'The Game Changers' Documentary

Steve A

Level 5 Valued Member
@Steve A
Honestly by weight I don't eat a lot of meat products anyway. It wouldn't be any trouble to eat double the legume by weight compared to most meats, I just shrink my "starch" portions a little or swap them out entirely.

I put on about 20 lbs lean weight on nearly 100% vegan / 100% vegetarian diet. As long as your digestive system is OK with legumes and soy it really isn't difficult. All the rest of the diet is not very different.

I'll say this, it takes a lot less know how/planning to get all your nutrition if animal products are added to the list, makes it easier by far.
Those are great results.

I think you should give yourself more credit. You've acquired a level of knowledge (which took time and effort) and you gain well (some combination of knowledge, effort and physiology).
 

North Coast Miller

Level 7 Valued Member
Those are great results.

I think you should give yourself more credit. You've acquired a level of knowledge (which took time and effort) and you gain well (some combination of knowledge, effort and physiology).
I'll be 100% on this, I no longer am anywhere near vegan or vegetarian, largely for convenience reasons. When my daughter stopped being veg I went right back, although I still don't eat a ton of meat. I was also coming off of a pretty low weight or I'd have had to supplement.

Again, not a real big "game changer" (sorry couldn't resist) as I don't think I could have done my most recent 15lb lean gain w/out a lot of whey powder. That's not an entirely fair fight though, in either case. I was 42-44 when I put on that 20 lbs and training around a bunch of wrist surgeries. Latest I was three months out from my 52nd Bday. Not the bestest time of life to put on a bunch of muscle however you go about it.

All that said, going 90% veg is as easy as 1 to 1 subbing out in a very similar meal format to an omni diet. It has NEVER been easier to go veg and still hit all your nutritional needs than right now.
 

vegpedlr

Level 6 Valued Member
Whenever I watch it, I get hungry for Mexican food.

Which is one of the little things I liked about it. A persisting vegan stereotype is horrible, weird food, when the fact is, most world cuisines are very easy to veganize. So those burritos looked good, and surprised some of the subjects. I suspect, and wish they would have stated so, that they made the burritos to be basically the same calories and macros, just with or without animal protein.

What's for dinner tonight? Oh yeah, TACOS!
 

Eyetic

Level 4 Valued Member
Every kind of excess is bad talking about nutrition, too much of a single thing leads your body to severe imbalance. There are essentials that you need to keep to stay healthy.

For example talking about Tacos, I live in Mexico, If I have Tacos in every meal i'll end up probably fat, and with high cholesterol lvls if I'm vegan and only eat that kind of foods I'll surely lack of other essential like B12, Iron, Calcium, Omega 3...dont matter if you are on Keto diet, Carnivore diet, Paleo diet, Vegan diet, Vegetarian diet...its ok for me, just be aware that you will be lacking something for sure.

I'm like a 4x4 when eating, I just eat straight whatever it is, in reasonable amounts and keeping as much variety as possible during the whole week, considering and adjusted to all the other conditions that may affect it (intolerances, overweight, diabetes)
 

vegpedlr

Level 6 Valued Member
Possibly worth noting is that populations with extraordinary longevity often came up a little short on some things. We've made it this far because we're pretty resilient.

In a weirdly ironic twist, the modern world has a surplus of food, with one segment struggling to get some, while another frets over what is "lacking."
 

Jon_Frost

Level 5 Valued Member
This right here ^.


When any different protocol can show equivalent results to clinical results that McDougall/Esselstyn/Ornish/Pritikin/Kempner have been documenting since the 1940s, I’ll revise my opinion.


Where or what would I search to find out what this is? Thanks
 
Last edited:

vegpedlr

Level 6 Valued Member
Search those names. All are medical doctors that ran clinical programs using a similar approach. Kempner with The Rice Diet in the 40s, Pritikin in the 60s and 70s, McDougall from the 70s and still running, Ornish and Esselstyn from the 80s and still going. All have kept patient data and published it periodically.

It may not be perfect, but I have yet to see any approach with better outcomes and lower risks.
 

Steve A

Level 5 Valued Member
When any different protocol can show equivalent results to clinical results that McDougall/Esselstyn/Ornish/Pritikin/Kempner have been documenting since the 1940s, I’ll revise my opinion.


