Episode Transcript
[00:00:00] Speaker A: I hear sarcasm in your voice.
[00:00:01] Speaker B: A little bit of sarcasm in my voice. I guess I'm feeling sarcastic right now about all of this.
[00:00:06] Speaker A: Yeah. Because it's all a joke.
[00:00:07] Speaker B: It does.
[00:00:08] Speaker A: It feels like this is a joke.
[00:00:09] Speaker B: It feels like a joke. If it weren't so important to so many people, like, that's the thing is.
[00:00:15] Speaker A: Like, like, I'm not going to follow this.
[00:00:17] Speaker B: No. And, and you would want, you would say this is just a croc. Like, who cares? In this episode of the Duster Mud podcast, we're going to unpack the controversial findings and recommendations of the 2025 Dietary Guidelines adv.
We'll explore how these guidelines impact Americans, examine the science, or lack thereof, behind key recommendations, and discuss the influence of big food and pharma in shaping the nation's dietary advice. This episode aims to shed light on why these guidelines matter for everyone's health and challenge you to critically assess the advice you follow. Sit back, relax, and hang out with us as we bring you episode 190 of the Dusty Mud Podcast.
[00:01:04] Speaker A: Every five years, the United States government gets a committee of people together, and that committee of about 20 people, they come up with the dietary guidelines for Americans. And those people decide what we should and what we should not eat. It's 2025 coming up, and it's time for another set of dietary guidelines. We're going to discuss, discuss what's going on in the dietary guidelines right now. Welcome to the Dust or Mud podcast.
[00:01:33] Speaker B: I'm Shelley and I'm rich.
[00:01:34] Speaker A: After 25 years of rich being in the Air Force, we left Washington, D.C.
and you sat on some committees.
[00:01:45] Speaker B: Yeah.
[00:01:45] Speaker A: You sat in some think tank groups.
[00:01:48] Speaker B: Yes.
[00:01:49] Speaker A: You've kind of been in that space.
[00:01:52] Speaker B: Yes.
[00:01:52] Speaker A: So coming a little bit of a different perspective or a familiar perspective. Sometimes whenever we hear about these things, it sort of makes the, I don't know, Spidey senses, the tingly thing that you had a bit on the back of your neck go, ah, yeah, what's going on here?
[00:02:10] Speaker B: Right.
[00:02:11] Speaker A: You know, you can kind of question things in a different way than, than other people, than even I can. We left that world and we started farming because we like good food. And actually it turns out we don't want to eat what the guidelines say.
[00:02:25] Speaker B: No.
[00:02:26] Speaker A: We started growing our own food because we started learning about what we had been eating, what had been recommended to be eaten by Americans, and we wholeheartedly disagree with what's going on in those guidelines. So it's time for a new set. Everyone's really encouraged, hey, let's We've gotten a lot of new data. Let's put some, let's put some new guidelines out there for Americans so that we can maybe get healthy.
[00:02:53] Speaker B: Well, yeah. First off, why does it matter? Like who cares, who cares what the government says that we should or shouldn't eat? Right. Like what, what, what does it do? I think is the first thing to look at. Like why does it like the guidelines themselves, like why does it even matter? Um, the, the biggest thing is that's what all of the government food programs are based on. So we've talked about the snap is 80% of the farm bill. So like even our farm bill is based on what these guidelines say, right?
[00:03:30] Speaker A: Yeah. So.
Wow, you're right. I hadn't, I hadn't thought of it quite like that. But so the gov. So government programs who receive government funding are required or mandated that they have to follow these guidelines. So you mentioned snap, let's. Schools, school lunches, school hospitals.
[00:03:54] Speaker B: Yep.
[00:03:55] Speaker A: All of your hospital meals, probably your nursing home type places.
[00:03:59] Speaker B: Yep.
[00:03:59] Speaker A: Senior meals, senior meals.
So as, as a family, like you can kind of do what you want.
[00:04:05] Speaker B: Wic, even wic.
[00:04:07] Speaker A: Okay. What they're, what they can receive on wic.
[00:04:10] Speaker B: That's right.
[00:04:11] Speaker A: And that's, that's pretty much a set type of foods. Peanut butter, eggs, low fat milk.
[00:04:19] Speaker B: There's, there are actually based on the dietary.
