The Fibertarian Leaderboard

Why this score — Oil-free, sugar-free, whole-food — full marks.

No conspiracy or peer-review-avoidance signals — grounded in peer-reviewed WFPB research.

Why this score — Strict oil-free WFPB paired with hard clinical outcome tracking (blood glucose, A1c). The whole-grain-product caution is a blood-sugar-management choice within compliant foods, not an oil/animal-product/processing demerit — full marks.

Khambatta holds a PhD, Barbaro an MPH, both publish. Docked for direct commercial entanglement — a paid coaching/certification program whose value depends on their diet claim, including for insulin-dependent Type 1 diabetes, which is more contested territory than Type 2.

Why this score — A consistent, credentialed WFPB advocate — full marks.

No conspiracy framing, no peer-review avoidance found; credentialed (CNP), mainstream-literature-based advocacy with only ordinary commercial ties (his own programs).

Why this score — SOS-free WFPB, in both recipes and products.

SOS-free claims are modest and product marketing explicitly avoids "wild health claims"; engages with mainstream clinical nutrition orgs (National Health Association). No crank markers found.

Why this score — The behavioral-science voice of the strict-WFPB camp — full marks.

No sourced controversy found; "The Pleasure Trap" is a psychological framework, not a medical-claims product — no core-signal hits.

Why this score — SOS-free, whole-food, zero animal products — full marks.

Publishes fasting research in peer-reviewed journals; no persecution or anti-empiricism found. Modest commercial-entanglement modifier — TrueNorth's revenue depends on fasting's popularity, though disclosed and medically supervised.

Why this score — Squarely in the strict Esselstyn lineage — full marks.

Clinical Assistant Professor of Medicine, ACC Fellow, active interventional cardiologist. No controversy, persecution narrative, or unfalsifiability found. Mild, disclosed commercial entanglement — his clinic sold vegan meals on-site.

Why this score — Oil-free, zero animal products, whole-grain-centered — full marks.

Publishes in peer-reviewed journals — no persecution narrative or unfalsifiability found. The deduction is a minor certainty-to-evidence mismatch: his cardiac-reversal claims lean on a small, uncontrolled case series (n=198, no control group), and the confidence of the public claims outpaces what that study design can actually support.

Why this score — Mainstream cardiology credibility for WFPB claims — full marks.

His vegan advocacy drew pushback within cardiology circles, but no sourced persecution narrative or peer-review avoidance — normal scientific debate over interpretation of the diet-heart literature.

Why this score — SOS-free, whole-food, zero animal products.

Physician since 1972, mainstream-published, no persecution narrative or peer-review avoidance found.

Why this score — Five-decade track record as a strict vegan advocate — full marks.

Published his racial-bias-in-dietary-guidelines argument in a peer-reviewed venue (Journal of the National Medical Association) rather than only asserting it — engaging the evidence process, not avoiding it. No commercial entanglement, persecution narrative, or unfalsifiability found.

Why this score — Strict WFPB messaging with an industry-critical edge — full marks.

Confirmed via multiple independent booksellers: co-authored "COVID Operation," a 2020 book framing COVID-19 as a hoax perpetrated by "enemies of the people" disguised as public servants, and founded "Make Americans Free Again." This is a documented, textbook persecution/conspiracy narrative — a real, sourced exception to the otherwise-clean WFPB-medical cohort here, and it's specifically why we independently verified this one before publishing it.

Why this score — A genuine plant-based proof-of-concept — full marks.

No sourced criticism of her MS/lifestyle-medicine claims found; "Code Blue" is an advocacy documentary, but no persecution or unfalsifiability rhetoric identified.

Why this score — Institutional weight behind WFPB medicine — full marks.

No sourced crank markers found; a physician-education nonprofit with no persecution/peer-review-avoidance signals turned up.

Why this score — Oil-free, unprocessed, no animal products — full marks.

Diet claims only, conduct excluded: prescribes an extreme diet as broadly safe while dismissing documented deficiency/risk concerns raised by dietitians.