Where or what would I search to find out what this is? Thanks
You can find position papers, books, and even some "research" papers by most of these. What I have found and read (books from library, papers in pdf easily found, some have websites) can only be considered weak as evidence supporting veganism. Yes, they have some clinical results specific to CVD, but with way too many confounding variables. But here are some links to get you started:

Esselstyn More Incredibly Bad Science From Dr. Esselstyn's Plant-Based (Vegan) Diet Study - The Skeptical Cardiologist

Kempner - no links, if you can follow that diet for any length of time, yikes

Ornish http://users.stat.ufl.edu/~winner/consult/diet.pdf and

Is Dean Ornish's Lifestyle Program "Scientifically Proven To Undo (Reverse) Heart Disease?" - The Skeptical Cardiologist

Pritikin The Pritikin Diet: Discredited By Medicine But Now Endorsed By Your Federal Government! - The Skeptical Cardiologist

Now that is all CVD stuff. As for other problems like T2D, there is plenty of anecdotal reporting you can find on the web of how symptoms got worse (especially look for McDougall on this one). And there are plenty of doctors reporting clinical results on improving T2D using low carb - different condition, so let's say analogous, not equivalent, results.

Now for a bit of irony that seems to get missed. Vegans often like to argue that people will cling to whatever supports them eating what they want to eat. True. But check out McDougall's shtick: https://smile.amazon.com/Healthiest..._1_5?keywords=mcdougall&qid=1576343772&sr=8-5

Now lest you think the above is all from those against "plant based diets" consider this paper by Katz (and by all means look up his stuff and see his position): https://www.annualreviews.org/doi/10.1146/annurev-publhealth-032013-182351 Especially notice the last paragraph under vegan diets (also notice he does not reference any of these doctors, and wonder why a serious researcher wouldn't).
 

vegpedlr

Level 6 Valued Member
It may be useful for some to remember that very few people involved with these programs ever refer to them as vegan, due to persistent negative connotations.

I'm familiar with the criticism, it's easy to do, and never been compelling to me. Especially the personal criticism, but Kempner does deserve some.

Collectively, these programs have run for decades and helped thousands of regular people. I've yet to see any other approach with a better risk to benefit ratio documented, even with the shortcomings.

Along with consistent misuse and overuse of "literally" as an intensity qualifier, "debunk" makes me want to take a shot.
 

Van Der Merve

Level 2 Valued Member

Wilks rebuttal... pretty strong position
No. He pretty much bullied his way through the debate. Went on unnecessary tangents - for example, discrediting a study because one of the authors in the past was sponsored by beef industry. Appealed to authority, attacked Cresser personally ("I can't believe you can't read the forest chart!").

Here is the podcast where this debate is commented on:

https://www.peak-human.com/post/did...t-against-chris-kresser-with-paul-saladino-md
 

Van Der Merve

Level 2 Valued Member
In general, methodology used in epidemiological nutritional studies is poor. Questionnaires are incredibly unreliable and inaccurate. Similar to throwing bricks and then presenting the results in millimetres. As the rule, odds ratio of at least 2.0 is required in order to take the result somewhat seriously. As an example, mortality among smokers is several times that of non-smokers. That's something you should pay attention to. In one Swedish studies they found that mortality among people taking multivitamins is 17% higher than among those who don't . This is an insignificant finding that does not deserve any attention.

Presenting the results in relative values - a common trend in this science - makes the results more impressive than they really are. For example, mortality among vegans is 0.5% per year while in meat eaters it is 0.75%. The difference of 0.25% per year. However, if you present it in relative values mortality in meat eaters is 50% higher than in vegans, much more impressive. Yet, it is under 1% in both groups.

To top it all up there is the dishonesty of researchers in their media communications. While in the study they will say "there is an association between variable X and outcome Z, more research is necessary to elucidate possible causal relationship", talking to journalists they will state "X causes Y".

What I am getting at, WHO conclusions on processed meat being a carcinogen is based on poor data and is, therefore, unsubstantiated.
 
Last edited:

LukeV

Level 5 Valued Member
In general, methodology used in epidemiological nutritional studies is poor. Questionnaires are incredibly unreliable and inaccurate. Similar to throwing bricks and then presenting the results in millimetres. As the rule, odds ratio of at least 2.0 is required in order to take the result somewhat seriously. As an example, mortality among smokers is several times that of non-smokers. That's something you should pay attention to. In one Swedish studies they found that mortality among people taking multivitamins is 17% higher than among those who don't . This is an insignificant finding that does not deserve any attention.

Presenting the results in relative values - a common trend in this science - makes the results more impressive than they really are. For example, mortality among vegans is 0.5% per year while in meat eaters it is 0.75%. The difference of 0.25% per year. However, if you present it in relative values mortality in meat eaters is 50% higher than in vegans, much more impressive. Yet, it is under 1% in both groups.

To top it all up there is the dishonesty of researchers in their media communications. While in the study they will say "there is an association between variable X and outcome Z, more research is necessary to elucidate possible causal relationship", talking to journalists they will state "X causes Y".