[00:04:23] Speaker A: Dietary guidelines. Right. So the young people in our country and the older people in our country are more affected by them because they're probably going to be in some setting that, that is being forced to follow these guidelines.
[00:04:39] Speaker B: Well and very significant for me, the military also. So your military meals are based on the US government's dietary guidelines as well. So even MREs or your dining facility meals, they're all the, the foundation of all of that is your U.S. government dietary guidelines, your prisons. Like there are a, there are a lot. This actually like it matters to a lot of people. Millions of people are, are fed based on what these guidelines say.
[00:05:17] Speaker A: Okay. So they get together a group of people.
[00:05:19] Speaker B: Yep.
[00:05:20] Speaker A: We've got 330 million something people in this country.
Yeah, well it's a lot. And a lot of them are highly educated and know things.
[00:05:31] Speaker B: Yeah, they, they got together a group of 20.
[00:05:34] Speaker A: Okay.
[00:05:34] Speaker B: And I tell you, so we're going to go, we've got, they just released their report and it, the report is what then the actual guidelines are based on. So this report, they've been working on it, this is a 2024 report and it will form the foundation for what becomes the 20, 25 U.S. dietary guidelines, the 20 individuals. Well, we've, we've got three things that we think are the big issues for us with this report. We did a, it's a long, almost 500 page report. We did a, a skim, not a deep dive. We haven't had time. They just released it but, but we skimmed it. We found three things that we believe are the key controversial issues for us in this report.
[00:06:27] Speaker A: Well, and one of the biggest things for me is the first problem, which is conflicts of interest.
By far to me that is the biggest problem because that has the most influence is the conflicts of interest of the people that they put onto this committee. There are 20 people and a large portion of them have significant conflicts of interest within corporations. Pharmaceutical, pharmaceutical companies, Big Food and Big Ag.
And those are the three groups, or I guess groups of corporations, just big everything that are going to benefit from whatever these guidelines say that Americans should eat because that's where the money is going to go.
[00:07:20] Speaker B: I'll link the report. There's a 35 page report that goes into each individual and their potential conflicts of interest. They label them as high, medium, low or no risk of conflicts of interest. It's based on actual data, publicly available data. I'll also leave a link to the five page self proclaimed conflicts of interest of the people that are on this committee.
[00:07:50] Speaker A: The most notable thing is that nearly half of them had a conflict of interest and some of them, Eli Lilly.
[00:07:57] Speaker B: Novo Nordisk, Eli Lilly, Coca Cola, Dannon.
[00:08:05] Speaker A: Okay, interesting though, right? I mean we can't accuse them of anything and we don't know necessarily who, who worked for or was tied to whom.
[00:08:17] Speaker B: Well, if we look at the long report, there's a pretty, you get a pretty good idea of who's tied to whom. The, the chairman of the entire board is very much tied to like baby formula and things like that. So like you can, you can, you can figure it out. Quite a few of them have ties to weight loss companies.
So a healthy person doesn't need a weight loss company.
[00:08:48] Speaker A: Right. And a healthy person doesn't need Nova Nordisk, who is the company who makes wegovia and oic.
[00:08:59] Speaker B: Yep. There's one that's tied to the, the folks that found, I believe, the GLP1 inhibitors.
[00:09:05] Speaker A: Yeah.
Okay, so we have a conf. We have conflicts of interest with these 20 people. It's a very small group of people by the way. And they're all doctors and PhDs. They're very, very smart people. They've gone to high, very renowned universities Right. Yeah. But back to my point. Of their 330/something million people in this country and the 20 that we put on this board, nearly half of them have conflicts of interest with these companies.
[00:09:33] Speaker B: Right.
Yeah.
[00:09:35] Speaker A: We couldn't find people who were non biased.
[00:09:38] Speaker B: We couldn't find 10 more people.
[00:09:40] Speaker A: No. That were, that weren't biased. Who weren't, who weren't influencing or influenced by these.
The money in this country.
[00:09:51] Speaker B: Yeah.
[00:09:51] Speaker A: Okay.
[00:09:51] Speaker B: Their self proclaimed list is a five page list and it only covers the last 12 months.
[00:09:57] Speaker A: Typically whenever they do conflicts of interest and they have disclosures, a lot of times companies will report five years.