Why this score — Oil-free, unprocessed, no animal products, consistent for over a decade — full marks.

Diet claims only, conduct excluded: dogmatic, anecdote-driven dismissal of mainstream protein/cholesterol consensus as "myths," argued from personal results rather than engaging counter-evidence.

Why this score — Oil-free, unprocessed, no animal products — full marks.

Certainty-to-evidence mismatch — presents an extreme, restrictive diet as nutritionally complete against expert pushback (dietitian critiques). No persecution-narrative content found.

Why this score — Actively campaigns for oil-free eating — full marks.

Critics document overstated claims (e.g., "only oil-free diets reverse CVD"), but he responds to critics by inviting counter-evidence rather than dismissing them — no persecution or anti-empiricism found. Minor commercial tie: sells an oil-free cookbook.

Why this score — Oil-free, refined-sugar-free, whole-food — full marks.

Follows Fuhrman's Nutritarian framework; no conspiracy framing, peer-review avoidance, or unfalsifiable claims found.

Why this score — Same profile as Goldhamer, Klaper, and Well Your World — full marks.

Runs PLANTSTRONG, a business selling meal delivery/coaching whose value depends on the diet claim. Draws legitimate scientific pushback on his stricter elements (e.g., excluding olive oil/nuts for heart patients) — ordinary scientific disagreement, not crank behavior. No persecution narrative found.

Why this score — Foundational WFPB research pedigree — full marks.

Campbell has authored 350+ peer-reviewed papers, funded by NIH/public sources rather than industry. When a lay critic published a detailed statistical critique of The China Study, he responded substantively rather than dismissing it as persecution — a model of good epistemic conduct. Only a mild, disclosed commercial component (paid certificate courses).

Why this score — The D3/algae-DHA supplementation (beyond the universally-necessary B12) is the one real departure from whole-food-only eating — otherwise near-total alignment with fibertarian principles.

No commercial entanglement (NutritionFacts.org is non-commercial by design, a point in his favor) — but independent fact-checkers have flagged cherry-picked evidence and claims exceeding consensus, a real certainty-to-evidence mismatch. No persecution narrative or peer-review avoidance found.

Why this score — The confirmed dairy-alternative allowance is a real, if unquantified, gap from oil-free WFPB — otherwise a strict, hospital-based plant-based cardiology program.

No sourced criticism found; the Montefiore program is hospital-based and peer-network-endorsed (other hospitals have replicated it).

Why this score — The refined sugar/flour in her desserts is the gap — otherwise the strongest showing in the cooking tier outside Chef AJ.

Allergy-friendly recipe/baking content; no disease-related health claims found.

Why this score — The food itself is about as strict as it gets — vegan, whole-food, no added salt/sugar. What keeps this off a 10 is the dozens of daily supplement pills: a large isolated-compound stack is processed by definition, same reasoning we've applied to protein powders elsewhere on this page. Separately, he's the mirror image of Dr. Alex Wibberley's entry: Wibberley's Mediterranean diet is composition-imperfect but has the deepest RCT evidence base in nutrition science, while Johnson's diet is composition-strict but the assembled protocol's actual longevity effect rests on a sample size of one.

The PhenoAge clock's own developer has said Johnson's "reversed biological age" marketing outpaces what the measure validates — a certainty-to-evidence mismatch. He sells a supplement line whose value rests on his own unproven n=1 protocol. Notably transparent, though — extensive published biomarker data, and no persecution narrative — which keeps this out of low-score territory.

Why this score — Oil-free and whole-food at its core, docked for tolerating added sugar and processed convenience items.

A real MD who published and engaged mainstream institutions, so not a clean case of peer-review avoidance. But his own rhetoric about the medical establishment's "economic incentives for continued illness" and pharmaceutical companies burying findings leans conspiracy-adjacent, paired with running commercial diet programs/resorts.

Why this score — The gap is concrete: their own recipes aren't consistently oil-free, even though their broader messaging leans that way.

