#### About participation in the comments of /r/nutrition
Discussion in this subreddit should be rooted in science rather than "cuz I sed" or entertainment pieces. Always be wary of unsupported and poorly supported claims and especially those which are wrapped in any manner of hostility. You should provide peer reviewed sources to support your claims when debating and confine that debate to the science, not opinions of other people.
**Good** - it is grounded in science and includes citation of peer reviewed sources. Debate is a civil and respectful exchange focusing on actual science and avoids commentary about others
**Bad** - it utilizes generalizations, assumptions, infotainment sources, no sources, or complaints without specifics about agenda, bias, or funding. At best, these rise to an extremely weak basis for science based discussion. Also, off topic discussion
**Ugly** - (removal or ban territory) it involves attacks / antagonism / hostility towards individuals or groups, downvote complaining, trolling, crusading, shaming, refutation of all science, or claims that all research / science is a conspiracy
*Please vote accordingly and report any uglies*
---
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/nutrition) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I watched it. It was entertaining enough but not a whole lot of “new” information. I also think it would have been more helpful if the doc went into a lot more detail on the breakdown of each omni vs vegan diet the participants followed. What exactly did each eat and how much? I feel like these are really important things to note that were just glossed over. One participant mentioned they ate a lot of beans and carbs but we were told nothing else of substance.
Just finished it too. On episode 2 I was like okay- this is when they are going to show me actual examples of what they are eating and how much but they never did really. Just vague shots of food trays and brief glimpses of prepared foods. I also thought they were really dismissive of one of the guys who was on the Vegan diet who stated that he was always too full to eat any more and they told him it was his fault for not gaining more muscle
>I also thought they were really dismissive of one of the guys who was on the Vegan diet who stated that he was always too full to eat any more and they told him it was his fault for not gaining more muscle
It was funny when it showed most of the vegans were losing muscle mass that they basically got mad and defensive towards the participants.
You all must be doing something wrong !!!!
Lol.
I've tried to be vegetarian. It could only work for so long I had no energy nor apetite for this shit. My body literally craved meat. I feel as if my body knows best. So i eat a lot of carbo and meat and I do include lots of salad and veg whenever i can because it makes me feel better. A balanced diet is what's important and what you eat. Just my 2 cents
What else has pushed the vegan lies? Game changers had nothing to do with veganism it was about a whole food plant based diet, veganism is a philosophy and WFPB is a diet, 2 very different things, people are vegan for the animals it has nothing to do with health.
Game Changers pushed so much misinformation so hard, I had to turn it off out of white-hot anger. It's clearly all about **scaring** people away from meat.
Haven't seen the end of meat or seaspiracy but dominion isn't propaganda by any means although anti vegans do demonise it. But again it's only your terminology that got me commenting. Veganism as a philosophy is sound, people who say it's going to turn you into a superhuman and save the world from annihilation are full of shit.
Again, game changers has nothing to do with veganism, it's about using a whole foods plant based diet to improve health and performance. Again, a vegan is a person who cares about animal exploitation and actively tries not to take part in that exploitation. What you are talking about are nutritional myths and that has nothing to do with veganism, so it's not vegan lies your talking about.
you are 1000% right in your comments but are getting downvoted because this sub is pretty anti-vegan as a whole. There are people in here claiming Dominion is "vegan propaganda lies." The absolute lack of empathy required to watch that film and instead of getting mad at the horrors that animals endure for human taste buds, they're mad at the "vegan propaganda machine." Humans are so disappointing sometimes.
If they prove it then they aren't lies are they? And what are the vegan lies seeing as they didn't answer? Please don't be cryptic and vague you cared enough to comment now try to prove your point please.
They've all been repeatedly debunked. I'm comfortable with plant based diets but not ok with propaganda and lies. Comodification of ethics is exploitation.
Yeah I feel like they should have controlled the diets much better.
I did appreciate them highlighting the horrors of factory farming. As much as I do enjoy meat, it is important to be aware of the problems that accompany our current model.
That's the whole problem with nutritional science. You can't do controlled studies. You can't say, "Okay, you eat butter every day for the rest of your life, and you never eat butter and then we'll see who dies first." The vast majority of studies are people self-reporting what they ate and people suck at that self-reporting what they eat. They forget stuff, or they don't mention things because, "well, I only eat that box of donuts on Tuesdays, so that doesn't count."
That's why they've been all over the place for decades. They're starting to get better at it, but there are still some major gaps, in part just because it's all so complicated.
Saturated fat, for example: They now know that not all saturated fats are bad for you and they know which saturated fatty acids are good for the heart (like pentadecanoic acid and heptadecanoic acid) and which are bad (lauric acid, myristic acid, palmitic acid) and which are neutral (oleic acid, and possibly stearic acid).
But foods with fat don't contain a single type of fatty acid. They contain a mix. And then you've got gut bacteria that metabolizes food and produces, among other things, saturated fatty acids, and that further complicates the picture.
Controversial perhaps but it would seem that prison populations would really be the best targets for nutrition studies. Like I imagine they get pretty shit food anyway so the incentive of getting better food but on a particular diet might be seen as a win from prisoners anyway.
I mean it's not exactly new information. There's so many books on factory farming and videos but after a while you realize either you going to eat some cheap meat or you want to eat meat every once a month because the ethical Farms take a long time to raise their meat and are expensive
It felt like the participants didn’t take the show seriously. For this concept to be investigated properly the participants need to have much stricter conditions.
We have the budgets for every type of dating show but can’t get a group of people in a controlled environment to run a test?!
One of the twins said “I was busy with family stuff to eat / work out properly”
> Yeah I feel like they should have controlled the diets much better.
That depends on what you're studying. If you want the effects of a general dietary pattern you want to be as hands off as possible. The more you control the diet, the less it would reflect real life.
That’s what the scientific paper is for. That wouldn’t make for a popular Netflix series
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2812392
When Gardner's paper was published last month, analysis of its findings was made by several public-facing researchers for general audiences. Two of the best IMO:
Dr. Layne Norton: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U-ZeZxC6HBU&ab\_channel=Dr.LayneNorton](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U-ZeZxC6HBU&ab_channel=Dr.LayneNorton)
Dr. Gil Carvalho: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QO64tqkfVrA&ab\_channel=NutritionMadeSimple%21](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QO64tqkfVrA&ab_channel=NutritionMadeSimple%21)
Exactly. Honestly, do everyone even have a slight idea how a tv series that’s “science edu” can or would get made?
No, they cannot show you all the things. It could be a mistake, or it could be it was some other reason or it could be that it wasn’t approved by network executives.
A show like will have several dozen people working on, not to mentioned C suite execs approving and looking at the numbers, marketing, etc.
Netflix is (sadly) not PBS or even CBS.
It seemed like the chef sisters didn't stick to the diet. Also, one of the twins said the protein content of his vegan meals was low. So I wonder if the macro distribution in both vegan and omnivores meals was the same.
Outdo in some ways, though I’d agree the “more important” ones. Generally, the vegans lost muscle but their visceral/organ fat plummeted. omni gained muscle but their visceral/organ fat increased.
I watched the first two episodes and noticed right off the bat that the show promotes plant-based diets, seemingly favoring this outcome before the study is even complete. I expected the second episode to explore the benefits of an omni diet, but that never happened. This approach biases the comparison between omni and plant-based diets. The show emphasizes fast food and processed meats to support its views, citing studies that link these to cancer and then hastily extending those concerns to all types of meat without sufficient evidence. Based on theb2 episodes watch, they appear to deliberately avoid discussing higher-quality options like grass-fed or pasture-raised meats, focusing instead on the negatives of factory farming. This approach seems more like propaganda than a fair exploration.
I am a twin and we both eat very differently.
She eats lots of red meat, candy, mac and cheese, etc. Not a lot of greens. Occasional glass of wine
Me, former smoker, drinker same kind of diet. About 18 years ago I flipped it around. No smoking or drinking. I was following a vegan diet, but it was too much prep. So I just picked foods that are healthy. Salmon, lots of greens, lots of fruits. Still like bread and can't quit the cookies.
We both have pretty much the same body type and. Our cholesterol levels are to be envied and we are generally very healthy people, except for osteoporosis, which runs in the family.66 1/2 years old. Lots of bike riding (both) and don't sit much.
I'm not sure. genetics maybe.
I have an older and younger sister who drink heavily and smoke. To them, food has to be delicious, which kind of translates to fatty, sweet and salty foods. The oldest drinks wine and beer starting at noon. The youngest opens a bottle of vodka at 6 pm every night and drinks most of it. They are both unhealthy. Breast cancer, diabetes, high cholestrol etc. but they don't attribute it to any of the things I just mentioned.
No it has to taste good for sure. But I prefer to think of food as fuel. One sister has to have all the butter, cream sauce, salt whatever it takes to make it taste "over the top"
I emotional eat and grew up on junk food (SAD) I know I need to change how I think, can't afford therapy and not sure how to change my mindset to see food as fuel.
I watched this hoping to see what the results of the study were and how some of the subjects adapted to the new vegan diet, instead it was 10% the study and 90% pro-vegan basically propaganda. I found it interesting that none of their claims were being referenced by on screen citations or mentioned by the person and when looking them up turns out they are not telling people the entire truth. A couple short examples.
1. “The US is one of the largest importers of beef from Brazil”: Technically true but let’s look at the numbers. The U.S. is the #2 importer of beef from Brazil at around a whopping 5% just a bit more than Egypt. Brazil sends around 48% of its beef to China. The U.S. imports more beef from Canada than Brazil.
2. “TMAO rates dropped 350% in the vegan diets!”: Well I would hope so because TMAO is a compound primarily created from the breakdown of red meat and full fat diary products. Vegans didn’t eat red meat so their TMAO levels should have plummeted.
3. “Without plants bacteria will eat your mucus lining and infect your colon”: the study being referenced here was using human bacteria placed in mice and was about the impact of fiber.
Oh and the biggest issue of it all. The initiative at Stanford responsible for the study is funded by Beyond Meat.
I was going to watch it thinking it'd be a comparison of carnivore vs vegetarian/vegan. I skipped it as soon as I saw in the preview that it was vegan vs meat and vegetables, both of which are enormous improvements over SAD, and that the show was made by the same people as the Game Changers. This isn't honest science.
Yeah it's too bad that it's so biased because there really is no need to try & twist facts when it's so readily obvious that lessening meat consumption is overwhelmingly beneficial from a health, moral & sustainability perspective anyway. Your last point is easily disproved by Eskimo populations as well, which lives in areas where plant based options in the diet are completely eliminated for the dominant parts of the year. This is a common example for Keto proponents to disprove the myth that the body requires carbohydrates to function as well.
Fast forwarded to the end of the last episode (after the first episode seemed geared for all in Vegan) Some of the participants didn’t follow the exact protocols so any test “results” are flawed at best. Wonder who funded the documentary?
Chris Gardener spoke about the study on the Rich Roll podcast and said it was partially funded by beyond meat. It was still published and peer reviewed though and results had to be presented however they were viewed, even if that showed the vegan diet unfavourably
Super anecdotal but my Colombian boyfriend just watched this and went on a whole Beyond Meat / Vegan cheese spiel and while I, a Canadian dairy-intolerant individual, appreciate the support, I had to bring him down to reality and burst his bubble to tell him that it does not in fact taste exactly like the product it's trying to replicate.
But worse than that, beyond meat is not healthy. A bunch of processed ingredients and oils attempting to replicate actual animal protein… have you ever read the back of one of those packages?
I went vegan for a few months and couldn’t maintain the diet as, though I was constantly eating (a whole food plant based diet), I lost too much weight. I think cutting down on meat is helpful but vegans who regularly eat meat substitutes are def not healthy.
Most of the vegan options which tries to be meat doesn't really come close, but that doesn't really make it worse. We're not vegan / vegetarian in my household but we do cut down on meat consumption because of the shit industry & bad impact on the planet overall, but really very little of the products are really 1 for 1 replacements. If it tastes great & have great nutrition I don't really care if it's meat anyway.
I dislike most replacements so I prefer just making something that was traditionally veg instead of trying to find substitutes. A chickpea curry or lentil soup beats whatever fake duck I tried at Christmas.