[00:10:08] Speaker B: Yeah, the 35 page report that I'll link as well. I believe it goes back five years. Okay, but it's, but that one isn't like self proclaimed. It's just hey, public. What public information is available for these, the 20 people that are on the board. So it's, it, it has nothing to do with private. It's just like you know, they were speakers at this conference that was put on by Coca Cola. You know, like it can list those types of things. There are some, it lists out some honorariums where it's like, you know, they were given $3,500 for this and $5,000 for that.
[00:10:55] Speaker A: So perhaps if we're going to make guidelines who are then made into requirements for what people should eat in institutions across this country, maybe we should have some stricter standards on who we put onto the committee to make these decisions for our nation.
[00:11:17] Speaker B: We're certainly not the first people to say that this is not the first time that it's been brought up the, that this issue has been an issue for years and is brought up every single time. And every time it is ignored and it's ignored again. Yeah.
[00:11:34] Speaker A: And I guess it will be again. What we're trying to do is just bring light to it and let people know you can think and research for yourself.
[00:11:41] Speaker B: And one of the things I was seeing in 2022, there's, there's like $169 million from the agrib business industry spent lobbying in, In Congress in D.C. there's like third. I think it was 39 million from the big food.
[00:12:04] Speaker A: Yeah.
[00:12:04] Speaker B: But agrib business, over $160 million in one year.
[00:12:11] Speaker A: That's a lot of money paying politicians.
I mean that's what I was doing. Politicians.
[00:12:19] Speaker B: You wonder why making sure that bad and can't change.
[00:12:22] Speaker A: Right?
[00:12:23] Speaker B: Yeah, well it, it, we can talk about how it got bad later on another podcast, but it doesn't Change. Because all of the money that's spent keeping it the same.
I don't know. It's crazy. So second, second key issue we find with their, their scientific study is.
[00:12:48] Speaker A: Well, they, because it's recommendations. Right. It's guidelines on what you should and what you should not eat. They found enough evidence, scientific based evidence to restrict to, to recommend the restriction of red meat and saturated fat.
[00:13:08] Speaker B: Yeah.
Somehow, Somehow I'm sure it has nothing to do with the, the person on the committee who is funded by Beyond Meat. Nor does it have anything to do with the Harvard Chan School of Medicine, whatever committee member that is consistently putting out anti meat propaganda.
[00:13:35] Speaker A: Yeah. Couldn't, couldn't have any. There's sarcasm in your voice.
[00:13:38] Speaker B: A little bit of sarcasm in my voice.
[00:13:40] Speaker A: Yeah.
[00:13:40] Speaker B: I guess I'm feeling sarcastic right now about all of this.
[00:13:43] Speaker A: Yeah. Because it's all a joke. It does, it feels like this is a joke.
[00:13:46] Speaker B: It feels like a joke. If it weren't so important to so many people. Like that's the thing is like, like.
[00:13:52] Speaker A: I'm not gonna follow this.
[00:13:54] Speaker B: No. And, and you would want, you would say this is just a croc. Like who cares?
[00:13:58] Speaker A: Yeah.
[00:13:59] Speaker B: Like I, obviously this is junk science. It's not based on anything or it's based on the same crap that they always base it on. And like whatever. I'm going to largely ignore it. Like I have been.
[00:14:14] Speaker A: Yeah. But the second grader sitting in school can't.
[00:14:16] Speaker B: The prisoner can't. The military member can't.
[00:14:19] Speaker A: Right.
[00:14:20] Speaker B: Yeah.
So the, the, they were able to find enough scientific evidence that they said they are going to recommend that the red meat and saturated fat be limited.
[00:14:34] Speaker A: Yeah. And clinical trials cited in support of these recommendations fail to show statistically significant health benefits.
[00:14:44] Speaker B: Right. So they, and that's why I throw out the word junk science. They, they've found some studies and some of them are like the Harvard School of Medicine studies that we've talked about in the past where they, it's, it's fairly junky science.
[00:15:02] Speaker A: Yeah.
[00:15:02] Speaker B: And they make recommendations against red meat and they have used those types of studies with, you know, sparse or no evidence and they have cited those studies as the evidence for. Okay, we should limit the intake of red meat now. Don't eat red meat if you don't want to eat red meat. Like I don't, I don't care.
[00:15:25] Speaker A: Yeah.
[00:15:25] Speaker B: But to list it as a limit.
[00:15:28] Speaker A: A restriction.
[00:15:28] Speaker B: A restriction.