Extensively published in peer-reviewed RCTs — no peer-review avoidance. Minor certainty-to-evidence mismatch: PCRM's "cheese is as addictive as heroin" marketing overstates the casomorphin evidence, and PCRM had to retract dairy/weight-loss ad claims after an FTC-related challenge. Longstanding PETA funding while presenting as a neutral medical body is a mild disclosed-interest concern. No persecution narrative or unfalsifiability found.

Why this score — The gap from the top tier is the absence of legumes and whole grains, not the fruit itself — otherwise oil-free, unprocessed, no animal products, sustained for years.

Anti-empiricism/unfalsifiability: has claimed on video and in posts that her raw diet changed her eye color from brown to blue-green, attributed to an iridologist's reading — a claim eye doctors on record say has no basis (food doesn't affect iris pigment).

Why this score — Hugely influential WFPB advocacy, delivered as a single film rather than a sustained channel.

The film dismissed an absent dietitian-body critic by claiming their accrediting organization is "funded by the meat industry" — a persecution-narrative signal. Critics also document cherry-picked or misrepresented small pilot studies presented as settled science.

Why this score — Corrected from 8: the oil-free claim held up for the cookbook specifically, but not for the wider body of published recipes we checked directly.

Recipe/lifestyle content and bestselling cookbooks; no unfalsifiable or disease-cure claims found.

Why this score — Corrected the framing: it's not that he personally holds a loose diet — he's personally strict WFPB except for oil, which he explicitly embraces; it's his patient-facing advice that's flexible.

Faced sharp pushback from the low-carb/paleo camp over his reliance on The China Study, and describes a hostile TV segment — but this is mutual public disagreement, not persecution rhetoric or evidence-avoidance on his part.

Why this score — The animal-protein allowance is what keeps this score down.

Documented conflict of interest: he funded and helped design a DHA study for his own private-label DHA supplement, and was reportedly removed as listed principal investigator before publication, then used the study to market the product. The dispute originates from a rival vegan camp (VegSource/T. Colin Campbell), so treat the framing as somewhat adversarial — but the underlying COI facts are acknowledged on his own site's rebuttal.

Why this score — A genuinely strict WFPB origin, docked for the pre-shutdown commercial drift toward a "flexible," oil-friendlier audience after the Upbeet Brands merger.

A commercial media/lifestyle brand whose value depended directly on the WFPB claim. The documentary was criticized by multiple reviewers for extrapolating rodent studies to humans and conflating casein with all animal protein — a real certainty-to-evidence mismatch. No persecution narrative or peer-review-avoidance found.

Why this score — Massive advocacy reach, WFPB-adjacent rather than WFPB-prescriptive.

Both films center an institutional-corruption narrative — health and environmental orgs allegedly captured by industry money — as the explanation for disagreement, a persecution-narrative signal.

Why this score — High-fiber, whole-food current recipes, kept below the top tier because oil-free specifics aren't confirmed and the processed-meat-analog back catalog is still part of the channel.

No persecution or conspiracy framing found; frames his transformation in food-science terms (protein, energy density, satiety) rather than miracle claims.

Why this score — Genuinely WFPB-leaning personally, but the platform itself is diet-agnostic.

The platform actively hosts and debates opposing dietary views (e.g., low-carb guest Vinnie Tortorich) rather than dismissing disagreement — the opposite of persecution/unfalsifiability.

Why this score — Nutrition-science-literate and whole-food-leaning, but not oil-free.

Registered dietitian whose brand is explicitly built on evidence-based nutrition messaging; no crank signal found.

Why this score — Mediterranean-style eating (olive oil, fish, dairy in moderation) keeps this in the same tier as Ornish's looser Prevention plan — real oil and animal-product allowances, not a strict WFPB diet.

No persecution narrative, peer-review avoidance, or unfalsifiability found. A single rival YouTuber's deepfake/bot-amplification accusation was in an earlier draft of this entry — pulled because it's a content-authenticity question, not epistemic conduct, and rests on one uncorroborated source.

Why this score — The egg whites, dairy, fish, chicken, and oil allowances are what keep this score down.