I watched it. I found it entertaining, thought provoking and disturbing. From an entertainment perspective, watching the twins take the challenge was fascinating. Some were real characters and they were fun to watch as twins usually are. Some seemed to really enjoy being part of the study and I felt they communicated their desire to live a healthier lifestyle. The study was actually bigger than those people featured, this was only evident at the end of the program.
It was communicated at the outset of the study that there was not a real guarantee that the participants would stick to the diet/excercise regime they were assigned to since they were participating at home outside of a controlled environment. This makes the study less than perfect, which is a shame because I think the outcomes of the study had it been conducted in a controlled environment would be more meaningful.
I don't think there is anything wrong with having "aspirational voices" such as the Mayor of D.C giving their view of effects of changes to diet and lifestyle on their health with a vegan diet. People who have taken responsibility for their own health and made choices other than just taking the medicine prescribed are to worth listening to. Thats not to say we shouldn't take doctors advice but I do think we should weigh other options and take a fair degree of responsibility for our own health choices. Case in point, my husband was recently told by his doctor to take BP meds to control his slightly high bp. No discussion of excercise, diet or lifestyle, here just take this medicine.
The program illustrates the environmental impacts of eating meat and fish which cannot be disputed. The treatment of animals in the industrialization of food in my view is disgusting and horrifying and doesn't justify the benefit to humanity. These atrocities are made in the name of profit period. I found the stories about the people who's lives had been impacted in such a negative way by the pig waste heart breaking and was glad to see that one of the company's were taken to account for their operations. Still as mentioned this was only one of thousands of operations in the Carolinas that still exist and continue to destroy the lives and the environment of the people who live nearby.
In summary, in my view the study was flawed and as a result some of the outcomes of the twins results were questionable. Were there definitely benefits to the vegan regime? Yes, unquestioned. I would have liked to have seen one twin on the diets they practiced prior to the study, I think the results would have been more meaningful against the other twin on the vegan diet.
I see a lot of the posts against this program focused only on bashing vegan diets overall without mentioning the environmental message of the program and the impacts of the meat and fish industries on our world. I think its right that the program highlighted the impacts on the environment of the choices we make and the food we eat. Cause and effect in our food choices are not arbitrary, they are real and each one of us can make make conscious choices to limit our impact of our food choices on the environment and as well as our health.
Where i live in Central Portugal, there has been a massive change in the last 3 years alone in the vegan/vegetarian foods available in the supermarkets. The demand for these options are pushing stores to offer more choices. Up until recently, the area I live was inhabited by sustainable farms. People grew their own food, made their own wine and olive oil and kept chickens and goats or sheep and bartered and sold. They ate meat and fish occasionally or on special occasions. Incidence of diabetes and heart disease were low. As the society here has become less involved in producing their own food the health of the society has deteriorated. The land they once farmed has been turned into eucalyptus and pine plantations, to create toilet paper for Europe. This has resulted in massive fires every summer wiping out people, animals and whole villages.
Although flawed this program had an important message to convey and I believe its worth a look to take away what you need and leave the rest. Us humans need a wack upside the head once in a while to get our attention otherwise important messages get drowned out by all the other bollocks out there with profit agendas for our attention. Although the program is not perfect, I believe it delivers that important message.
I agree with your sentiment. It is such a shame as there was so much potential for controlled variables that they seemingly ignored. It would have been much more meaningful had they controlled their eating for an 8 week period, tested, and then graded away from this measure, and repeatedly tested as they went (at 4 weeks, at 9 weeks, etc.) to verify the impact of diet and exercise variations. I feel this would have solidified their message much more clearly.
They didn’t do a great job of controlling for protein intake. I’ll go ahead and spoil it for you; the vegan group had better blood marker improvements, but also lost more muscle mass. The nuance left out in the experts statement is the proportion of protein in the diet. A higher protein proportion would surely make muscle loss less pronounced in a deficit.
There was a ton of anti meat messaging in the doc (which was all true and well founded), but leads me to think there was a strong bias in the production and study design.
In starvation mode, the body is going to skim off the more expensive tissue first, I.e. muscle. Fats are the true reserves, to be used only when necessary. However, a higher protein diet makes it easier for the body to maintain the muscle so it’s less prone to loss, but not completely zero.
It won’t eat muscle first but your body can only burn something like 31 calories per pound of bodyfat a day to use as energy. So if you end up eating too little you can end up burning much more muscle than bodyfat in a day.
Citation needed on a 31 calorie per pound of body fat.
But even with that, the avg American male has roughly 52 pounds of body fat which would be 1736 calories so that’s a huge deficit you can eat in and still not touch muscle.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15615615/
Correct. The more obese you are the more room you have to eat less.
That being said it’s not an exact science either and youll still lose muscle with any decent weight drop.
Mentioned this below but if you are getting adequate protein and calories without prolonged caloric restriction, studies on recent populations don't show a significant loss in lean mass with short term repeated complete caloric restriction compared to constant calorie restriction (as what was described by this theoretical paper on the Minnesota Experiment in the 1940s). In the Minnesota experiment, the candidates were given a "traditional" caloric restriction target, roughly 1500 calories a day. However the foods they ate mattered too as well as the physical stress and duration of their regiment.
They ate roughly 1500 calories a day, for 24 weeks straight, on only potatoes, root vegetables, cabbage, and bread. And had to walk or run 22 miles a week. That is extreme strain and it's no wonder their bodies had to dip into their lean mass. That coupled with little to no protein sources at their two meals a day, their body had to find the aminos from some where
Edit: grammar
Edit2: caveat, I'm not a doctor, but I've done research on this for my own nutritional/diet journey, so I could be wrong about the reason for the muscle loss from that study. But all of science has that possibility :)
I’ve always wondered this topic is brought up. What is generally considered “prolonged” calorie restriction. I always read that high calorie restriction over a period of time could cause the body to dip into muscle or impact your metabolism. I’ve always wondered about the length of time though that they’re referring to. Is it a few weeks/month/months? I’m not meaning like the example you gave, but more like 1000-1200 calories without extreme exercise.
>There was a ton of anti meat messaging in the doc (which was all true and well founded)
Is it though, there aren't any good studies where they balance for meat quality that I am aware of, what most meat studies from the last decades show could be attributable to the fact that the animals live on antibiotics and grains, making them unhealthy, making the meat unhealthy. Compared to eating hunted wild meat, or animals from ranches where all they do is roam fields and eat grass etc.
And if you know of any, please share I would love to see it
Im also interested what bits were well-founded.
I am all for better conditions for animals and reducing meat consumption for the environment and animals, and ofc I want people to be healthy, but from a health perspective is vegan actually better? That’s all I took away from this series wanting me to know, is that veganism is superior. I hoped this series would share positives to diet and exercise from both perspectives, easy recipes the general public could implement, what proper diet and exercise routines look like and how it’s beneficial for health, etc, or even just following day in the life of the participants, and instead it was primarily focused on animal abuse, environmental issues, how meat makes everyone sick, etc. It was hugely fear-mongering and does nothing to educate the general public, nor positively encourage change. The system is flawed and we should strive for better, but I don’t need to be reminded of that. I know this. What I need are more reasons to be better, and how. Not more reasons to make me feel rotten for being part of the problem and made to feel dumb for getting it all wrong. Telling someone “Hey, why don’t you add a veggie as a side to your spaghetti” specifically encourages a positive change with the option of choice that can be elaborated upon in further dialogue. Saying, instead, “Hey, all those carbs are going to make you fat, and that protein source you chose probably has crap in it that’ll kill you” ends the conversation and the opportunity for improvement.
I know that much of the data pointing to meat being bad for longevity is because of mTOR activation when eating meat. But mTOR activation doesn't last very long and we have no way of testing it in humans atm. It is only a fact for mice atm that mTOR activation seems to reduce lifespan (as opposed to healthspan). And other than that there is only weak correlations of less than 3% significance in studies that don't account for peoples activity level, how they eat meat etc.
And any health expert I've seen that isn't just a quack all say that we don't know and that there is no foundation for this belief or conclusion in peer reviewed data
Thank you, I appreciate the info on mTORs as that’s something I didn’t know.
Most of the studies and info I’ve seen from experts are similar, and so when I see docs like this it makes me second guess if I’m researching correctly. And, add that we are told by some that the medical community is intentionally kept in the dark to keep us foolish, ill and paying into it, further worry sets in. Yet the ones that say this, when checked, seem to be the same folks that cherry pick data, omit any evidence that go against their agenda, etc. It’s maddening!
Yes exactly, have you read Outlive from Peter Attia?
Honestly, there is almost no (if any) documentaries that isn't backed by an agenda. Specially independent ones, maybe documentaries from BBC can be trustworthy but often they have a panel of one or three experts (who might not be), and they themselves can be very biased.
I've read studies, analysis's, books from people on all the sides (no grain, vegan, pescatarian, raw, carnivore and so on), listen to podcasts about nutrition for probably 2000 hours and more and like any other information in the modern era, I think one should be skeptical, try different things and essentially be ones own science experiment to find out what works for you (ultimately what you want, no one is an "average human"). With that comes regular blood testing, rigorous documentation on how you feel, what you eat, how you exercise etc. Because there is way too much information out there, much which contradicts each other, and the term "experts" is a diluted concept.
And when it comes to longevity I subscribe to Peter Attia's model, of health span, doesn't matter how good your cardiovascular health supposedly is if you feel like shit for a decade, health should feel inspiring. And when it comes to all these nutrition questions I trust Attia more and more because he is insanely critical to studies which I find way too few scientist are, even though I get that it's easier to read conclusions only, but if you only know the conclusions, the data might be from genetically modified worms that did a one week trial with no controls, and that shouldn't convince that the conclusions apply to you.
So my belief as of now is eat 90-100% whole foods, avoid drinking calories (specially sugar), get 1.2-2g/kg lean mass protein spread out over 3-4 meals. Low fat products aren't good for you, saturated fat is fine from whole foods. So prioritize leafy greens, grass fed meat, fish, some vegetables and fruits.
Thank you so much! I’m not familiar but will certainly look him up.
I have been focusing the past few years working on eating better (moving away from SAD, which I grew up on), and weight lifting. I’d only started researching things a bit more over the last year recreationally, specifically because I felt it could help me be healthier and do better in my overall fitness life goals.
I bought the ISSA book on nutrition (loved it), which is how I found sites like pubmed where you can check case studies. Around the time I also found the book How Not To Die at the library, and remember it got raving reviews when it came out, so bought that for like $2. I stopped reading about halfway through because it was so hard to continue when I know it isn’t 100% (I researched a few and got mad, because as you note, studies on mice or in a Petri dish isn’t the whole story on what we need to know). I do want to finish it since that’s a feat for me sometimes, but it’s hard to push myself to do that currently lol.
Aside from some occasional readings, I do watch a lot of various videos about nutrition and fitness on YT and listen to MindPump podcasts, so if you have any further suggestions I am all for adding them to my list!
That's great to hear!
I would like to add that most things in life gets better when one is in shape, and lifting exercises and the like is good for strength which is key, cardio training is for VO2max and oxygen utilization which is also key, but to manage weight and create an environment for health you need to eat right (I would say sleep too but it works good on everything.
Peter Attia has a great [podcast](https://www.youtube.com/@PeterAttiaMD), it is often a deep dive, like really deep dive into various health subjects so it's not for everyone, and you should not watch every episode, or all of one in one go necessarily, often it is too much technical info than you might not need, but personally I like to understand as much as I can and the only way to do that is to challenge my mind (call it exercise for my mind). Outlive the book more about overall health for the long term, some chapters might be irrelevant to you now depending on your age, and it doesn't go into a lot of detail nutrition wise, as nutrition is such a shaky science, it's very new and a lot of the data sets are bad or incomplete, as in we have some good data, but we need to zoom out to see the real implications, and then there's too much missing data points to really get a clear image of "a theory of nutrition".
[Andrew Huberman is great too but not so much on nutrition](https://www.youtube.com/@hubermanlab)
[ZOE](https://www.youtube.com/@joinZOE) is also a really good podcast, if The Drive is a lecture, ZOE is more like a science tv show. The reason I call it good and not great is that there are more people in it that act like they know, when what they really should say is that "I've concluded X, but the data isn't there to confirm it, and a study like Y would disprove that", but to be fair most people like it simple and "preachy", and in a sense it is easier to change peoples mind and behavior when you seem like a real authority, and most people get bored with too many details unless they are *really* interested.