[00:15:29] Speaker A: We should restrict how much we eat.
That's different.
[00:15:33] Speaker B: Yeah. Like if I were going to make any guideline, it would be Eat more red meat.
[00:15:38] Speaker A: Yeah.
[00:15:39] Speaker B: Because of the health benefits.
[00:15:40] Speaker A: Because it's nutrient dense and it's good for you.
[00:15:43] Speaker B: Right. I mean like that's something that scientifically you can prove the nutrient content in red meat.
[00:15:50] Speaker A: Yes.
[00:15:51] Speaker B: You can prove the iron content in red meat. Like there are, there are nutrients that are there and that is provable.
[00:15:57] Speaker A: And it's provable that it is more bioavailable, correct source of nutrition, protein even and protein than say the alternative of.
[00:16:07] Speaker B: Plant proteins, which is what they're recommending instead of red meat is all of the different plant proteins.
[00:16:14] Speaker A: Eat plant proteins if you want to.
[00:16:17] Speaker B: Right.
[00:16:17] Speaker A: The. By all means there is, there is protein in plants, but the bioavailability, the amount, the concentration and what you actually get from them is just different. Right.
[00:16:32] Speaker B: Well, which leads us to the last, what we think of as a conflict with this, with this particular report. And that is there was not enough scientific evidence for them to recommend against ultra processed foods.
[00:16:49] Speaker A: Yeah. They did not recommend limiting the amount of ultra processed foods in the American diet.
[00:16:58] Speaker B: So the report states that there are. Let me get the numbers exact.
[00:17:04] Speaker A: They cited that there was insufficient evidence despite bipartisan concern. This concerns everyone, both sides of the aisle.
[00:17:13] Speaker B: Yeah. First of all, so that 73% of US adults are overweight or obese and 38% of teens are pre diabetic. In their report is what they say.
[00:17:25] Speaker A: It'S probably caused by saturated fat and red meat.
No, no, no, it is.
[00:17:32] Speaker B: They talk about, I mean they even talk about the ultra, ultra processed foods. Upfs, the ultra processed foods. They talk about the, how calorie dense they are, how they are hyper palatable, how they do not have the things in them that trigger our satiety mechanisms so that you just continue to eat.
[00:17:55] Speaker A: You can't just eat just one.
[00:17:57] Speaker B: No one can eat just one.
[00:17:58] Speaker A: That's right.
[00:17:59] Speaker B: Right. So like they talk about that.
[00:18:01] Speaker A: They know that that's there. They know it's a problem.
[00:18:04] Speaker B: That's right. But somehow there's not enough scientific evidence to recommend against ultra processed foods. But yet there was enough scientific evidence to recommend against red meat. Like the, the lunacy. There's that word again. The lunacy of red meat should be limited, but ultra processed foods should not be limited. Is just ridiculous that like if you could prove a conflict of interest, it would be something like that.
A thing that is guaranteed good for you is limited. Things that are guaranteed bad for you unlimited.
The only way you can get there is a conflict of interest.
[00:18:49] Speaker A: Thousand percent.
Yeah. That's the only way. Because nobody in their actual right minds, these quote, Nutritionists and these PhDs and have all of these laundry, you know, list of degrees hanging on their wall. There's no way that these people think that this is okay, that these are actually healthy for you, because I guarantee you they don't have them in their pantry. Not by much. I bet you they don't. I bet you that. Oh, well, I mean, I don't eat that well. Why not? Well, my kids don't eat it. Right. Like, I, I bet you, I bet you, I bet you actual money that they do not have a lot of these things in their pantry because they know that they're not good for their kids and they're not good for themselves.
I'm telling you, I personally think that the, the concept of these guidelines. Well, first of all, guidelines sounds like it's kind of a just a recommendation, but it really becomes a mandate to the institutions and organizations who receive federal funding. And in my opinion, the only way to really get out of this horrible mess that we're in with our diets in this country is to just eliminate them.
Just complete. Just eliminate them. Because it's making people have to do things that they don't necessarily want to do. And I don't. Let's start over. Scrap it because there's too much money. There's too much outside messed up influence going into them. It, it's just money.
[00:20:37] Speaker B: I think, I think start over, nobody cares. I think start over is a better way to look at it than do.
[00:20:43] Speaker A: Away with, okay, scrap. Let's just.