What I am getting at, WHO conclusions on processed meat being a carcinogen is based on poor data and is, therefore, unsubstantiated.
I agree with that entirely and the onus should be on the researcher to disclose absolute risk (as is now required in many scientific journals) and outline all the conclusions not just the one's they like. For example, Australia's National Health and Medical Research Council (our chief embodiment of the nanny state) recently released new guidelines on alcohol - announced to great fanfare as no more than 10 standard drinks weekly. However embedded in the data (towards the back of the report) was that their research had the same level of risk at 21 standard drinks weekly. So why announce 10? When pressed publicly they begrudgingly said that as public health guidelines they had to err on the side of caution. Ummmm how about erring on the side of honesty and completeness? Further the areas of alcohol related harm lessened by their advice included those more commonly associated with alcoholism such tuberculosis and antisocial behaviour such as violence and motor vehicle accidents. So your average conscientious drinker who doesn't drive drunk or get into fights, let alone die from third world diseases like tuberculosis, doesn't get much guidance from 10 (or 21) standard drinks weekly
 

Sean M

Level 6 Valued Member
Finally got around to watching it.
  • “Plant-based diet” is never defined. They infer it means “no meat or animal products”, but couldn’t the Standard American Diet of 80%+ grains and vegetable/seed oils also be considered plant-based? I believe only 15% of average calories in America are from protein, and not all of that is animal based. Didn’t we take the government’s advice in the 70s and reduce meat (with refined carbs and industrial oils taking its place)? Aren’t we already “plant-based”? Why not come right out and call it what it is: anti-meat diet?
  • “Protein isn’t a good fuel” - who is saying it is? Protein intake swings ~80g between “high protein” (say 220g for 200lb male) and “moderate protein” (160g, and the RDA, which the filmmakers recommend for most people, of 0.8g/kg would be only 72g!), the rest of calories some proportion of carbs and fat as the energy/fuel source. Carbs and fat are fuel, protein is building blocks. I’m agnostic protein source; I just happen to prefer a steak to lentils.
  • Let’s not be naive: Burger King has the Impossible Burger primarily because they don’t make much margin on meat patties (rather: fries and soda) and may be able to get more margin out of a plant-based patty.
  • The film is very slick, effective propaganda by people with a vested ideological and financial interest in alternatives to animal proteins.
  • The sustainability debate - can the earth sustain everyone eating as much animal protein as Americans do? - is worth having, and I think the solutions aren’t as clear as the film suggests near the end.
 

North Coast Miller

Level 7 Valued Member
Sustainability debate under current dynamics is moot. If the entire planet drank as much beer as the average American or N European, very few could afford so much as a quart. Consider the inputs going from barley to beef or hog, not to mention the ecological burden of feces lagoons and their frequent contamination of adjacent lands and waterways.


This is an oversimplification. Barley needs to be malted, mashed, mixed with hopps etc, but not anything more complicated per serving than beef or pork.
 

Van Der Merve

Level 2 Valued Member
There is a lot of animal protein for the taking without the need of cultivation: wild life. There are plenty of edible animals whose population can be reduced without harm to the environment and likely to its benefit. Bears in North America and pretty much every species of animals in Australia, just two examples of edible protein that will take very little resource to obtain. Unlike barley, for which large areas of land have to be cleared and which will take a long time to grow and quite a bit of work to process.
 

ali

Level 6 Valued Member
and pretty much every species of animals in Australia, just two examples of edible protein that will take very little resource to obtain.
Not anymore!
Animal v plant protein argument for performance is lost to the grim reality of climate change.
If the world went vegan, would it slow climate change, even if fossil fuel use, air travel and plastic waste stayed the same?
I've no idea. Would it help? A bit, a lot? Again, no idea.
Is a compromise available?
I think there is on a personal level. I eat less meat and animal produce.
Generally if we all ate less, literally used less carbon, then that's something at least.
I think climate, environmental and ethical considerations outweigh getting 2 extra reps or extending your battle rope workout or bigger biceps or a bigger penis.
There's an unreality in the planet of health and fitness.
But a very real one outside of it.
The game has changed.
 

North Coast Miller

Level 7 Valued Member
There is a lot of animal protein for the taking without the need of cultivation: wild life. There are plenty of edible animals whose population can be reduced without harm to the environment and likely to its benefit. Bears in North America and pretty much every species of animals in Australia, just two examples of edible protein that will take very little resource to obtain. Unlike barley, for which large areas of land have to be cleared and which will take a long time to grow and quite a bit of work to process.
I think if you look at places where people rely primarily on bush meat is also where everything is going extinct most rapidly. If the industrial meat production in N America were to stop tomorrow I'm guessing within a year you wouldn't see a single woodchuck or rabbit in the wild, let alone larger animals. Human population, or at least the % of meat eating people would have to shrink by several orders for bushmeat to provide ample sustenance.
 
Top Bottom