Core trials (Lifestyle Heart Trial, etc.) are published in top peer-reviewed journals (JAMA, Lancet, Circulation) — gold-standard peer engagement. A Scientific American critique flagged some broader nutrition claims and a commercially-tied co-author on one cited paper, but this doesn't implicate his own core trial data.

Why this score — Corrected from 7: this is a genuine pro-oil position, not academic hedging — a bigger gap from fibertarian principles than originally scored.

His oil-tolerant position vs. oil-free orthodoxy is a normal evidence-based disagreement — he cites literature and engages critics directly (e.g., on the Sigma Nutrition podcast) — not a crank signal.

Why this score — Checked directly: the whole-food-first messaging doesn't change what the product actually is — an isolated protein powder, which is processed by nature.

Vedge's own messaging explicitly criticizes "revolutionary"/proprietary-blend supplement hype elsewhere in the industry — an unusually self-skeptical commercial stance; no crank markers found.

Why this score — A useful hub for finding the higher-purity figures on this list, but the outlet isn't oil-free-prescriptive.

Mostly aggregates mainstream WFPB science (Esselstyn, Greger); some opinion pieces lean on a real, documented industry-astroturfing story rather than a fabricated conspiracy.

Why this score — Real oil-free technique knowledge, docked for the explicitly stated 80/20 indulgence philosophy and the packaged ready-meal product line — both are self-described, not assumed.

Corporate product-innovation role plus recipes; no disease-related claims found.

Why this score — Nine cups of vegetables daily is a real, substantial fiber intake — the ceiling for this segment given the diet still isn't plant-exclusive.

Ran an actual randomized controlled trial (the WAVES trial, n=77, published in Multiple Sclerosis Journal — ETC, 2021) comparing her protocol against another diet for fatigue/quality-of-life in relapsing-remitting MS — real peer-reviewed clinical data, though disease-specific and modest in sample size, not a mortality/longevity study.

Clinical professor at the University of Iowa who runs funded trials and scopes her claims to fatigue/quality-of-life rather than claiming to cure MS. Minor modifier for personal-story marketing (book, branded supplement line).

Why this score — Moderate oil and sugar use alongside genuinely healthier whole-food recipes — roughly an even split.

Recipe/lifestyle channel; no clinical claims found.

Why this score — Genuine whole-food dishes alongside fried items and desserts — a real mid-tier split.

Certified health coach who frames vegetables as 'nutrition superstars' and cautions against processed vegan food — mild wellness framing, but no unfalsifiable or disease-cure claims found.

Why this score — Whole-food-leaning with oil-free options available, but oil is the default, not the exception.

Recipe blog, largely Indian-inspired vegan cooking; no clinical/disease claims found.

Why this score — Vegan, but the diet leans on processed protein powders and supplements rather than whole foods.

Diet claims only, conduct excluded: relies on protein-powder and supplement marketing claims in nutrition debates rather than whole-food evidence — a certainty-to-evidence mismatch tied to the products he promotes.

Why this score — Both phases of her work lean more vegetable-forward than most of this segment, without ever excluding meat.

A real PhD in biomedical sciences; the Autoimmune Protocol has only small preliminary trials. Her own move away from restriction toward a less-dogmatic, better-supported framework is unusual rigor for this space.

No persecution/conspiracy framing found. Walking back a restrictive protocol as evidence warranted is a positive, non-crank signal — self-correction is exactly the opposite of what a crank does. Minor commercial modifier (books, app).

Why this score — Vegan, but no particular commitment to oil-free or whole-food eating over standard vegan fare.

Positions as an evidence-based myth-debunker; no persecution, peer-review-avoidance, or unfalsifiability found in the epistemic content (conduct controversies are out of scope for this score).

Why this score — The safe-starch/tuber allowance is a real, if modest, fiber source most paleo approaches exclude.

Synthesizes the literature with more nuance than most peers here, but functional medicine as a field generally has weak trial evidence.

