics, nitrates, arsenic, salts and PFAS.

So the question is not whether it works. It does. The better question is whether most people actually need it. Because reverse osmosis does not only remove substances people worry about. It can also remove useful minerals like calcium and magnesium. And if the advice is then to buy mineral drops to add them back, the logic becomes questionable.

In Switzerland, drinking water is highly regulated, regularly tested and described by Swiss authorities as the most strictly monitored food. Bottled natural mineral water is also regulated as a food product. Trace contaminants can exist, and PFAS are a real concern. But trace detection is not the same as meaningful health risk. The real question is concentration.

Reverse osmosis can make sense if there is a documented issue: old pipes, private well water, high nitrates, arsenic, lead or elevated PFAS in your local water report.

Bottom line: reverse osmosis is powerful, but powerful does not automatically mean necessary.

References:
https://www.cdc.gov/drinking-water/about/about-home-water-treatment-systems.html
https://www.epa.gov/sciencematters/reducing-pfas-drinking-water-treatment-technologies
https://www.blv.admin.ch/blv/de/home/lebensmittel-und-ernaehrung/lebensmittelsicherheit/verantwortlichkeiten/sicheres-trinkwasser.html
https://www.blv.admin.ch/dam/blv/de/dokumente/lebensmittel-und-ernaehrung/rechts-und-vollzugsgrundlagen/hilfsmittel-vollzugsgrundlagen/informationsschreiben-neu/infos-2022-1.pdf.download.pdf/d_Informationsschreiben%202022_1_Umgang%20mit%20anthropogenen%20Spurenstoffen%20in%20nat%C3%BCrlichem%20Mineralwasser.pdf

💊 I personally get my supplements from – all their products are lab-tested, and they take a very transparent approach. Use my code LUCA for 5% off on everything sitewide. They ship across Europe, and everything they sell is 100% vegan! 💪🏻🌱

✅ For evidence-based plant-based coaching, comment “Coaching” below.

#

🛑 “Vegans kill more animals than meat eaters.” This claim often sounds like a clever argument on social media. But once ...
08/05/2026

🛑 “Vegans kill more animals than meat eaters.” This claim often sounds like a clever argument on social media. But once you look closer, the calculation behind it is much weaker than many people think.
Yes, crop production is not harm-free. Animals can die through soil cultivation, harvesting, pesticides and habitat loss. That should not be denied.

The claim is often linked to Steven Davis and Mike Archer. Davis argued that large grazing animals could cost fewer animal lives than a fully plant-based diet. Archer later claimed that, in Australia, grain production kills more animals per kg of protein than pasture-raised meat. The problem: Davis counted animal deaths per hectare, but not properly how many people that land can actually feed. With Archer, another issue comes in: he relied heavily on mouse plagues in Australian grain production, even though such plagues do not affect every field every year.

And here is the part many online debates leave out: land use. Monocultures and field deaths are often used as arguments against veganism. But animal agriculture itself requires huge amounts of land for grazing and feed crops. If habitat disruption matters, that is an argument for using less agricultural land, not more animal farming.
Our World in Data estimates that a global shift to plant-based diets could reduce agricultural land use by around 75%.

Bottom line: crop production is not harm-free. But that does not mean eating animals kills fewer animals. Veganism does not mean zero harm. It means reducing avoidable exploitation and intentional killing as far as practically possible.

💊 I personally get my supplements from – all their products are lab-tested, and they take a very transparent approach. Use my code LUCA for 5% off on everything sitewide. They ship across Europe, and everything they sell is 100% vegan! 💪🏻🌱

✅ For evidence-based plant-based coaching, comment “Coaching” below.

06/05/2026

🛑 cholesterol is important for the brain. Nobody denies that. But this video takes one true fact and turns it into a misleading health recommendation. Yes, myelin contains a lot of cholesterol. But myelin is not “purely made of cholesterol,” and the cholesterol in your brain does not simply come from eating eggs, butter or steak or from your blood cholesterol levels.

Why? Because the brain largely makes its own cholesterol locally. Plasma lipoprotein-bound cholesterol does not cross the intact blood-brain barrier, meaning “eat more cholesterol to protect your myelin” is not how human biology works. The statin claim is also irresponsible. The overall evidence does not show that statins cause dementia or cognitive decline. Randomized trial evidence does not support cognitive harm, and large prospective data in older adults found no association with incident dementia, mild cognitive impairment or cognitive decline.

And yes, myelin changes can be involved in Alzheimer’s disease and cognitive decline. But that does not mean eating dietary cholesterol prevents dementia. That leap is not evidence-based. A sensitive topic like dementia deserves better than “eat cholesterol because your brain needs it.

References:
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3484857/
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7226731/
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4351273/
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34167639/

💊 I personally get my supplements from – all their products are lab-tested, and they take a very transparent approach. Use my code LUCA for 5% off on everything sitewide. They ship across Europe, and everything they sell is 100% vegan! 💪🏻🌱

04/05/2026

🛑 the most dangerous part of this clip is not even the raw meat. It is the confidence.
A doctor warns him about E. coli O157, and the comment section immediately turns it into proof that “doctors know nothing.”