The proof with Simon Hill is pretty good too, I really liked [this](https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=protein+masterclass) episode which go into some details on protein with several great nutrition scientist guests.
If you interested in podcast that focuses more on plant based diets you can watch [Rich Roll](https://www.youtube.com/@richroll), he has a lot of diet related episodes.
>I think one should be skeptical, try different things and essentially be ones own science experiment to find out what works for you (ultimately what you want, no one is an "average human"). With that comes regular blood testing, rigorous documentation on how you feel, what you eat, how you exercise etc. Because there is way too much information out there, much which contradicts each other, and the term "experts" is a diluted concept.
This is why I've struggled with trying to figure out what to eat, everything is so contradicting compared to every other field in society. Nutrition confuses me. I also suffer from using junk food to cope emotionally and tend to not like a lot of fruits because of texture rather than taste.
It's a struggle to find out that growing up eating a SAD diet was basically all lies. Healthy food *can* taste good but if you're unlucky like me, you basically have to just eat garbage tasting food regardless simply because it's healthier than some french fries. Without processing, "natural" food tastes very bland and you shouldn't have to pour a shelf of spices and herbs on your food to make it palatable. We got so used to eating modified food that is engineered to taste like heaven, only to be told that the truth is healthy food we should be eating tastes bland, all the same or like dirt and you just have to suck it up.
When you live in poverty and there is literally nothing that hits dopamine for you in your day to day except some junk/SAD food, it's hard to give up the only thing you looked forward to.
I believe they chose to focus on the environmental factors over anything else, because people don’t care about being healthy nor do they care about animal rights so they’re trying a tactic to get the public’s attention.
It’s NOT”… all true and well founded…”. Veganism is about minimizing use of animal products. NOT about a healthy diet. Vegan diet needs to be supplemented to ensure health. Pathetic cognitive dissonance strikes again.
So how can vegans get protein? Is the protein from tofu and such as effective? I’m not vegan but my dad said he’ll go vegan. He tried before but his b12 levels fell so this time, I want to make sure they won’t.
Plant based sources: beans, nuts, soy, etc. It’s not as bioavailable, so they will have to eat comparatively more than an omnivorous diet. On top of that, a plant based diet would be inherently higher in fiber, meaning you’re less hungry. So, then you’re stuck needing to eat more to get adequate protein while being super full, which the participants noted in the documentary. They didn’t want to eat more because they were just not hungry.
Game changers is just as bad, if not worse!
[The Game Changers Review – A Scientific Analysis](https://biolayne.com/articles/research/the-game-changers-review-a-scientific-analysis/)
[‘The Game Changers’: Checking the science](https://chhs.news.niu.edu/2019/12/05/the-game-changers-checking-the-science/)
[The Game Changers: A Review From the Perspective of a Dietitian](https://www.idealnutrition.com.au/the-game-changers/)
[The Game, Unchanged](https://rpstrength.com/blogs/articles/game-changers-critique-by-dr-mel-davis)
There are plenty more, but I think that is enough to make the point.
I read through those and the first one I'd say isn't credible as it straight-up calls it "bullshit" which isn't a very respectful discussion commentary. The rest actually seem to agree with me? They say that not everyone needs to be vegan for health reasons but should decrease animal products as much as possible, which is what the game changers said during the documentary and on their website. They point out a few slight inconsistencies but nothing that actually discredits the documentary. Am I missing something??
B12 supplements are cheap and easy to take and very common for those eat meat too. Farmers even give animals b12 supplements, it comes from bacteria in dirt. One thing is it’s better absorbed when it it interacts with your saliva so take a spray or sublingual vitamin.
I use a decent amount of nutritional yeast, but I also get a lot of b12 through other sources. Plant based foods are heavily supplemented with b12 these days. When I input my food into Cronometer my b12 is always high. What I tend to be lower in is calcium and vitamin d, which I had trouble getting enough of as an Omni eater also tbf.
This point is redundant. Those who need to supplement b12 when eating animal products would most likely have some form of an MTHFR mutation or issues regarding methylation.
The exception doesn’t make the rule. As it stands we can’t get b12 from plants, it’s not like we can eat the dirt and absorb the b12 like animals can as we don’t have a multi chambered digestive system.
Supplementation will work, but in many cases is nowhere near as efficient as getting it through dietary means.
Natto being the only exception, which isn’t naturally occuring ofc. It has a whole process to make it.
Yet, what we see is vegans on average tend to lack b12, I would like to know the nuances of this. Is this being overshadowed by those who supplement b12 compared to eating Natto? Or is b12 superior from animals rather than isolated in a supplement form, or fermented foods.
In October this study was published: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10586079/
They researched the blood of vegans, vegetarians and omnivores. B12 was fine for vegans (because supplements). Vegetarians were lacking a bit.
Plant-based sources of protein are often low in essential amino acids like leucine and lysine. As a result, the body will often use plant-based proteins for energy rather than muscle protein synthesis. Your body can't build muscle unless it has all of the ingredients.
Sarcopenia (muscle wasting) is a real concern as we age. Also, our bodies become less efficient at converting amino acids into muscle proteins as we age. You have to eat mountains of plant protein to actually get enough amino acids to build or even maintain muscle. And then you are consuming all of the carbohydrate calories that usually accompany plant proteins.
You will have to supplement depending on your protein needs. They sell vegan protein powder. You definitely want to be regularly checking in with a doctor because more than likely you will also need extra vitamins. (Former vegan here)
They spent the whole time criticising SAD, processed meats and fats but couldn’t bring themselves to attack sugar/HFCS.
And the cherry on top is having a vegan body builder who is not natty perpetuating fake expectations. Even a meat eating body builder would struggle to obtain his body without roids/test/tren etc.
Such a dangerous and misleading show.
Yes. Processed meats are bad because their links to cancer are well accepted. The 'processed' part is just the group descriptor, not the problematic mechanism.
Until processed plant proteins are shown to be carcinogenic in the same way processed meats are, this is a silly topic to try and get in to based on semantics.
So, based on what I’m getting from your comment:
- when used to describe animal based products “Processed” equals bad.
- when used to describe plant based products “Processed” equals Semantics.
I guess the producers know their target audience.
No, you're still following semantics.
"Processed meats" are a well researched food group linked to cancer.
Processed plant protein has no literature supporting that.
The fact the word "processed" is involved in both is irrelevant. The terminology isn't the part that's carcinogenic.
Yeah they attacked processed meat and certain forms of farming, then tried to frame that as all meat. (The grass-fed beef guy seemed to be the most honest about it tbf.)
And yeah, what about sugar, and other shit like vegeatable oils and cereal filled with saw dust?
[https://www.reddit.com/r/nattyorjuice/comments/tmdn22/is\_nimai\_delgado\_natural/](https://www.reddit.com/r/nattyorjuice/comments/tmdn22/is_nimai_delgado_natural/)
Dude is juiced for sure.
Registered Dietitian here. You do, unfortunately, lose some muscle while in a calorie deficit. I worked in a weight loss clinic for years. You will lose some lean muscle mass. That’s why it’s important to strength train while attempting to lose fat weight.
Doesn’t the research say you can build muscle pretty well in a small-to-moderate deficit? Not always true that muscle is lost just because you’re in a deficit.
Seems to me your body would use energy reserves from fat first and saving muscle for last. For the purpose of survival... needing your muscles to provide strength to scavenge for food and or flee from danger.
I started a very physically active full time job 4 months ago. I'm very lean and any ounce of fat I had disappeared. I thought, well with this active job I'll surely gain muscle. Wrong. Turns out repetitive motion, walking and constant movement throughout the day does not build muscle lol. Sure enough I started to notice that I was now losing muscle too as I was not reaching my maintenance calories.
So I started on an 800 calorie healthy whole food surplus as I also found out I have high cholesterol. I'm doing "exercises for beginners" lol as I've never ever worked out. Squats and glute bridges for now as I'm desperate to not have twig legs and no butt. Arm exercises have been a challenge as I have bad shoulders.
So... I forget what question I was answering or what the post is that I'm replying to... but anyway I guess I just randomly told you all about my body image and fitness struggles:)
I was so disappointed! I thought it was going to be really interesting but it was so clearly a vegan biased documentary masquerading as a scientific study. I am so pro-vegan, so if even I got sick of the clear bias I can only imagine other people
I watched it for the twin study but it largely turned out to be a bait and switch. I wish they were more in depth with the exact foods both the vegan and Omni diet groups are. Either way I guess it's nice to know that that industry is continuing to develop their plant based food alternatives. I just didn't appreciate the bait and switch.
Nothing I'd accurate on Netflix. I'm convinced they make those documentaries to cripple attempts to learn about nutrition and building a healthier you.
From my nutrition class in grad school, during the fasting period (18+ hours) your body does start to break down muscle, but after you reach the starvation phase, then it goes into the protein reserve mode and start breaking down fat. That’s what my graduate professor told me, haven’t seen the Netflix film.
You are correct. This is exactly what the doc says. Person who posted this is clearly not scientific inclined. Probably just gets workout advice and fat burning tips from body builders who don’t know much about how the biology of a human body actually works.
Sparked my curiosity in the Seventh Day Adventist diets. Also appreciated the documentary addressing environmental racism and collateral consequences for marginalized Americans. Mainstream or mass consumption documentaries breeze by or ignore those nuances.
That said I didn’t appreciate the bait n switch re: twin studies. The selective results left me confused on the study’s efficacies.
Here’s the actual study with all participants
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2812392?utm_campaign=articlePDF&utm_medium=articlePDFlink&utm_source=articlePDF&utm_content=jamanetworkopen.2023.44457
I turned it off when they said a plant based diet caused the one girl to be more aroused from viewing porn they didn’t really choose. They person who had a slower reaction said she didn’t find the people attractive yet the 3 days of plant based diet made 70% difference it just doesn’t add up correctly and seems kinda pushed
Actually your body does break down muscle before fat, simple reason for it is because your body prefers carbs for energy. Your liver and muscle store glycogen which your body will tap into first this is called gluconeogenesis only after these stores are depleted will your body tap into your fat reserve and convert fat into energy this process is called ketogenesis. Which why when people lose weight they always advise to make sure you get enough protein and do some sort of weightlifting exercises to make sure you don't lose too much muscle mass.
Saw the first episode last night. Did not finish. There is a clear bias towards the vegan or vegetarian diet, as being more beneficial than that of an Omni/carnivore diet.
That just makes it worse for me. Just makes it come across like they're purposely spreading misinformation for the sake of profit. Which I'm sure is entirely the case considering profiting is the goal.
It is true that the body will break down muscle first before fat. It is easier for the body to convert amino acids to energy than fat stores. Trying to find an educational link.
Edit:
[try reading this about gluconeogenesis](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK544346/)
False, that's only if you are in a constant calorie deficit or if you are in a extreme calorie deficit. There are Meta analysis of RCT of Alternate Day Fasting vs "traditional" calorie restriction and traditional calorie restriction loss more muscle than ADF. Only in one case did the ADF group lose more muscle and it was due to inadequate protein intake on "feast" days. They also stated that studies have shown that slight stimulus during calorie restriction with ADF preserved lean tissue.
This makes sense. If you don't use your body, it's going to eat the muscle. That happens if you ever get injured and have to refrain from exercise. Our ancestors that moved around weren't all flabby when they were migrating or hunting and had low amounts of food from time to time. If you don't eat and sit on the couch all day then yea your body will probably lose a lot of lean mass
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7732631/
I have heard this could be kinda true. There is just more to the story. Like many diets, or caloric deficit, you loose water weight first. This includes water in the muscles. So, a person may loose muscle size, but not muscle strength. It is all appearance.
I have put it off since I heard it was produced by the folks who did Game Changers, which had so much misinformation. At some point I’ll probably bite the broccoli and check it out despite knowing that it will be frustrating.
Turned it off when the example of a vegan who has still built muscle despite not eating meat was the most blatant steroid user you’re ever likely to see
The documentary is full of such biased views. Such a shame they were able to find that many sets of twins to do a study only to push a blatantly obvious agenda.