Moderate tone, cites researchers, no conspiracy framing found. Commercial modifier: a supplement line (Adapt Naturals) plus a practitioner-training business.

Why this score — Genuine vegetable inclusion keeps this above the carnivore/strict-keto segment, but meat remains a standing component of the diet, which caps it below the plant-forward tiers.

Her RD credential lends legitimacy, but she blends environmental/agricultural claims with nutrition claims — different evidence domains — and there's no mortality/cohort data for her specific pattern.

No persecution/conspiracy signal found; engages across viewpoints. Commercial modifier: farm products and film/book sales.

Why this score — Ample vegetable and fruit content keeps this above the meat-heavy end of this segment, but the diet remains meat-inclusive and excludes grains/legumes, which caps it below the plant-forward tiers.

A certified nutrition consultant, not a research scientist; standard elimination-diet logic without cohort data.

No conspiracy/persecution framing found; primarily lifestyle/recipe content rather than science communication. Commercial modifier: cookbooks, meal plans, and spice products.

Why this score — Explicitly recommends olive oil, fish, dark chocolate, and wine as beneficial — the furthest from oil-free WFPB in this set.

A McGill Office for Science and Society review said he "overplays the card" on some food-as-treatment claims even while his core angiogenesis science is sound — a certainty-to-evidence mismatch, not a core signal. No persecution/peer-review-avoidance found; runs a legitimate nonprofit research foundation, not a personal supplement line.

Why this score — Wonderful storytelling and genuinely vegan, but not remotely oil-free.

Storytelling/memoir-driven recipe content; no clinical claims found.

Why this score — Genuine vegetable and fruit emphasis pulls this above the rest of the carnivore/keto segment, but grain and legume exclusion still caps it well below the plant-based tiers.

68+ peer-reviewed papers on evolutionary-nutrition theory and biomarker studies, but anthropologists dispute his core premise that Paleolithic peoples ate no grains or tubers; no mortality cohort exists for "paleo" as actually practiced.

Publishes in peer review and has directly debated critics (e.g., T. Colin Campbell) rather than avoiding scrutiny; no persecution framing found. A "Paleo Certified" licensing/commercial brand is a mild modifier.

Why this score — Has a real, maintained oil-free recipe category, but the channel's identity centers on processed nut-cheese substitutes, which keeps this low.

No clinical claims made, no crank signal present; recipe-experimentation channel.

Why this score — Vegan-branded fitness marketing, not a WFPB resource by design.

Lifestyle/comedy branding ("vegan doesn't have to be strict") with no identified conspiracy, unfalsifiable, or peer-review-avoidance claims.

Why this score — One of the biggest channels in the space, and a seed pick — but oil and richer ingredients are staples.

Recipe developer/cookbook author with a general balanced-eating framework; no disease-cure or unfalsifiable claims found.

Why this score — Regular oil use and processed substitutes, prioritized for flavor and technique over whole-food strictness.

UK recipe-focused vegan chef; no clinical claims found.

Why this score — Regular oil use and processed vegan substitutes, prioritized for speed and cost over whole-food strictness.

No clinical claims made, no crank signal present; pure recipe/cookbook content.

Why this score — Accessible and well-produced, but a standard-oil vegan channel, not a WFPB one.

No clinical claims made, no crank signal present; recipes plus Buddhist-practice framing, not disease claims.

Why this score — Regular oil, sugar, and processed plant-meat substitutes keep this out of the WFPB tier. Confirmed as the channel behind the seed pick "Yung Man."

No clinical claims made, no crank signal present; not vegan-identified, purely recipe-focused.

Why this score — Animal-fat-heavy keto pattern by design.

The LMHR/lipid energy model is a genuinely contested, still-being-tested hypothesis, but his crowdfunded LMHR studies have reached peer-reviewed publication with cardiologist co-authors — unusual rigor for a non-clinician citizen-scientist.

Transparent about being non-credentialed and n=1-experiment-based; actively seeks peer review and publication rather than avoiding it — a positive, Volek/Phinney-adjacent signal despite lacking formal training. No persecution framing found.