[00:20:45] Speaker B: Because, like, yeah, but you know, the, just take military, right? Like you, you have to base what meals they're eating on something, right? Like it has to be based on something.
Otherwise they could say, you know, here's your crackers. You know, like there, there has to be some acknowledged, accepted, you know, nutritional guidelines, right? Like, here's, here's the, the type of nutrition that we should provide to our, our military members.
You know, I, I think that, I think that you have to have something, but I, I think, I think starting over is a great idea.
Somehow. If we could only find 20 people that aren't tied to big food, big pharma lobbyists, you know, like all of the, if we could find some, some folks without conflicts of interest.
[00:21:57] Speaker A: At the end of the day, these guidelines are on behalf of, not because of, or, or they're not trying to tell America, they're not to tell American people what to do, but these are on behalf of the American taxpayer.
[00:22:12] Speaker B: Yeah, right.
[00:22:13] Speaker A: Right. So these People are supposed to be getting together and coming up on behalf of the American taxpayer. Hey, this is where we want federal money to go to feed our military. To feed the people in prison. Sure. To feed the kids in our schools on behalf of us. This is where we would like our taxpayer dollars to go to feed these folks.
[00:22:37] Speaker B: Right.
[00:22:38] Speaker A: And they get together and unfortunately, why in the world Coca Cola is in the room at all? Why in the world, anyone? This doesn't have anything to do with pharmaceuticals. This doesn't have a thing to do with the price of rice. I don't care. It has to do with the nutrition of the kids in the schools.
[00:22:58] Speaker B: Right. You shouldn't have weight loss companies in there.
[00:23:01] Speaker A: A weight loss company should have no say in it. Absolutely none. I don't even think agriculture should have a say in it. I don't think anyone should. This should be a, A group of people, bipartisan, or you call it what you want. A group of unbiased, bipartisan human beings who have an understanding of basic nutrition and the things that the human body needs. And they get together and they come up with on behalf of the taxpayers, hey, this is what people should be eating, you know, and instead they're over. They're influenced ridiculously by all of this money.
[00:23:38] Speaker B: Yeah, yeah. There's a lot of it too.
[00:23:40] Speaker A: And, and the kindergartner is the one suffering.
[00:23:42] Speaker B: Right.
[00:23:43] Speaker A: Because that kindergartener is going to be in the military. No, I'm sorry, I correct myself. That kindergartener isn't going to make it to the military because they're going to be pre diabetic by then. They're not going to qualify for the military because what these folks have decided the kindergartner should eat their entire life. And by the time you get to be 18 years old, you're not even qualified because you've been eating the things that these people want to sell you. This is nothing but. This is nothing but a sales tactic from the, the big companies to the American people to get a customer for life.
[00:24:17] Speaker B: Yes.
From the ultra processed foods to the drugs that result.
[00:24:22] Speaker A: Right. Paid for by us.
[00:24:25] Speaker B: Yes.
[00:24:26] Speaker A: Who absolutely disagree with nearly everything in the guidelines.
[00:24:30] Speaker B: Right.
[00:24:31] Speaker A: Because the basis that they come at it, they will not just say this junk is. But I'm not saying they can't make the thing. Make coke, make Doritos, make all of the junk food, I don't care what you do, make it, but make the flour, make all of the pizzas, that's fine, it's a free country, but not. Don't mandate that these kids eat it.
I'm most worried about the kids, you know.
[00:24:59] Speaker B: Yeah, we'll go back to the. No restrictions on ultra processed foods.
Restrictions on red meat.
[00:25:07] Speaker A: Yeah, like.
[00:25:08] Speaker B: Yeah, okay.
[00:25:10] Speaker A: Like it's, it's junk. I can't, I don't have any. I just, I can't respect, I can't respect their. What they have to say because of their conflicts of interest. I can't even hear you.
[00:25:21] Speaker B: Yeah, unfortunately it matters.
[00:25:23] Speaker A: It does matter.
[00:25:24] Speaker B: That's the point is that, that it is actually unfortunate that the. These committees, this committee in particular, their recommendations actually matter. And it matters to all of us really. Even if you just take the military. Because that's. Those are the folks that are defending us.
[00:25:48] Speaker A: I have an idea for whoever is about to come be the head of all of this stuff. Why don't you scrap it?
[00:25:56] Speaker B: Yeah.