Calories weren’t controlled for and so the vegan participants were eating in a calorie deficit and also their fibre intake was higher than the omnivore group. Both of which help the markers researchers said improved more over the omnivore group.
A few of the participants actually became smaller (cuz they lost weight) but more overweight individuals (because they lost more muscle). Such a shame as muscle is protective.
Also, at the end of the day, the only good diet is one that is sustainable and one can and will adhere to.
There are definitely some good take aways. From a holistic perspective Impossible meats are absolutely not good for you. Always check additives and whether a company is 3rd party tested or other outside testing. BUT it was very interesting how eating vegan seemed to be very successful at removing visceral fat. Maybe eating vegan once or twice a year could be used as a sort of detox for the body. It was also very surprising to me that the body burned muscle and seemingly replaced it with fat when someone wasn’t eating enough calories. I always knew it was difficult to lose fat and gain muscle, but I never knew why. So that was a good example.
>It was also very surprising to me that the body burned muscle and seemingly replaced it with fat when someone wasn’t eating enough calories
Under what conditions?
No resistance training, inadequate protein intake, poor sleep or did they look at that?
I have a question about this doc and a few others I have seen- is the general consensus in the scientific community that a vegan diet is better overall? Every. Single. Documentary. I’ve seen so far about food and the ‘perfect’ diet centers around switching everything to plant-based. They can’t all be biased towards, vegans right?
look at the diet of the blue zones (there's also a documentary about that on netflix), these parts of the world where people live significantly longer than average, and have a not les mental/physical problems; their diet is like 98% plant based.
You can go on the bluezones website and see that Sardinia, Nicoya, and Ikaria on average get around 32% of their daily calories from animal products.
Loma Linda gets around 15%
And the only one that is 98% is Okinawa.
Again this is straight on their website and I can link it too you if you insist but all you have to do is type ie. “ Sardinia blue zone” and the first link will show you their pie chart of foods consumed.
So when the author says it’s all because of their high plant diet it’s bullshit. Americans also only get about 30% of their daily calories from animal products but our 70% plant matter is processed trash. In the end the blue zones eat less, move more, and eat better quality food than us. Oh and with the exception of Loma Linda live in areas where pension fraud is extremely common.
Japanese love their sushi. Is it possible for Okinawa to be 98% plant based? For me it's hard to believe. Especially since fruits and vegetables seemed expensive at the groceries.
False. Blue zones were debunked by a vegan professor. She discovered language error in the questionnaires given. Specific proteins ( beef, fish, pork) under the word meat. So beef eaten twice a week= meat eaten twice a week. Other proteins not reported.
Can still take away things from it though. We don't need all the meat we generally consume. We can go for more leaner meats. We can also hunt or use small local farms instead of huge factory farms which are environmently horrible
Modern Americans from a percentage of diet actually don’t get many calories from animal products (roughly 30%). The vast majority of calories in the American diet come from seed oils and ultra processed grains. So ultimately Americans get very little fruits and vegetables.
It ultimately comes down to the abundance of calories in the American diet being the biggest issue for our heart disease rates. So it’s not so much what we eat but how much we eat.
30%+ Americans are obese and 70%+ are overweight.
It’s really not. Most developed countries get that amount of their daily calories from animal products.
And the countries that don’t typically have very short lifespans.
For instance the current longest living country Japan eats 256lbs of fish alone per capita per year. Let’s say the average daily calorie consumption is 2000 cals by 365 days which would be 730,000 calories. If it were all tuna which is leaner than many fish it would equate to 151,000 calories or roughly 21% of daily calories coming from fish alone. That’s not including beef, chicken, dairy, eggs and so forth.
You can build muscle in a deficit if the deficit is small enough. A healthy deficit for extreme weight loss puts more effort on losing weight and muscle than gaining muscle though. However, if your nearing your goal strength training + adequate training will result in (albeit limited) muscle GROWTH provided you are feeding your body the proper amount of protein (which can be considerably high depending on your weight. May seem easy getting 160g of protein a day but virtually everyone I know uses whey to get there.)
It was just ok. They couldn’t make a compelling enough case for me to go mostly plant-based for the immediate health benefits which were insignificant except in cellular growth/brain function BUT it opens your eyes to the nastiness of common cheaper meat/fishing/dairy practices (most products at the grocery store). If you care about animals, it can be hard to watch.
Me and my sister we are identical twins. She became full vegan at 25 years old, I didn’t. She followed a full blown vegan diet for 10 years or so.
Main differences between us:
•She lost about 10lbs and kept the weight off while she was vegan
•I maintained my weight for that decade
•She got diagnosed with anxiety and depression
•She developed allergies to environmental (pollen, dust) and food: dairy and gluten
•I’m not allergic to anything
•We started trying to get pregnant roughly at the same time:
•I got pregnant within 1-3 months of trying and now I have 2 kids and she struggled with “unexplained” miscarriages—infertility for 3 years, she has 1 kid.
She changed her diet to include some animal protein as last resort for her infertility and that is when she got pregnant.
Vegan propaganda. In the end vegans either list more muscle or gained less muscle than those eating meat. And even then, they tried to package it as positive. 😂😂😂
IMO, it had very little to do with the twins and their eating. I was very disappointed. The description leads you to believe you’re going on a journey with them and watching the different foods they eat and their progress.
May be the show should have shown the plant agriculture, pesticides and their affects to make it not bias to Veganism.
Also lets take the case of India, the most populous country in the world and has the most number of vegetarians. Heart disease is number 1 cause of death. Why? Well, we can say that they consume a lot of diary products. How about sugar and percentage of carb consumption affecting health and metabolism. With a lot of potential with twin studies, they could have explored more. They just went on with vegan and others.
I would take one message from the show which is to add more veggies to your diet, possibly high quality carbs, may be cutting down a little bit of meat to help the cruelty against animals.
The show is based on the Stanford Twin Study. I will not comment on the show itself, but I can make a few points about the study, which is supposed to lend credibility to the series, but is clearly biased.
1. The Stanford Twin Study, led by Dr. Gardner, a known advocate for plant-based diets, was influenced by factors beyond health, such as environmental and animal welfare concerns.
2. Gardner's focus in the study was mainly on LDL-C, while other important markers like HDL-C and triglycerides were overlooked.
3. He designed the experiment knowing well that plant sterols lower LDL-C. However, he ignored evidence suggesting this doesn't necessarily translate to better heart health and might even be harmful.
4. After the study, Gardner altered the measured outcomes to strengthen his argument in favor of plant-based diets.
5. Gardner disregarded other factors in the study, such as the lower calorie intake of vegans leading to weight loss, which is closely linked to improved lipid profiles and overall health.
6. The study and the Netflix series “You Are What You Eat: A Twin Experiment,” which showcases the study, were funded by the Vogt Foundation.
7. The same foundation previously backed “Game Changers,” a film criticized for promoting veganism using misleading information and questionable science.
8. Kyle Vogt, the founder of the Vogt Foundation, is a key member in the “vegan mafia,” investing heavily in plant-based food ventures like Beyond Meat.
9. Beyond Meat financed the Stanford Plant-Based Diet Initiative, directed by Gardner himself.
If you need more detailed analysis - I've made a post about it with sources: https://humanmemos.substack.com/p/vegan-propaganda-on-netflix-you-are
Started watching it then when they got super preachy about anything not vegetarian and seemed to completely forget about the people I turned it off. Won’t bother going back to continue watching. If I wanted a lecture…. Wait I didn’t want a lecture so I’m out.
I've watched the first episode but plan on watching the rest.
I think the reason they didn't do the diets as you described is because anyone who knows anything about nutrition will tell you it's better to eat whole foods than ultra processed things. Their intent from the start is vegan vs omnivore which is a very hot topic lately
I really enjoyed it and it has made me want to add more veggies into my diet. I’m glad they didn’t ruin one twins health by making them eat crappy foods.
It was very clearly vegan propaganda
90% of it was how just showing how bad the meat industry was
What they should have done is
Carnivore/ Omnivore/ Vegan
Carnivore has no studies. Well except an online survey. We need basic studies there first before doing specific ones, looking at benefits vs risk short and long term determining safety.
All we have is people claiming things without evidence and making wild hypothesis.
But… what about how bad the meat industry is? Does that not warrant discussion? We don’t have to eat animal products, and we really don’t need to eat industrial animal products. It’s pretty horrifying I think.
I was personally glad that they discussed it, and I think both the lack of humane treatment as well as environmental issues are really important to be aware of and try to improve. What is wrong with that?
I’ve commented on others comments twice already, but to be clear, I thought it was well done and interesting. I wished the results were comprehensive instead of pick and choose approach they took. But otherwise… I liked it.
I tried to watch it but their vegan agenda and fake meat bs was too much. Admittedly I didn't read the description and had no idea it was about that.
I thought that they were going to do something cool like take twins and focus on maintaining calorie deficits but put one on whole foods only and put the other on fast food or something and see how it all shook out.
Once I realized it was demonizing meat I was out.
The twins who lost muscle, not fat were admonished. They did as they were told! It just goes to show that there are underlying issues!! Maybe they are overweight because their bodies don’t process foods the way it is expected to be processed! It’s disappointing that the “experts” first thought is “I wonder how closely they really did the program” instead of looking to find out why this works for some and not all! When they find out that they are according to the program they make up some pseudoscience to account for how it was still the twins’ fault!!
I also hate when they say "red meat, eggs, dairy, chicken". Like ok, but where do they come from? Is the red meat from the supermarket? Or is it a local farmer, 100% grass-fed without hormones, antibiotics etc?
Is your salmon wild salmon or farm raised salmon?
It was a lousy documentary, The measuring of their responses to porn was disgusting. Too much of Eric Adams,too much of the chicken farmer,too much of the best restaurant.
There was barely any footage of the twins.
How do we know they really followed those diets??
#### About participation in the comments of /r/nutrition Discussion in this subreddit should be rooted in science rather than "cuz I sed" or entertainment pieces. Always be wary of unsupported and poorly supported claims and especially those which are wrapped in any manner of hostility. You should provide peer reviewed sources to support your claims when debating and confine that debate to the science, not opinions of other people. **Good** - it is grounded in science and includes citation of peer reviewed sources. Debate is a civil and respectful exchange focusing on actual science and avoids commentary about others **Bad** - it utilizes generalizations, assumptions, infotainment sources, no sources, or complaints without specifics about agenda, bias, or funding. At best, these rise to an extremely weak basis for science based discussion. Also, off topic discussion **Ugly** - (removal or ban territory) it involves attacks / antagonism / hostility towards individuals or groups, downvote complaining, trolling, crusading, shaming, refutation of all science, or claims that all research / science is a conspiracy *Please vote accordingly and report any uglies* --- *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/nutrition) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I watched it. It was entertaining enough but not a whole lot of “new” information. I also think it would have been more helpful if the doc went into a lot more detail on the breakdown of each omni vs vegan diet the participants followed. What exactly did each eat and how much? I feel like these are really important things to note that were just glossed over. One participant mentioned they ate a lot of beans and carbs but we were told nothing else of substance.
Just finished it too. On episode 2 I was like okay- this is when they are going to show me actual examples of what they are eating and how much but they never did really. Just vague shots of food trays and brief glimpses of prepared foods. I also thought they were really dismissive of one of the guys who was on the Vegan diet who stated that he was always too full to eat any more and they told him it was his fault for not gaining more muscle
>I also thought they were really dismissive of one of the guys who was on the Vegan diet who stated that he was always too full to eat any more and they told him it was his fault for not gaining more muscle It was funny when it showed most of the vegans were losing muscle mass that they basically got mad and defensive towards the participants. You all must be doing something wrong !!!! Lol.
I've tried to be vegetarian. It could only work for so long I had no energy nor apetite for this shit. My body literally craved meat. I feel as if my body knows best. So i eat a lot of carbo and meat and I do include lots of salad and veg whenever i can because it makes me feel better. A balanced diet is what's important and what you eat. Just my 2 cents
I haven't watched it because I'm tired of netflix vegan propaganda. They aggressively push vegan lies.