But this is exactly how online health culture becomes dangerous. Yes, many E. coli are harmless gut bacteria. But E. coli O157 is different. It belongs to a group that can produce Shiga toxin, which can cause severe food poisoning, bloody diarrhea, and in serious cases, kidney complications.

And saying “he has eaten raw meat for years and nothing happened” is not evidence that the behavior is safe. That is not how risk works. You can drive without a seatbelt for ten years and survive. That does not mean seatbelts are a scam. Risk does not mean disaster happens every time. Risk means you are increasing the probability that under the wrong circumstances, something bad can happen.

The bigger issue is psychological. Many people in these spaces present themselves as open-minded. They say they “do their own research.” But when better evidence or medical warnings challenge the belief, they often reject the source instead of engaging with the argument. That is not critical thinking. That is overconfidence protected by a community that rewards certainty more than accuracy.

Question your doctor. Ask for explanations. Get a second opinion. But do not confuse being contrarian with being informed.
Because when confidence grows faster than competence, the danger is not just being wrong.

References:
https://www.fda.gov/food/foodborne-pathogens/escherichia-coli-e-coli
https://sites.lsa.umich.edu/sasi/wp-content/uploads/sites/275/2015/11/krugerdunning99.pdf

💊 I personally get my supplements from – all their products are lab-tested, and they take a very transparent approach. Use my code LUCA for 5% off on everything sitewide. They ship across Europe, and everything they sell is 100% vegan! 💪🏻🌱

🛑 Plant-based meat alternatives are often dismissed on social media as “full of chemicals” or automatically unhealthy. B...
01/05/2026

🛑 Plant-based meat alternatives are often dismissed on social media as “full of chemicals” or automatically unhealthy. But a long ingredient list is not a health outcome.

The better question is: What happens when plant-based meat alternatives are tested directly against meat in randomized controlled trials?

The latest meta-analysis found that when meat was replaced with plant-based meat alternatives, LDL cholesterol dropped by about 12%, total cholesterol by about 6%, and body weight decreased slightly. At the same time, there were no significant downsides for blood pressure or fasting blood glucose.

Important: not all meat alternatives are the same. A soy burger, pea-protein mince, mycoprotein product, or vegan sausage can differ a lot nutritionally.

That’s why it’s worth checking the label:

✅ low in saturated fat
✅ higher in fiber
✅ enough protein
✅ not too much salt

As a rough guide: aim for under 2–3 g saturated fat per serving, at least 3–5 g fiber, around 15–25 g protein, and, if possible, not much above 1–1.25 g salt per serving. With salt, the overall daily context matters.

Bottom line: Not every meat alternative is automatically healthy. But the blanket claim that they are worse than meat because they are processed or have a longer ingredient list is way too simplistic. Better-formulated products can be a useful way to replace meat.

References:
https://onlinecjc.ca/article/S0828-282X(23)01882-2/fulltext paper by yours truly .matthewnagra
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/39653176/

💊 I personally get my supplements from – all their products are lab-tested, and they take a very transparent approach. Use my code LUCA for 5% off on everything sitewide. They ship across Europe, and everything they sell is 100% vegan! 💪🏻🌱

29/04/2026

🛑 and changing your mind is not the problem. If Paul Saladino now eats more roots, fruit, honey, asparagus, carbohydrates, or other plant foods and feels better, good. People should be allowed to update their views.

But the criticism is that he now says it has “always been about the most varied diet possible,” while The Carnivore Code framed the message very differently. In the book, he wrote that “a nose-to-tail carnivore diet is the best solution,” described animal foods as “the best foods on the planet,” and called plant foods “sub-optimal” with “a myriad of toxins that do nothing but harm us.” That is not just “some people react differently to certain foods.” That is broad plant-food demonization.

Even his “carnivore-ish” version was still described as “80–90 percent” animal foods, with only “‘low toxicity’ plant foods” added for flavour, texture, colour, or preference. He also wrote: “I see plant foods as survival foods.”

So yes, maybe he cannot personally retract every copy because of the publisher. But if that is the case, he should have at least clearly addressed the issue with the publisher and his book in a public post. As far as I can tell, he never did. Changing your mind is good. But if your old message was strong enough to sell books, your correction should be strong enough to reach the same audience. Something he clearly did not do.

💊 I personally get my supplements from – all their products are lab-tested, and they take a very transparent approach. Use my code LUCA for 5% off on everything sitewide. They ship across Europe, and everything they sell is 100% vegan! 💪🏻🌱

Adresse

Zürich
8810

Webseite

Benachrichtigungen

Lassen Sie sich von uns eine E-Mail senden und seien Sie der erste der Neuigkeiten und Aktionen von Luca D. A-Barzz erfährt. Ihre E-Mail-Adresse wird nicht für andere Zwecke verwendet und Sie können sich jederzeit abmelden.

Verknüpfungen

Teilen

Kategorie