[00:25:56] Speaker A: Reconvene a committee. That makes sense. Well, that can actually come up with something that is good for them.
[00:26:02] Speaker B: That is one good thing. That, because the report was just now released, the scientific report. There are 60 days for comment and then they have to adjudicate the comments and then they make the guidelines. That happens after a change of administration. So no matter how you feel about the change of administration, the actual guidelines are going to be published by the new administration. So there is an opportunity for this junk science to be tossed and have some other guidelines that are based on something other than the millions of dollars that are spent buying off the. The reports.
Cool.
[00:26:49] Speaker A: That's good.
[00:26:51] Speaker B: Who do we call?
Well, obviously you can call your congressman. Right?
Yeah, I think that's probably the best.
[00:27:00] Speaker A: Bet is when they say, when you said open for comments. That is public comment on. Yeah, on this. Public comment from anybody.
[00:27:07] Speaker B: Yeah.
[00:27:08] Speaker A: Okay.
[00:27:08] Speaker B: Typically from, from what I've seen from my research, typically the comments are dominated by the food industry.
[00:27:18] Speaker A: Yeah, I saw that too.
[00:27:20] Speaker B: That is part of where they spend their millions of dollars is in commenting on things like this. So if there was a recommendation against ultra processed foods, then they would just flood the comment section against that recommendation.
[00:27:38] Speaker A: Got it.
[00:27:39] Speaker B: So that's where the majority of the comments come from is from the industry affected by the. The report.
Not me and you.
[00:27:49] Speaker A: But there are over 300 million people.
[00:27:52] Speaker B: That's true.
[00:27:54] Speaker A: We can affect the change that we want.
[00:27:56] Speaker B: That's true.
[00:27:57] Speaker A: We really can. You can vote with your dollars and you can call your congressman, you can call your senator, you can call, you can make comments to this.
[00:28:07] Speaker B: That's right.
[00:28:08] Speaker A: And that's a lot of bombardment. If we as the people said to Them. No.
[00:28:16] Speaker B: Right?
Yeah. I mean individually, you can vote with your dollar.
[00:28:20] Speaker A: Sure.
[00:28:21] Speaker B: Buy whole food, find it local if you can. If you can't. Got it. Not everyone can.
[00:28:28] Speaker A: Right.
[00:28:29] Speaker B: Buy whole food, don't buy the ultra processed foods. And there now your life has now changed.
[00:28:37] Speaker A: Sure.
[00:28:39] Speaker B: As far as changing the life of those who rely on these government programs for their nutrition, that's where what you just said comes in.
[00:28:48] Speaker A: But people who are, who get snap, the, the benefit that they have is that they are allowed to use that to buy any food. And therefore you can make the choice to buy the whole food. I know that it's more expensive, but it is also more nutritious. So if you did decide to make that decision for your family and use those benefits to, to promote or to. To. To buy that, the whole food for your family, that, that speaks volumes as well.
[00:29:20] Speaker B: Consider money saved, staying out of the doctor's office, getting off of the prescriptions. If you consider that as money saved, that is money that is available to spend on whole food.
[00:29:32] Speaker A: True. That's right.
[00:29:34] Speaker B: So the, the cost of the cheap ultra processed food comes in the doctor's visits and the prescriptions.
[00:29:43] Speaker A: Well put.
Hey, if you guys enjoyed this, this podcast, then we welcome you to Insteader Nation.
I like your shirt, by the way.
[00:29:55] Speaker B: Thank you.
[00:29:56] Speaker A: What does it say? I don't know what that one says.
Insteader. So wait a minute, let me back up just a second. An instead, if you're new here, an insteader is someone who decides to do something instead of what they say we're supposed to do. And so we don't follow the dietary guidelines. We eat whole homegrown food instead. So that would be kind of an instead.
[00:30:22] Speaker B: And what this says is instead are one who prefers self reliance and sustainable living instead of conventional norms.
[00:30:31] Speaker A: And mine says live life on your own terms, Insteader. Hey, if you like these T shirts, we do have them at Erdogan Farms, they're for sale. There's a whole bunch of different styles that you can choose from. There's some for women, like short sleeves, there's dude stuff that's got skulls, I think and stuff like that. So hey, go check those out. If you think that you're an insteader as well, go get an instead of T shirt. We, we were just feeling much in the mood right now.
And until next time. Bye y'all.
[00:31:03] Speaker B: Bye.
