Bobby Raeburn

Anti seed oil... Pro regenerative farming🥩... Anti sugar... Pro TRE... Anti dietary guidelines...
Pro zero waste...
Dietary fibre is a waste of my time🥦🌽

[Bobby Raeburn @BobbyRaeburn]

Which one do you think is destroying the environment?

[Bobby Raeburn @BobbyRaeburn]

This looks interesting..

[Bobby Raeburn @BobbyRaeburn]

Bone marrow mixed with butter straight out of the fridge makes a nice accompaniment to a rib-eye.
Great way to up my fat intake.
👍😋👍

[Bobby Raeburn @BobbyRaeburn]

@DopplerEffect93 @bigfatsurprise I don't think so.

[Claus Carlsen @ClausCarlsen1]

Food used to be fuel.
Now it’s entertainment.

That shift alone explains most overeating, junk cravings, and diet failure.
Let’s break it down 👇

1) Entertainment food is engineered for dopamine, not nourishment.
2) Meals become events, not refuelling stops.
3) Appetite regulation fails because the goal is pleasure, not satiety.
4) Real food stops tasting “exciting,” so we think something’s wrong with us - not the system.

The cure is simple:
- Make food simple again.
- Let life, work, and purpose provide the stimulation - not your plate.

[Bobby Raeburn @BobbyRaeburn]

@olyveyaa These look awesome!
I'll be trying them at the weekend.
👍😋👍

[Frédéric Leroy @fleroy1974]

A group of eloquent & committed young meat scientist have a few things to say to activists, journalists & policymakers, with respect to the continuous lambasting of their research & reputations. Do read it please, it's important:

We, the next generation of meat scientists, stand at a crossroads. We are not only committed to science, but also to people, animal welfare, and the planet. All of these must thrive together if we are to build a sustainable and prosperous future. The food system is a complex web of interconnected components, where changes in one part can have far-reaching socio-economic consequences. Our work spans the entire production chain, from animal genetics and health to processing, food safety, and environmental efficiency. We are therefore ideally placed to identify challenges and develop practical ways forward. We are not just studying meat, we are contributing to what people eat, and that matters. We care about the planet, we care about people, with a refusal to accept that feeding the world means harming it.

Policy makers must recognize that meat and livestock systems vary greatly between countries or regions. The livestock production and meat processing sectors, in particular, are crucial to the livelihoods of small local farmers, rural communities, and entire families. Moreover, nutritional requirements vary across life stages, with children, adults, and the elderly needing different quantities and forms of essential nutrients, many of which are more bioavailable in animal-based foods. We need policies that understand these differences, that support both new innovations and traditional practices. It is our responsibility to consider such critical aspects when discussing reductions in livestock production. In many regions, meat is not a luxury; it is a necessity. Calls to eliminate it must consider cultural, nutritional, and economic realities. For many, reducing or removing meat from the diet is not a practical or affordable option, but rather a privilege of abundance. Without that context, we risk deepening global inequality.

We understand that, to the general population, the core of the public dispute against meat consumption is animal welfare and the contribution of the meat industry to climate change. Improving the meat industry in these areas must be a priority, not just to answer the criticism, but because it is the right thing to do. It is possible to value the role of meat in society and still advocate for improvements. Meat, sustainability and animal welfare are not enemies, they can and must go hand in hand. We consider it our responsibility to develop transfer and communication strategies to inform society based on scientific knowledge, thereby enabling transparency and building trust in the food system. The majority of the population does not hold a rigid view. Instead, they exist within a broad spectrum, awaiting honest answers. That is where we come in. Our role as scientists is not to promote beliefs, but to conduct sound research, communicate it clearly, and ensure that decisions are guided by facts, not fear.