Why this score — Explicitly restricts grains, a core fibertarian food category, even though the fat sources lean plant-based.

A real neurologist, but his signature claim — that grains are a primary driver of brain disease in non-celiac people — goes well beyond what systematic reviews support.

No persecution/conspiracy narrative found; Quackwatch has flagged him for promoting "questionable health products," and he sells his own supplement lines — commercial entanglement plus certainty-to-evidence mismatch pull this down despite real MD credentials.

Why this score — Some vegetable content keeps this a notch above pure carnivore, but the diet is still overwhelmingly low-fiber and animal-fat-centered.

A chiropractor synthesizing others' research, not a primary researcher; oversimplifies endocrinology in places.

Flagged by Media Bias/Fact Check and RationalWiki for "cholesterol denialism" and promoting "adrenal fatigue," a diagnosis not recognized by mainstream endocrinology — an anti-empiricism signal. A 2008 state board reprimand for unproven diagnostic claims. Heavy commercial entanglement (his own supplement company).

Why this score — Includes non-starchy vegetables, but still a low-carbohydrate, low-fiber pattern overall.

No specific published trial or outcome data from his own clinic was found — his standing as a 20+-year academic keto clinician is a credibility signal, not evidence data, and doesn't itself raise this score. The general keto evidence base remains contested (see the Volek/Phinney entry).

No persecution/conspiracy framing found anywhere checked; a credentialed academic explicitly distinguishing his approach from "internet keto" (has a video titled "Evidence-based vs. Internet-based Keto") is itself an anti-crank signal.

Why this score — Low-carbohydrate framing generally reduces fiber-rich starch/grain intake, even without being animal-product-exclusive.

A real physician with published case reports on therapeutic fasting; the fasting-plus-low-carb combination has more support in the diabetes-reversal literature specifically than general keto longevity claims.

No persecution/conspiracy framing found. Some certainty-to-evidence mismatch — his books present the insulin-obesity model more definitively than consensus supports — but no peer-review avoidance or unfalsifiability found.

Why this score — High-fat, animal-leaning pattern with minimal fiber emphasis.

A real, practicing cardiologist speaking from clinical experience and lipidology, but functions more as a communicator/lecturer than a primary researcher.

No persecution/conspiracy framing found; credentialed, practicing physician who engages with mainstream cardiology conference circuits (Low Carb USA, etc.).

Why this score — Ketogenic, low-fiber pattern by design, though narrowly scoped to diabetes reversal rather than general longevity claims.

Ran an actual multi-year clinical trial with published peer-reviewed outcomes data — the strongest evidence-based credential in this segment, exceeding even Volek/Phinney's contested general-longevity evidence, because hers is direct RCT outcomes data for a narrower, better-supported claim (diabetes reversal specifically, not general longevity).

No persecution/conspiracy framing found anywhere. A physician-researcher running a real clinical trial with published peer-reviewed outcomes.

Why this score — Advocates a low-carbohydrate pattern that generally displaces fiber-rich starches and grains.

Co-founded NuSI to fund rigorous peer-reviewed testing of his own hypothesis — a pro-science instinct. But when the flagship Kevin Hall-led study refuted the hypothesis, NuSI pushed back hard on the methodology rather than accepting the result — a documented certainty-to-evidence mismatch.

Not persecution/conspiracy-framed, and he did fund real peer-reviewed research (a mitigating factor) — but resisting an inconvenient peer-reviewed result from research he funded, plus substantial personal income from the "non-profit," is a concrete commercial-entanglement and certainty-mismatch combination.

Why this score — Explicitly chef-driven, indulgent vegan cuisine — beautiful food, the opposite of fiber-first.

No disease claim, persecution narrative, or unfalsifiable claim found; a cooking channel with no clinical claims on record.

Why this score — Mainstream vegan comfort food, not a fiber-first resource.

No clinical claims made, no crank signal present; standard nutrition/meal-plan content, normal cookbook commercial model.

Why this score — Ketogenic pattern; fiber intake is not the framework's focus.