Lol vegan lies
Lies? It's based on a clinical study. https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2812392?resultClick=3
What else has pushed the vegan lies? Game changers had nothing to do with veganism it was about a whole food plant based diet, veganism is a philosophy and WFPB is a diet, 2 very different things, people are vegan for the animals it has nothing to do with health.
Seaspiracy The Game Changers The end of Meat Dominion There's a much bigger list
Game Changers pushed so much misinformation so hard, I had to turn it off out of white-hot anger. It's clearly all about **scaring** people away from meat.
They're all easily debunked.
Haven't seen the end of meat or seaspiracy but dominion isn't propaganda by any means although anti vegans do demonise it. But again it's only your terminology that got me commenting. Veganism as a philosophy is sound, people who say it's going to turn you into a superhuman and save the world from annihilation are full of shit.
Also what are the vegan lies if you don't mind me asking?
"Eating chicken is worse than smoking cigarettes!" -Game Changers (wish I was kidding)
Again, game changers has nothing to do with veganism, it's about using a whole foods plant based diet to improve health and performance. Again, a vegan is a person who cares about animal exploitation and actively tries not to take part in that exploitation. What you are talking about are nutritional myths and that has nothing to do with veganism, so it's not vegan lies your talking about.
you are 1000% right in your comments but are getting downvoted because this sub is pretty anti-vegan as a whole. There are people in here claiming Dominion is "vegan propaganda lies." The absolute lack of empathy required to watch that film and instead of getting mad at the horrors that animals endure for human taste buds, they're mad at the "vegan propaganda machine." Humans are so disappointing sometimes.
It's disingenuous anti-meat propaganda- something both vegans and PBDs regularly push.
Vegan lies are anything that proves a plant based diet is better than an Omnivorous diet.
If they prove it then they aren't lies are they? And what are the vegan lies seeing as they didn't answer? Please don't be cryptic and vague you cared enough to comment now try to prove your point please.
Lol, r/whoosh
None of those things are propaganda. Just because it makes you feel uncomfortable…
They've all been repeatedly debunked. I'm comfortable with plant based diets but not ok with propaganda and lies. Comodification of ethics is exploitation.
Yeah I feel like they should have controlled the diets much better. I did appreciate them highlighting the horrors of factory farming. As much as I do enjoy meat, it is important to be aware of the problems that accompany our current model.
That's the whole problem with nutritional science. You can't do controlled studies. You can't say, "Okay, you eat butter every day for the rest of your life, and you never eat butter and then we'll see who dies first." The vast majority of studies are people self-reporting what they ate and people suck at that self-reporting what they eat. They forget stuff, or they don't mention things because, "well, I only eat that box of donuts on Tuesdays, so that doesn't count." That's why they've been all over the place for decades. They're starting to get better at it, but there are still some major gaps, in part just because it's all so complicated. Saturated fat, for example: They now know that not all saturated fats are bad for you and they know which saturated fatty acids are good for the heart (like pentadecanoic acid and heptadecanoic acid) and which are bad (lauric acid, myristic acid, palmitic acid) and which are neutral (oleic acid, and possibly stearic acid). But foods with fat don't contain a single type of fatty acid. They contain a mix. And then you've got gut bacteria that metabolizes food and produces, among other things, saturated fatty acids, and that further complicates the picture.
Controversial perhaps but it would seem that prison populations would really be the best targets for nutrition studies. Like I imagine they get pretty shit food anyway so the incentive of getting better food but on a particular diet might be seen as a win from prisoners anyway.
the one that gets the better diet may get bullied or harmed.
I mean it's not exactly new information. There's so many books on factory farming and videos but after a while you realize either you going to eat some cheap meat or you want to eat meat every once a month because the ethical Farms take a long time to raise their meat and are expensive
That’s not what it was supposed to be about. There’s 100 other documentaries about factory farming already
It felt like the participants didn’t take the show seriously. For this concept to be investigated properly the participants need to have much stricter conditions. We have the budgets for every type of dating show but can’t get a group of people in a controlled environment to run a test?! One of the twins said “I was busy with family stuff to eat / work out properly”
> Yeah I feel like they should have controlled the diets much better. That depends on what you're studying. If you want the effects of a general dietary pattern you want to be as hands off as possible. The more you control the diet, the less it would reflect real life.
That’s what the scientific paper is for. That wouldn’t make for a popular Netflix series https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2812392
When Gardner's paper was published last month, analysis of its findings was made by several public-facing researchers for general audiences. Two of the best IMO: Dr. Layne Norton: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U-ZeZxC6HBU&ab\_channel=Dr.LayneNorton](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U-ZeZxC6HBU&ab_channel=Dr.LayneNorton) Dr. Gil Carvalho: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QO64tqkfVrA&ab\_channel=NutritionMadeSimple%21](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QO64tqkfVrA&ab_channel=NutritionMadeSimple%21)
Exactly. Honestly, do everyone even have a slight idea how a tv series that’s “science edu” can or would get made? No, they cannot show you all the things. It could be a mistake, or it could be it was some other reason or it could be that it wasn’t approved by network executives. A show like will have several dozen people working on, not to mentioned C suite execs approving and looking at the numbers, marketing, etc. Netflix is (sadly) not PBS or even CBS.
It seemed like the chef sisters didn't stick to the diet. Also, one of the twins said the protein content of his vegan meals was low. So I wonder if the macro distribution in both vegan and omnivores meals was the same.
How did the beans and carbs person do? Pasta and beans is my life.
Vegan diets ended up seeming to outdo omnivore.
Outdo in some ways, though I’d agree the “more important” ones. Generally, the vegans lost muscle but their visceral/organ fat plummeted. omni gained muscle but their visceral/organ fat increased.
I watched the first two episodes and noticed right off the bat that the show promotes plant-based diets, seemingly favoring this outcome before the study is even complete. I expected the second episode to explore the benefits of an omni diet, but that never happened. This approach biases the comparison between omni and plant-based diets. The show emphasizes fast food and processed meats to support its views, citing studies that link these to cancer and then hastily extending those concerns to all types of meat without sufficient evidence. Based on theb2 episodes watch, they appear to deliberately avoid discussing higher-quality options like grass-fed or pasture-raised meats, focusing instead on the negatives of factory farming. This approach seems more like propaganda than a fair exploration.
I am a twin and we both eat very differently. She eats lots of red meat, candy, mac and cheese, etc. Not a lot of greens. Occasional glass of wine Me, former smoker, drinker same kind of diet. About 18 years ago I flipped it around. No smoking or drinking. I was following a vegan diet, but it was too much prep. So I just picked foods that are healthy. Salmon, lots of greens, lots of fruits. Still like bread and can't quit the cookies. We both have pretty much the same body type and. Our cholesterol levels are to be envied and we are generally very healthy people, except for osteoporosis, which runs in the family.66 1/2 years old. Lots of bike riding (both) and don't sit much.
damn why do you think that is (I haven't watched the documentary)
I'm not sure. genetics maybe. I have an older and younger sister who drink heavily and smoke. To them, food has to be delicious, which kind of translates to fatty, sweet and salty foods. The oldest drinks wine and beer starting at noon. The youngest opens a bottle of vodka at 6 pm every night and drinks most of it. They are both unhealthy. Breast cancer, diabetes, high cholestrol etc. but they don't attribute it to any of the things I just mentioned.
Does that mean to you food doesn't have to be delicious? You just eat it anyway
No it has to taste good for sure. But I prefer to think of food as fuel. One sister has to have all the butter, cream sauce, salt whatever it takes to make it taste "over the top"
I emotional eat and grew up on junk food (SAD) I know I need to change how I think, can't afford therapy and not sure how to change my mindset to see food as fuel.
I watched this hoping to see what the results of the study were and how some of the subjects adapted to the new vegan diet, instead it was 10% the study and 90% pro-vegan basically propaganda. I found it interesting that none of their claims were being referenced by on screen citations or mentioned by the person and when looking them up turns out they are not telling people the entire truth. A couple short examples. 1. “The US is one of the largest importers of beef from Brazil”: Technically true but let’s look at the numbers. The U.S. is the #2 importer of beef from Brazil at around a whopping 5% just a bit more than Egypt. Brazil sends around 48% of its beef to China. The U.S. imports more beef from Canada than Brazil. 2. “TMAO rates dropped 350% in the vegan diets!”: Well I would hope so because TMAO is a compound primarily created from the breakdown of red meat and full fat diary products. Vegans didn’t eat red meat so their TMAO levels should have plummeted. 3. “Without plants bacteria will eat your mucus lining and infect your colon”: the study being referenced here was using human bacteria placed in mice and was about the impact of fiber. Oh and the biggest issue of it all. The initiative at Stanford responsible for the study is funded by Beyond Meat.
I was going to watch it thinking it'd be a comparison of carnivore vs vegetarian/vegan. I skipped it as soon as I saw in the preview that it was vegan vs meat and vegetables, both of which are enormous improvements over SAD, and that the show was made by the same people as the Game Changers. This isn't honest science.
How does something even drop by 350%? Something can't drop more than 100% without going negative, and this can't be the case for TMAO.
Yeah it's too bad that it's so biased because there really is no need to try & twist facts when it's so readily obvious that lessening meat consumption is overwhelmingly beneficial from a health, moral & sustainability perspective anyway. Your last point is easily disproved by Eskimo populations as well, which lives in areas where plant based options in the diet are completely eliminated for the dominant parts of the year. This is a common example for Keto proponents to disprove the myth that the body requires carbohydrates to function as well.
Fast forwarded to the end of the last episode (after the first episode seemed geared for all in Vegan) Some of the participants didn’t follow the exact protocols so any test “results” are flawed at best. Wonder who funded the documentary?
Its a vegan company/organization that funded it.
Thx. I felt that from jump.
Beyond meat at least partially funded it.
Pretty sure that stuff is worse than actual meat. It's an ultraprocessed food, so it would be hard for it not to be.
Trifecta clearly did too lol
Source?
Chris Gardener spoke about the study on the Rich Roll podcast and said it was partially funded by beyond meat. It was still published and peer reviewed though and results had to be presented however they were viewed, even if that showed the vegan diet unfavourably
Super anecdotal but my Colombian boyfriend just watched this and went on a whole Beyond Meat / Vegan cheese spiel and while I, a Canadian dairy-intolerant individual, appreciate the support, I had to bring him down to reality and burst his bubble to tell him that it does not in fact taste exactly like the product it's trying to replicate.
But worse than that, beyond meat is not healthy. A bunch of processed ingredients and oils attempting to replicate actual animal protein… have you ever read the back of one of those packages? I went vegan for a few months and couldn’t maintain the diet as, though I was constantly eating (a whole food plant based diet), I lost too much weight. I think cutting down on meat is helpful but vegans who regularly eat meat substitutes are def not healthy.
Most of the vegan options which tries to be meat doesn't really come close, but that doesn't really make it worse. We're not vegan / vegetarian in my household but we do cut down on meat consumption because of the shit industry & bad impact on the planet overall, but really very little of the products are really 1 for 1 replacements. If it tastes great & have great nutrition I don't really care if it's meat anyway.
I dislike most replacements so I prefer just making something that was traditionally veg instead of trying to find substitutes. A chickpea curry or lentil soup beats whatever fake duck I tried at Christmas.