The discussion about meat does not have to be divisive. However, due to entrenched positions, there is sometimes little room left for meaningful dialogue or constructive debate. What we want from journalists, and the media, is to dig deeper than the first headline, to show the real stories, not half-truths or sensationalized misinformation designed to attract the most attention. To highlight the progress of science in a neutral, unbiased way. As researchers, we have a duty to ensure that our work is conducted with rigor and integrity. It must be free from bias and strong enough to withstand questions about conflicts of interest or ideological influence. We need to react with maturity, engage with reasonable criticism and ignore hateful noise. There are those who intentionally misrepresent our work, maliciously scrutinizing our livelihoods and our character. Among the ill-intended, some extremists go so far as to insult, threaten, and attempt to silence us into obscurity. We will not be silenced.

To policymakers, funding bodies, and the general public: we ask for fairness, transparency, and a respect for science. Support a future where science informs, not persuades. In an environment increasingly shaped by confusion and conflicting messages, the need for sound, transparent science is more important than ever.  Only through credible, evidence-based research can we build trust and support effective progress. We need a new generation of livestock systems—smart, sustainable, equitable, and resilient—grounded in science and adapted to local contexts. Where producers are seen as stewards, and not scapegoats. Where meat is recognized not just as food, but as a cultural, nutritional, and economic cornerstone.

As young meat scientists, our position is clear: we stand for neutrality, scientific rigor, and precision. The future of food systems must be shaped through cooperation and knowledge, not confrontation or ideology. Let’s move beyond "either/or" debates and work together on “how” to make livestock systems better—for everyone. We must stay rooted in evidence, open to interdisciplinary collaboration, and bold in our scientific imagination. We are not anti-vegan, we are pro-science, pro-facts, in favour of progress. We want to drive meat systems toward their most sustainable, ethical, and innovative future.

https://t.co/MYhRRuHEt6

[Bobby Raeburn @BobbyRaeburn]

After 2 weeks.
Estimated A1c 5mmol/L.
Low blood sugar after OMAD.
I will repeat in a few weeks and try some multi day fasting to see what happens to Blood Glucose.

[Bobby Raeburn @BobbyRaeburn]

I'm doing a 4 week experiment with a CGM.
Most days will be OMAD but I will mix it up and intentionally eat crap food on a few days to see what happens to my blood sugar.

1st experiment terminated after 36 hours, CGM door frame collision 🙁.

[Bobby Raeburn @BobbyRaeburn]

Starting off nice and steady.

[Bobby Raeburn @BobbyRaeburn]

@AjRockatansky @SBakerMD That post is gold AJ, GOLD I tells ya!!!!

[Bobby Raeburn @BobbyRaeburn]

@weimbslab @PBjornstadMD I had to discover this fact myself🤣.
No one ever mentioned fructose to me. Just gave me some pills and told me to cut down on meat.
I've been zero fructose Carnivore for 6 years and I'm not dead yet!! (No pills😁)..

[Gary Fettke @FructoseNo]

"Animal rights activists relentlessly label research and science communication that contradict their views as unreliable or industry-biased, while relying on a narrow circle of like-minded researchers to create an illusion of “scientific consensus” favoring plant-based diets. Ironically, these activists are themselves funded by wealthy effective altruists and by the vegan-tech sector. Recent attacks on the Dublin Declaration, the FAO, and critics of the EAT-Lancet report exemplify this troubling trend of supressing inconvenient science." https://t.co/c0jGkcDFmy

[L. Amber O'Hearn @KetoCarnivore]

A template for speaking out against EAT-Lancet 2.0.

https://t.co/iuRJVho5TQ

[Bobby Raeburn @BobbyRaeburn]

@haidut

[Bobby Raeburn @BobbyRaeburn]

@notabot89714641 @SamaHoole I'm not type 1. I'm surprised that this happened to me after 1 kilo of rib-eye.

[Bobby Raeburn @BobbyRaeburn]

@SPHdeORD @DavidSvendsen @nicknorwitz 40% of calories from carbs is not the same as a low carb diet.

[Bobby Raeburn @BobbyRaeburn]

@CraigSwann1 I hope you like it.
I just looked it up, one tin would cost me £84 with postage😂..