The longevity-specific evidence for keto remains genuinely contested (a cross-sectional NHANES finding of lower mortality conflicts with cohort data showing low-carb-with-animal-replacement raises mortality risk) — real credentials don't resolve a genuinely unsettled question, so this stays in "contested," not "strong."

The calibration anchor for this entire index: hundreds of peer-reviewed papers between them, no persecution narrative, direct engagement with the scientific literature. Credentials don't buy a higher evidence score, but they are exactly what separates a legitimately unsettled question from a crank claim.

Why this score — Not a plant-based diet; covers keto and fasting favorably, with no oil-free/WFPB commitment. Included for contrast, as a major nutrition-adjacent voice skeptical of strong vegan health claims.

His seed-oil content sits inside a documented misinformation trend not supported by the evidence base — certainty-to-evidence mismatch with industry-profiteering framing bordering on persecution narrative. Otherwise generally cites sources and is cross-dogma skeptical (including of vegan claims), which cuts the other way.

Why this score — A vegetable-inclusive origin point that has drifted toward a lower-fiber, meat-heavier framing over time.

A popularizer, not a researcher; relies on evolutionary narrative and self-experimentation rather than trial or cohort data.

No conspiracy/persecution framing found. Heavy commercial modifier: sold Primal Kitchen to Kraft Heinz for $200M and remains an advisor/spokesperson.

Why this score — Meat-forward paleo pattern with grains and legumes excluded.

Evolutionary-mismatch and anti-nutrient (phytic acid/lectin) framing backed mainly by biomarker-level evidence; no cohort or mortality data for the pattern as a whole.

No persecution/conspiracy language found in available sources. Commercial tie as co-founder/part-owner of the LMNT electrolyte brand.

Why this score — The premise itself — cheap and lazy — runs directly against whole-food fibertarian cooking.

No clinical claims made, no crank signal present; budget-recipe focus, no health claims found.

Why this score — A baking blog first — structurally at odds with a fiber-first, low-fat diet.

No clinical claims made, no crank signal present; recipe blog/podcast content only.

Why this score — Some plant-fat sources, but the overall pattern remains low-fiber.

Not a scientist — background is biomedical sales; cites primary literature but has been publicly accused by peers of misrepresenting studies.

No persecution/conspiracy framing found; he's unusually self-aware about his own lack of credentials ("I have zero credibility whatsoever" — his own quote). Main issue is heavy commercial entanglement — 14+ concurrent sponsors — rather than core anti-science markers.

Why this score — Explicitly excludes grains and sugar, with a protein-forward practical emphasis over vegetables.

No nutrition-research credentials; claims are simple heuristics without citation, including blaming obesity substantially on government grain subsidies.

The grain-subsidy framing is a mild persecution/policy-conspiracy-adjacent signal; doesn't publish or engage with peer review, and carries a strong anti-establishment tone toward conventional dietary guidelines. Commercial: paid NSNG coaching/learning platform.

Why this score — Built explicitly around indulgent comfort-food remakes — proudly the opposite of fibertarian.

No clinical claims made, no crank signal present; recipe/comedy content, activism framed around animals, not disease claims.

Why this score — Strict carnivore composition.

No identified peer-reviewed carnivore-specific publications; cancer claims lean on small ketogenic (not carnivore) studies and mechanistic speculation rather than trial data.

A video titled "Why Doctors HATE The Carnivore Diet" is direct persecution framing. Certainty-to-evidence mismatch on cancer claims. Commercial coaching/consulting via his site and Patreon.

Why this score — Animal-product-heavy diet by design.

Real MD, but functions mainly as a communicator/synthesizer rather than a bench researcher; cites studies selectively.

Authored a book titled "Lies My Doctor Told Me" and content headlined "Big Pharma Fights Back" — persecution/adversarial framing toward mainstream medicine. Monetizes via a paid community, an "Insider" tier, and a branded supplement bundle.

Why this score — Animal products only; the diet excludes every fiber source by design.

No controlled trials of his own; the main carnivore "cohort" is a 2,029-person self-reported survey with no control group.