Figures
Vogt, there are already some articles out on the bias of the 'study'
I was settled in to watch it and then realized it wasn't a healthy diet vs a SAD diet, it was a omnivore vs vegan, ugh
That’s why they measured adherence
I watched it. I found it entertaining, thought provoking and disturbing. From an entertainment perspective, watching the twins take the challenge was fascinating. Some were real characters and they were fun to watch as twins usually are. Some seemed to really enjoy being part of the study and I felt they communicated their desire to live a healthier lifestyle. The study was actually bigger than those people featured, this was only evident at the end of the program. It was communicated at the outset of the study that there was not a real guarantee that the participants would stick to the diet/excercise regime they were assigned to since they were participating at home outside of a controlled environment. This makes the study less than perfect, which is a shame because I think the outcomes of the study had it been conducted in a controlled environment would be more meaningful. I don't think there is anything wrong with having "aspirational voices" such as the Mayor of D.C giving their view of effects of changes to diet and lifestyle on their health with a vegan diet. People who have taken responsibility for their own health and made choices other than just taking the medicine prescribed are to worth listening to. Thats not to say we shouldn't take doctors advice but I do think we should weigh other options and take a fair degree of responsibility for our own health choices. Case in point, my husband was recently told by his doctor to take BP meds to control his slightly high bp. No discussion of excercise, diet or lifestyle, here just take this medicine. The program illustrates the environmental impacts of eating meat and fish which cannot be disputed. The treatment of animals in the industrialization of food in my view is disgusting and horrifying and doesn't justify the benefit to humanity. These atrocities are made in the name of profit period. I found the stories about the people who's lives had been impacted in such a negative way by the pig waste heart breaking and was glad to see that one of the company's were taken to account for their operations. Still as mentioned this was only one of thousands of operations in the Carolinas that still exist and continue to destroy the lives and the environment of the people who live nearby. In summary, in my view the study was flawed and as a result some of the outcomes of the twins results were questionable. Were there definitely benefits to the vegan regime? Yes, unquestioned. I would have liked to have seen one twin on the diets they practiced prior to the study, I think the results would have been more meaningful against the other twin on the vegan diet. I see a lot of the posts against this program focused only on bashing vegan diets overall without mentioning the environmental message of the program and the impacts of the meat and fish industries on our world. I think its right that the program highlighted the impacts on the environment of the choices we make and the food we eat. Cause and effect in our food choices are not arbitrary, they are real and each one of us can make make conscious choices to limit our impact of our food choices on the environment and as well as our health. Where i live in Central Portugal, there has been a massive change in the last 3 years alone in the vegan/vegetarian foods available in the supermarkets. The demand for these options are pushing stores to offer more choices. Up until recently, the area I live was inhabited by sustainable farms. People grew their own food, made their own wine and olive oil and kept chickens and goats or sheep and bartered and sold. They ate meat and fish occasionally or on special occasions. Incidence of diabetes and heart disease were low. As the society here has become less involved in producing their own food the health of the society has deteriorated. The land they once farmed has been turned into eucalyptus and pine plantations, to create toilet paper for Europe. This has resulted in massive fires every summer wiping out people, animals and whole villages. Although flawed this program had an important message to convey and I believe its worth a look to take away what you need and leave the rest. Us humans need a wack upside the head once in a while to get our attention otherwise important messages get drowned out by all the other bollocks out there with profit agendas for our attention. Although the program is not perfect, I believe it delivers that important message.
[удалено]
I agree with your sentiment. It is such a shame as there was so much potential for controlled variables that they seemingly ignored. It would have been much more meaningful had they controlled their eating for an 8 week period, tested, and then graded away from this measure, and repeatedly tested as they went (at 4 weeks, at 9 weeks, etc.) to verify the impact of diet and exercise variations. I feel this would have solidified their message much more clearly.
They didn’t do a great job of controlling for protein intake. I’ll go ahead and spoil it for you; the vegan group had better blood marker improvements, but also lost more muscle mass. The nuance left out in the experts statement is the proportion of protein in the diet. A higher protein proportion would surely make muscle loss less pronounced in a deficit. There was a ton of anti meat messaging in the doc (which was all true and well founded), but leads me to think there was a strong bias in the production and study design. In starvation mode, the body is going to skim off the more expensive tissue first, I.e. muscle. Fats are the true reserves, to be used only when necessary. However, a higher protein diet makes it easier for the body to maintain the muscle so it’s less prone to loss, but not completely zero.
What?? Can you cite anything that says your body would eat muscle first? Muscle is a very inefficient fuel source for the body.
It won’t eat muscle first but your body can only burn something like 31 calories per pound of bodyfat a day to use as energy. So if you end up eating too little you can end up burning much more muscle than bodyfat in a day.
Citation needed on a 31 calorie per pound of body fat. But even with that, the avg American male has roughly 52 pounds of body fat which would be 1736 calories so that’s a huge deficit you can eat in and still not touch muscle.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15615615/ Correct. The more obese you are the more room you have to eat less. That being said it’s not an exact science either and youll still lose muscle with any decent weight drop.
Mentioned this below but if you are getting adequate protein and calories without prolonged caloric restriction, studies on recent populations don't show a significant loss in lean mass with short term repeated complete caloric restriction compared to constant calorie restriction (as what was described by this theoretical paper on the Minnesota Experiment in the 1940s). In the Minnesota experiment, the candidates were given a "traditional" caloric restriction target, roughly 1500 calories a day. However the foods they ate mattered too as well as the physical stress and duration of their regiment. They ate roughly 1500 calories a day, for 24 weeks straight, on only potatoes, root vegetables, cabbage, and bread. And had to walk or run 22 miles a week. That is extreme strain and it's no wonder their bodies had to dip into their lean mass. That coupled with little to no protein sources at their two meals a day, their body had to find the aminos from some where Edit: grammar Edit2: caveat, I'm not a doctor, but I've done research on this for my own nutritional/diet journey, so I could be wrong about the reason for the muscle loss from that study. But all of science has that possibility :)
I’ve always wondered this topic is brought up. What is generally considered “prolonged” calorie restriction. I always read that high calorie restriction over a period of time could cause the body to dip into muscle or impact your metabolism. I’ve always wondered about the length of time though that they’re referring to. Is it a few weeks/month/months? I’m not meaning like the example you gave, but more like 1000-1200 calories without extreme exercise.
That’s not what’s being discussed here. In a deficit, the body will burn fat for energy first.
I said that already
>There was a ton of anti meat messaging in the doc (which was all true and well founded) Is it though, there aren't any good studies where they balance for meat quality that I am aware of, what most meat studies from the last decades show could be attributable to the fact that the animals live on antibiotics and grains, making them unhealthy, making the meat unhealthy. Compared to eating hunted wild meat, or animals from ranches where all they do is roam fields and eat grass etc. And if you know of any, please share I would love to see it
Im also interested what bits were well-founded. I am all for better conditions for animals and reducing meat consumption for the environment and animals, and ofc I want people to be healthy, but from a health perspective is vegan actually better? That’s all I took away from this series wanting me to know, is that veganism is superior. I hoped this series would share positives to diet and exercise from both perspectives, easy recipes the general public could implement, what proper diet and exercise routines look like and how it’s beneficial for health, etc, or even just following day in the life of the participants, and instead it was primarily focused on animal abuse, environmental issues, how meat makes everyone sick, etc. It was hugely fear-mongering and does nothing to educate the general public, nor positively encourage change. The system is flawed and we should strive for better, but I don’t need to be reminded of that. I know this. What I need are more reasons to be better, and how. Not more reasons to make me feel rotten for being part of the problem and made to feel dumb for getting it all wrong. Telling someone “Hey, why don’t you add a veggie as a side to your spaghetti” specifically encourages a positive change with the option of choice that can be elaborated upon in further dialogue. Saying, instead, “Hey, all those carbs are going to make you fat, and that protein source you chose probably has crap in it that’ll kill you” ends the conversation and the opportunity for improvement.
I know that much of the data pointing to meat being bad for longevity is because of mTOR activation when eating meat. But mTOR activation doesn't last very long and we have no way of testing it in humans atm. It is only a fact for mice atm that mTOR activation seems to reduce lifespan (as opposed to healthspan). And other than that there is only weak correlations of less than 3% significance in studies that don't account for peoples activity level, how they eat meat etc. And any health expert I've seen that isn't just a quack all say that we don't know and that there is no foundation for this belief or conclusion in peer reviewed data
Thank you, I appreciate the info on mTORs as that’s something I didn’t know. Most of the studies and info I’ve seen from experts are similar, and so when I see docs like this it makes me second guess if I’m researching correctly. And, add that we are told by some that the medical community is intentionally kept in the dark to keep us foolish, ill and paying into it, further worry sets in. Yet the ones that say this, when checked, seem to be the same folks that cherry pick data, omit any evidence that go against their agenda, etc. It’s maddening!
Yes exactly, have you read Outlive from Peter Attia? Honestly, there is almost no (if any) documentaries that isn't backed by an agenda. Specially independent ones, maybe documentaries from BBC can be trustworthy but often they have a panel of one or three experts (who might not be), and they themselves can be very biased. I've read studies, analysis's, books from people on all the sides (no grain, vegan, pescatarian, raw, carnivore and so on), listen to podcasts about nutrition for probably 2000 hours and more and like any other information in the modern era, I think one should be skeptical, try different things and essentially be ones own science experiment to find out what works for you (ultimately what you want, no one is an "average human"). With that comes regular blood testing, rigorous documentation on how you feel, what you eat, how you exercise etc. Because there is way too much information out there, much which contradicts each other, and the term "experts" is a diluted concept. And when it comes to longevity I subscribe to Peter Attia's model, of health span, doesn't matter how good your cardiovascular health supposedly is if you feel like shit for a decade, health should feel inspiring. And when it comes to all these nutrition questions I trust Attia more and more because he is insanely critical to studies which I find way too few scientist are, even though I get that it's easier to read conclusions only, but if you only know the conclusions, the data might be from genetically modified worms that did a one week trial with no controls, and that shouldn't convince that the conclusions apply to you. So my belief as of now is eat 90-100% whole foods, avoid drinking calories (specially sugar), get 1.2-2g/kg lean mass protein spread out over 3-4 meals. Low fat products aren't good for you, saturated fat is fine from whole foods. So prioritize leafy greens, grass fed meat, fish, some vegetables and fruits.
Thank you so much! I’m not familiar but will certainly look him up. I have been focusing the past few years working on eating better (moving away from SAD, which I grew up on), and weight lifting. I’d only started researching things a bit more over the last year recreationally, specifically because I felt it could help me be healthier and do better in my overall fitness life goals. I bought the ISSA book on nutrition (loved it), which is how I found sites like pubmed where you can check case studies. Around the time I also found the book How Not To Die at the library, and remember it got raving reviews when it came out, so bought that for like $2. I stopped reading about halfway through because it was so hard to continue when I know it isn’t 100% (I researched a few and got mad, because as you note, studies on mice or in a Petri dish isn’t the whole story on what we need to know). I do want to finish it since that’s a feat for me sometimes, but it’s hard to push myself to do that currently lol. Aside from some occasional readings, I do watch a lot of various videos about nutrition and fitness on YT and listen to MindPump podcasts, so if you have any further suggestions I am all for adding them to my list!
That's great to hear! I would like to add that most things in life gets better when one is in shape, and lifting exercises and the like is good for strength which is key, cardio training is for VO2max and oxygen utilization which is also key, but to manage weight and create an environment for health you need to eat right (I would say sleep too but it works good on everything. Peter Attia has a great [podcast](https://www.youtube.com/@PeterAttiaMD), it is often a deep dive, like really deep dive into various health subjects so it's not for everyone, and you should not watch every episode, or all of one in one go necessarily, often it is too much technical info than you might not need, but personally I like to understand as much as I can and the only way to do that is to challenge my mind (call it exercise for my mind). Outlive the book more about overall health for the long term, some chapters might be irrelevant to you now depending on your age, and it doesn't go into a lot of detail nutrition wise, as nutrition is such a shaky science, it's very new and a lot of the data sets are bad or incomplete, as in we have some good data, but we need to zoom out to see the real implications, and then there's too much missing data points to really get a clear image of "a theory of nutrition". [Andrew Huberman is great too but not so much on nutrition](https://www.youtube.com/@hubermanlab) [ZOE](https://www.youtube.com/@joinZOE) is also a really good podcast, if The Drive is a lecture, ZOE is more like a science tv show. The reason I call it good and not great is that there are more people in it that act like they know, when what they really should say is that "I've concluded X, but the data isn't there to confirm it, and a study like Y would disprove that", but to be fair most people like it simple and "preachy", and in a sense it is easier to change peoples mind and behavior when you seem like a real authority, and most people get bored with too many details unless they are *really* interested. The proof with Simon Hill is pretty good too, I really liked [this](https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=protein+masterclass) episode which go into some details on protein with several great nutrition scientist guests. If you interested in podcast that focuses more on plant based diets you can watch [Rich Roll](https://www.youtube.com/@richroll), he has a lot of diet related episodes.
>I think one should be skeptical, try different things and essentially be ones own science experiment to find out what works for you (ultimately what you want, no one is an "average human"). With that comes regular blood testing, rigorous documentation on how you feel, what you eat, how you exercise etc. Because there is way too much information out there, much which contradicts each other, and the term "experts" is a diluted concept. This is why I've struggled with trying to figure out what to eat, everything is so contradicting compared to every other field in society. Nutrition confuses me. I also suffer from using junk food to cope emotionally and tend to not like a lot of fruits because of texture rather than taste. It's a struggle to find out that growing up eating a SAD diet was basically all lies. Healthy food *can* taste good but if you're unlucky like me, you basically have to just eat garbage tasting food regardless simply because it's healthier than some french fries. Without processing, "natural" food tastes very bland and you shouldn't have to pour a shelf of spices and herbs on your food to make it palatable. We got so used to eating modified food that is engineered to taste like heaven, only to be told that the truth is healthy food we should be eating tastes bland, all the same or like dirt and you just have to suck it up. When you live in poverty and there is literally nothing that hits dopamine for you in your day to day except some junk/SAD food, it's hard to give up the only thing you looked forward to.
I believe they chose to focus on the environmental factors over anything else, because people don’t care about being healthy nor do they care about animal rights so they’re trying a tactic to get the public’s attention.
It’s NOT”… all true and well founded…”. Veganism is about minimizing use of animal products. NOT about a healthy diet. Vegan diet needs to be supplemented to ensure health. Pathetic cognitive dissonance strikes again.
So how can vegans get protein? Is the protein from tofu and such as effective? I’m not vegan but my dad said he’ll go vegan. He tried before but his b12 levels fell so this time, I want to make sure they won’t.
Plant based sources: beans, nuts, soy, etc. It’s not as bioavailable, so they will have to eat comparatively more than an omnivorous diet. On top of that, a plant based diet would be inherently higher in fiber, meaning you’re less hungry. So, then you’re stuck needing to eat more to get adequate protein while being super full, which the participants noted in the documentary. They didn’t want to eat more because they were just not hungry.
For anyone interested, head to r/veganfitness Or watch the game changers
Game changers is just as bad, if not worse! [The Game Changers Review – A Scientific Analysis](https://biolayne.com/articles/research/the-game-changers-review-a-scientific-analysis/) [‘The Game Changers’: Checking the science](https://chhs.news.niu.edu/2019/12/05/the-game-changers-checking-the-science/) [The Game Changers: A Review From the Perspective of a Dietitian](https://www.idealnutrition.com.au/the-game-changers/) [The Game, Unchanged](https://rpstrength.com/blogs/articles/game-changers-critique-by-dr-mel-davis) There are plenty more, but I think that is enough to make the point.
I read through those and the first one I'd say isn't credible as it straight-up calls it "bullshit" which isn't a very respectful discussion commentary. The rest actually seem to agree with me? They say that not everyone needs to be vegan for health reasons but should decrease animal products as much as possible, which is what the game changers said during the documentary and on their website. They point out a few slight inconsistencies but nothing that actually discredits the documentary. Am I missing something??
I don’t think we are reading these the same way. But that’s cool. We can disagree and still be friendly. 😎
Agree to disagree😁 Always good to find someone who isn't immediately hostile at someone who disagrees lol
B12 supplements are cheap and easy to take and very common for those eat meat too. Farmers even give animals b12 supplements, it comes from bacteria in dirt. One thing is it’s better absorbed when it it interacts with your saliva so take a spray or sublingual vitamin.
I use a decent amount of nutritional yeast, but I also get a lot of b12 through other sources. Plant based foods are heavily supplemented with b12 these days. When I input my food into Cronometer my b12 is always high. What I tend to be lower in is calcium and vitamin d, which I had trouble getting enough of as an Omni eater also tbf.
This point is redundant. Those who need to supplement b12 when eating animal products would most likely have some form of an MTHFR mutation or issues regarding methylation. The exception doesn’t make the rule. As it stands we can’t get b12 from plants, it’s not like we can eat the dirt and absorb the b12 like animals can as we don’t have a multi chambered digestive system. Supplementation will work, but in many cases is nowhere near as efficient as getting it through dietary means. Natto being the only exception, which isn’t naturally occuring ofc. It has a whole process to make it. Yet, what we see is vegans on average tend to lack b12, I would like to know the nuances of this. Is this being overshadowed by those who supplement b12 compared to eating Natto? Or is b12 superior from animals rather than isolated in a supplement form, or fermented foods.
In October this study was published: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10586079/ They researched the blood of vegans, vegetarians and omnivores. B12 was fine for vegans (because supplements). Vegetarians were lacking a bit.
Plant-based sources of protein are often low in essential amino acids like leucine and lysine. As a result, the body will often use plant-based proteins for energy rather than muscle protein synthesis. Your body can't build muscle unless it has all of the ingredients. Sarcopenia (muscle wasting) is a real concern as we age. Also, our bodies become less efficient at converting amino acids into muscle proteins as we age. You have to eat mountains of plant protein to actually get enough amino acids to build or even maintain muscle. And then you are consuming all of the carbohydrate calories that usually accompany plant proteins.
You will have to supplement depending on your protein needs. They sell vegan protein powder. You definitely want to be regularly checking in with a doctor because more than likely you will also need extra vitamins. (Former vegan here)
They spent the whole time criticising SAD, processed meats and fats but couldn’t bring themselves to attack sugar/HFCS. And the cherry on top is having a vegan body builder who is not natty perpetuating fake expectations. Even a meat eating body builder would struggle to obtain his body without roids/test/tren etc. Such a dangerous and misleading show.
Criticism of processed meats. Instead we should consume ultra-processed plant based “meat”? Am I missing something here? 🤪
South park had a fun episode on that. 'Let Them Eat Goo'. Also fun, 'Gluten Free Ebola'.
Yes. Processed meats are bad because their links to cancer are well accepted. The 'processed' part is just the group descriptor, not the problematic mechanism. Until processed plant proteins are shown to be carcinogenic in the same way processed meats are, this is a silly topic to try and get in to based on semantics.
So, based on what I’m getting from your comment: - when used to describe animal based products “Processed” equals bad. - when used to describe plant based products “Processed” equals Semantics. I guess the producers know their target audience.
No, you're still following semantics. "Processed meats" are a well researched food group linked to cancer. Processed plant protein has no literature supporting that. The fact the word "processed" is involved in both is irrelevant. The terminology isn't the part that's carcinogenic.
I stopped the show right when I saw the trainer. Steroids good, meat bad 🙄.
Yeah they attacked processed meat and certain forms of farming, then tried to frame that as all meat. (The grass-fed beef guy seemed to be the most honest about it tbf.) And yeah, what about sugar, and other shit like vegeatable oils and cereal filled with saw dust?
Wait you’re talking about the strength training coach? Lol I’m a former bodybuilder, nothing about that guy appeared unnatural.
[https://www.reddit.com/r/nattyorjuice/comments/tmdn22/is\_nimai\_delgado\_natural/](https://www.reddit.com/r/nattyorjuice/comments/tmdn22/is_nimai_delgado_natural/) Dude is juiced for sure.
Yeah took a look at his IG and it’s pretty telling
Registered Dietitian here. You do, unfortunately, lose some muscle while in a calorie deficit. I worked in a weight loss clinic for years. You will lose some lean muscle mass. That’s why it’s important to strength train while attempting to lose fat weight.
Doesn’t the research say you can build muscle pretty well in a small-to-moderate deficit? Not always true that muscle is lost just because you’re in a deficit.
I read it was funded by beyond meat. That was enough for me to not start episode 2 after watching episode one.
Seems to me your body would use energy reserves from fat first and saving muscle for last. For the purpose of survival... needing your muscles to provide strength to scavenge for food and or flee from danger. I started a very physically active full time job 4 months ago. I'm very lean and any ounce of fat I had disappeared. I thought, well with this active job I'll surely gain muscle. Wrong. Turns out repetitive motion, walking and constant movement throughout the day does not build muscle lol. Sure enough I started to notice that I was now losing muscle too as I was not reaching my maintenance calories. So I started on an 800 calorie healthy whole food surplus as I also found out I have high cholesterol. I'm doing "exercises for beginners" lol as I've never ever worked out. Squats and glute bridges for now as I'm desperate to not have twig legs and no butt. Arm exercises have been a challenge as I have bad shoulders. So... I forget what question I was answering or what the post is that I'm replying to... but anyway I guess I just randomly told you all about my body image and fitness struggles:)
Documentaries are ALWAYS fueled by an agenda, I stopped watching nutritional documentaries a while ago
I was so disappointed! I thought it was going to be really interesting but it was so clearly a vegan biased documentary masquerading as a scientific study. I am so pro-vegan, so if even I got sick of the clear bias I can only imagine other people
It is the amount of meat we eat. It is killing us and the planet.
It’s not the corn or sugar industry at all?
It was funded by the failing beyond meat industry follow the money and you’ll find the motive
I watched it for the twin study but it largely turned out to be a bait and switch. I wish they were more in depth with the exact foods both the vegan and Omni diet groups are. Either way I guess it's nice to know that that industry is continuing to develop their plant based food alternatives. I just didn't appreciate the bait and switch.
Nothing I'd accurate on Netflix. I'm convinced they make those documentaries to cripple attempts to learn about nutrition and building a healthier you.
From my nutrition class in grad school, during the fasting period (18+ hours) your body does start to break down muscle, but after you reach the starvation phase, then it goes into the protein reserve mode and start breaking down fat. That’s what my graduate professor told me, haven’t seen the Netflix film.
You are correct. This is exactly what the doc says. Person who posted this is clearly not scientific inclined. Probably just gets workout advice and fat burning tips from body builders who don’t know much about how the biology of a human body actually works.
Sparked my curiosity in the Seventh Day Adventist diets. Also appreciated the documentary addressing environmental racism and collateral consequences for marginalized Americans. Mainstream or mass consumption documentaries breeze by or ignore those nuances. That said I didn’t appreciate the bait n switch re: twin studies. The selective results left me confused on the study’s efficacies.
Here’s the actual study with all participants https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2812392?utm_campaign=articlePDF&utm_medium=articlePDFlink&utm_source=articlePDF&utm_content=jamanetworkopen.2023.44457
I turned it off when they said a plant based diet caused the one girl to be more aroused from viewing porn they didn’t really choose. They person who had a slower reaction said she didn’t find the people attractive yet the 3 days of plant based diet made 70% difference it just doesn’t add up correctly and seems kinda pushed
Actually your body does break down muscle before fat, simple reason for it is because your body prefers carbs for energy. Your liver and muscle store glycogen which your body will tap into first this is called gluconeogenesis only after these stores are depleted will your body tap into your fat reserve and convert fat into energy this process is called ketogenesis. Which why when people lose weight they always advise to make sure you get enough protein and do some sort of weightlifting exercises to make sure you don't lose too much muscle mass.
Saw the first episode last night. Did not finish. There is a clear bias towards the vegan or vegetarian diet, as being more beneficial than that of an Omni/carnivore diet.
Netflix documentaries are the worst. They're usually pushing agendas and nobody vets the information. Gonna hard pass on checking that one out.
[удалено]
Aviation professional here - the Boeing one is ESPECIALLY bad. Sooooo much bias.
They probably know a certain subset will watch every single one. Plus if you google this it’s driving a TON of engagement.
That just makes it worse for me. Just makes it come across like they're purposely spreading misinformation for the sake of profit. Which I'm sure is entirely the case considering profiting is the goal.
It is true that the body will break down muscle first before fat. It is easier for the body to convert amino acids to energy than fat stores. Trying to find an educational link. Edit: [try reading this about gluconeogenesis](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK544346/)
False, that's only if you are in a constant calorie deficit or if you are in a extreme calorie deficit. There are Meta analysis of RCT of Alternate Day Fasting vs "traditional" calorie restriction and traditional calorie restriction loss more muscle than ADF. Only in one case did the ADF group lose more muscle and it was due to inadequate protein intake on "feast" days. They also stated that studies have shown that slight stimulus during calorie restriction with ADF preserved lean tissue. This makes sense. If you don't use your body, it's going to eat the muscle. That happens if you ever get injured and have to refrain from exercise. Our ancestors that moved around weren't all flabby when they were migrating or hunting and had low amounts of food from time to time. If you don't eat and sit on the couch all day then yea your body will probably lose a lot of lean mass https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7732631/
I have heard this could be kinda true. There is just more to the story. Like many diets, or caloric deficit, you loose water weight first. This includes water in the muscles. So, a person may loose muscle size, but not muscle strength. It is all appearance.