On record: "I'm interested in results... just because we don't understand everything about how something works" — explicit anti-empiricism, deprioritizing mechanism/evidence outright. Runs a commercial carnivore clinic (Revero).

Why this score — The stated philosophy is the direct opposite of low-fat, fiber-first eating.

No clinical claims made, no crank signal present — her site explicitly states she'll never claim a food or diet can "cure" a serious disease.

Why this score — Zero-fiber elimination diet by design.

Certified nutritional therapy practitioner, not MD/RDN; no peer-reviewed publications found.

No explicit conspiracy framing found. Sells the "Carnivore Cure" book and runs paid, individualized coaching directly off her own elimination-diet claims — the same direct client-by-client commercial entanglement as Kelly Hogan's coaching model.

Why this score — Strict zero-carb composition; no fiber source in the diet.

Pure personal testimony/community-moderator content, no research claims made.

No conspiracy or persecution rhetoric found. Sells paid, individualized "Carnivore Coaching" (custom meal plans, recurring sessions) directly off her own personal-results claims — a more direct commercial-entanglement than a branded product line, since each client is sold on the same unproven claim personally.

Why this score — Openly indulgence-branded; the name says it all.

No clinical claims made, no crank signal present; comfort-food recipe content.

Why this score — Strict animal-product diet by design.

No research base of any kind — pure personal-brand testimony.

Lied for years that his physique was entirely natural; admitted to $11,000/month in steroid use only after leaked emails surfaced. Faced a $25M class-action suit for deceptive marketing of his Ancestral Supplements. Later renounced his own carnivore/ancestral claims in a 2025 Netflix documentary. The bottom-anchor case for this whole index.

Why this score — Literally nothing but animal product and water.

Purely n=1 testimony; no studies of the "Lion Diet" specifically exist.

Documented persecution narrative: after TEDx declined to publish her carnivore talk, she and her father (Jordan Peterson) publicly framed this as institutional suppression rather than an editorial decision, and posted the rejected talk to YouTube herself.

Why this score — Overwhelmingly animal-product-based; the fruit/honey allowance doesn't change the core composition.

No dedicated trial/cohort evidence for his pattern; critics document cherry-picked studies (e.g., the Minnesota Coronary Experiment's ~75% dropout rate) used to support seed-oil claims.

Markets content as what "Big Food and Pharma won't tell you" — a persecution-narrative signal — and publicly discredits epidemiology as a category, an anti-empiricism signal. Board-certified in psychiatry, no nutrition-research record. Founded Heart & Soil organ-meat supplements, reported to have grown from $0 to $50M+ in three years.

Why this score — Minimal-to-no fiber intake by design.

Framed around personal athletic performance, not disease claims — a narrower and less evidentially-reaching claim than most peers here.

No persecution/anti-empiricism rhetoric found. Sells a branded product line (Keto Brick) rather than individualized coaching sold directly off personal health claims — a step removed from Hogan's or Cho's model, which is why this scores higher than most carnivore peers.

Why this score — Strict carnivore composition.

Personal testimony only; no research base.

No conspiracy or persecution rhetoric identified. Monetized via Patreon and brand sponsorships rather than individualized coaching sold off her own claims — a step removed from Hogan's or Cho's direct client-by-client model, though still tied to her personal-results narrative.

Why this score — Zero plant food of any kind by design.

No research base; pure self-experimentation and assertion.

About as textbook-crank as it gets: explicit conspiracy framing (vegetables and mainstream science as deliberate deception) plus flat-earth-adjacent anti-empiricism, and platform bans specifically for this content. (Separate, unrelated allegations of serious misconduct circulate but couldn't be verified through reliable journalism, so they're not factored into this score.)

Why this score — No longer vegan; the textbook case of public diet drift, included as a cautionary data point.

The in-scope exception to the conduct-doesn't-count rule: she repeatedly and publicly denied eating fish/eggs before admitting it — a direct claim-vs-reality falsification of her own stated facts, not mere personality.