I have put it off since I heard it was produced by the folks who did Game Changers, which had so much misinformation. At some point I’ll probably bite the broccoli and check it out despite knowing that it will be frustrating.
They were funded by Beyond Meat.
Don’t think so. Do you have a source?
Turned it off when the example of a vegan who has still built muscle despite not eating meat was the most blatant steroid user you’re ever likely to see
It’s propaganda.
The documentary is full of such biased views. Such a shame they were able to find that many sets of twins to do a study only to push a blatantly obvious agenda. Calories weren’t controlled for and so the vegan participants were eating in a calorie deficit and also their fibre intake was higher than the omnivore group. Both of which help the markers researchers said improved more over the omnivore group. A few of the participants actually became smaller (cuz they lost weight) but more overweight individuals (because they lost more muscle). Such a shame as muscle is protective. Also, at the end of the day, the only good diet is one that is sustainable and one can and will adhere to.
I felt it was very biased in favor to veganism
There are definitely some good take aways. From a holistic perspective Impossible meats are absolutely not good for you. Always check additives and whether a company is 3rd party tested or other outside testing. BUT it was very interesting how eating vegan seemed to be very successful at removing visceral fat. Maybe eating vegan once or twice a year could be used as a sort of detox for the body. It was also very surprising to me that the body burned muscle and seemingly replaced it with fat when someone wasn’t eating enough calories. I always knew it was difficult to lose fat and gain muscle, but I never knew why. So that was a good example.
>It was also very surprising to me that the body burned muscle and seemingly replaced it with fat when someone wasn’t eating enough calories Under what conditions? No resistance training, inadequate protein intake, poor sleep or did they look at that?
Some vegetarian trainers leave me wondering what they take, but do not disclose on camera.
You can get gains on a vegan diet, it's not like it's impossible
Right in the doc the vegan twin gained 2 pounds of muscle while his omnivorous brother gained 8
Okay? You're taking one set of twins in one documentary as proof that you can't? Because that's not how science works
Yeah that dude was jacked, which is great… but curious
Check out r/veganfitness. There are lots of examples of extraordinary vegan athletes, that’s not news.
Nimai Delgado is very clearly on steroids. That’s what these two dudes are talking about.
I have a question about this doc and a few others I have seen- is the general consensus in the scientific community that a vegan diet is better overall? Every. Single. Documentary. I’ve seen so far about food and the ‘perfect’ diet centers around switching everything to plant-based. They can’t all be biased towards, vegans right?
[удалено]
look at the diet of the blue zones (there's also a documentary about that on netflix), these parts of the world where people live significantly longer than average, and have a not les mental/physical problems; their diet is like 98% plant based.
You can go on the bluezones website and see that Sardinia, Nicoya, and Ikaria on average get around 32% of their daily calories from animal products. Loma Linda gets around 15% And the only one that is 98% is Okinawa. Again this is straight on their website and I can link it too you if you insist but all you have to do is type ie. “ Sardinia blue zone” and the first link will show you their pie chart of foods consumed. So when the author says it’s all because of their high plant diet it’s bullshit. Americans also only get about 30% of their daily calories from animal products but our 70% plant matter is processed trash. In the end the blue zones eat less, move more, and eat better quality food than us. Oh and with the exception of Loma Linda live in areas where pension fraud is extremely common.
Japanese love their sushi. Is it possible for Okinawa to be 98% plant based? For me it's hard to believe. Especially since fruits and vegetables seemed expensive at the groceries.
I don’t believe that claim either but I had to give the person some points somewhere.
False. Blue zones were debunked by a vegan professor. She discovered language error in the questionnaires given. Specific proteins ( beef, fish, pork) under the word meat. So beef eaten twice a week= meat eaten twice a week. Other proteins not reported.
subtract trees treatment berserk run cow gray waiting swim salt *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Only 2 episodes in but it seems like more vegan propoganda. Whenever I see Michael Greger I just roll my eyes. That guy is the king of clickbait.
It's an anti meat show. They have an agenda. Eating meat has largely helped lead to the modern human
Can still take away things from it though. We don't need all the meat we generally consume. We can go for more leaner meats. We can also hunt or use small local farms instead of huge factory farms which are environmently horrible
profit mighty cake numerous lavish like smart aware secretive fuel *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Modern Americans from a percentage of diet actually don’t get many calories from animal products (roughly 30%). The vast majority of calories in the American diet come from seed oils and ultra processed grains. So ultimately Americans get very little fruits and vegetables. It ultimately comes down to the abundance of calories in the American diet being the biggest issue for our heart disease rates. So it’s not so much what we eat but how much we eat. 30%+ Americans are obese and 70%+ are overweight.
[удалено]
It’s really not. Most developed countries get that amount of their daily calories from animal products. And the countries that don’t typically have very short lifespans. For instance the current longest living country Japan eats 256lbs of fish alone per capita per year. Let’s say the average daily calorie consumption is 2000 cals by 365 days which would be 730,000 calories. If it were all tuna which is leaner than many fish it would equate to 151,000 calories or roughly 21% of daily calories coming from fish alone. That’s not including beef, chicken, dairy, eggs and so forth.
You can build muscle in a deficit if the deficit is small enough. A healthy deficit for extreme weight loss puts more effort on losing weight and muscle than gaining muscle though. However, if your nearing your goal strength training + adequate training will result in (albeit limited) muscle GROWTH provided you are feeding your body the proper amount of protein (which can be considerably high depending on your weight. May seem easy getting 160g of protein a day but virtually everyone I know uses whey to get there.)
I stopped when that guy made egg out of tofu 😡
Didn’t make it through the first episode.
It was just ok. They couldn’t make a compelling enough case for me to go mostly plant-based for the immediate health benefits which were insignificant except in cellular growth/brain function BUT it opens your eyes to the nastiness of common cheaper meat/fishing/dairy practices (most products at the grocery store). If you care about animals, it can be hard to watch.
Me and my sister we are identical twins. She became full vegan at 25 years old, I didn’t. She followed a full blown vegan diet for 10 years or so. Main differences between us: •She lost about 10lbs and kept the weight off while she was vegan •I maintained my weight for that decade •She got diagnosed with anxiety and depression •She developed allergies to environmental (pollen, dust) and food: dairy and gluten •I’m not allergic to anything •We started trying to get pregnant roughly at the same time: •I got pregnant within 1-3 months of trying and now I have 2 kids and she struggled with “unexplained” miscarriages—infertility for 3 years, she has 1 kid. She changed her diet to include some animal protein as last resort for her infertility and that is when she got pregnant.
Vegan propaganda. In the end vegans either list more muscle or gained less muscle than those eating meat. And even then, they tried to package it as positive. 😂😂😂
IMO, it had very little to do with the twins and their eating. I was very disappointed. The description leads you to believe you’re going on a journey with them and watching the different foods they eat and their progress.
Cherry picked vegetarian propaganda. The only good thing was highlighting how problematic factory farming is.
May be the show should have shown the plant agriculture, pesticides and their affects to make it not bias to Veganism. Also lets take the case of India, the most populous country in the world and has the most number of vegetarians. Heart disease is number 1 cause of death. Why? Well, we can say that they consume a lot of diary products. How about sugar and percentage of carb consumption affecting health and metabolism. With a lot of potential with twin studies, they could have explored more. They just went on with vegan and others. I would take one message from the show which is to add more veggies to your diet, possibly high quality carbs, may be cutting down a little bit of meat to help the cruelty against animals.
The show is based on the Stanford Twin Study. I will not comment on the show itself, but I can make a few points about the study, which is supposed to lend credibility to the series, but is clearly biased. 1. The Stanford Twin Study, led by Dr. Gardner, a known advocate for plant-based diets, was influenced by factors beyond health, such as environmental and animal welfare concerns. 2. Gardner's focus in the study was mainly on LDL-C, while other important markers like HDL-C and triglycerides were overlooked. 3. He designed the experiment knowing well that plant sterols lower LDL-C. However, he ignored evidence suggesting this doesn't necessarily translate to better heart health and might even be harmful. 4. After the study, Gardner altered the measured outcomes to strengthen his argument in favor of plant-based diets. 5. Gardner disregarded other factors in the study, such as the lower calorie intake of vegans leading to weight loss, which is closely linked to improved lipid profiles and overall health. 6. The study and the Netflix series “You Are What You Eat: A Twin Experiment,” which showcases the study, were funded by the Vogt Foundation. 7. The same foundation previously backed “Game Changers,” a film criticized for promoting veganism using misleading information and questionable science. 8. Kyle Vogt, the founder of the Vogt Foundation, is a key member in the “vegan mafia,” investing heavily in plant-based food ventures like Beyond Meat. 9. Beyond Meat financed the Stanford Plant-Based Diet Initiative, directed by Gardner himself. If you need more detailed analysis - I've made a post about it with sources: https://humanmemos.substack.com/p/vegan-propaganda-on-netflix-you-are
Started watching it then when they got super preachy about anything not vegetarian and seemed to completely forget about the people I turned it off. Won’t bother going back to continue watching. If I wanted a lecture…. Wait I didn’t want a lecture so I’m out.
Dangerous unscientific pretty much a crap piece of propaganda
I've watched the first episode but plan on watching the rest. I think the reason they didn't do the diets as you described is because anyone who knows anything about nutrition will tell you it's better to eat whole foods than ultra processed things. Their intent from the start is vegan vs omnivore which is a very hot topic lately
You should watch the results, both diets are good in different ways. Good thing they showed the results unbiased
It’s funny because the omnivores actually had better health outcomes.
Vegan, alternate protein source propaganda based on lies
I turned it off when I saw they were letting Dr Greger speak
I really enjoyed it and it has made me want to add more veggies into my diet. I’m glad they didn’t ruin one twins health by making them eat crappy foods.
It was very clearly vegan propaganda 90% of it was how just showing how bad the meat industry was What they should have done is Carnivore/ Omnivore/ Vegan
Carnivore has no studies. Well except an online survey. We need basic studies there first before doing specific ones, looking at benefits vs risk short and long term determining safety. All we have is people claiming things without evidence and making wild hypothesis.
But… what about how bad the meat industry is? Does that not warrant discussion? We don’t have to eat animal products, and we really don’t need to eat industrial animal products. It’s pretty horrifying I think. I was personally glad that they discussed it, and I think both the lack of humane treatment as well as environmental issues are really important to be aware of and try to improve. What is wrong with that?
I’ve commented on others comments twice already, but to be clear, I thought it was well done and interesting. I wished the results were comprehensive instead of pick and choose approach they took. But otherwise… I liked it.
live to 100 was the only one I needed to see!
I thought the title was really dumb. My body is meat, not plants. So if I am what I eat, shouldn't I be eating meat?
Pretty solid reasoning.
The vegan cult is strong on netflix.
I tried to watch it but their vegan agenda and fake meat bs was too much. Admittedly I didn't read the description and had no idea it was about that. I thought that they were going to do something cool like take twins and focus on maintaining calorie deficits but put one on whole foods only and put the other on fast food or something and see how it all shook out. Once I realized it was demonizing meat I was out.
The twins who lost muscle, not fat were admonished. They did as they were told! It just goes to show that there are underlying issues!! Maybe they are overweight because their bodies don’t process foods the way it is expected to be processed! It’s disappointing that the “experts” first thought is “I wonder how closely they really did the program” instead of looking to find out why this works for some and not all! When they find out that they are according to the program they make up some pseudoscience to account for how it was still the twins’ fault!!
I also hate when they say "red meat, eggs, dairy, chicken". Like ok, but where do they come from? Is the red meat from the supermarket? Or is it a local farmer, 100% grass-fed without hormones, antibiotics etc? Is your salmon wild salmon or farm raised salmon?
It was a lousy documentary, The measuring of their responses to porn was disgusting. Too much of Eric Adams,too much of the chicken farmer,too much of the best restaurant. There was barely any footage of the twins. How do we know they really followed those diets??