What the Health/Cowspiracy/Forks Over Knives

[lifeanon269]

That was a really good post on the power of the scientific method, lifeanon269! I enjoyed reading it.

But isn't your conclusion that...we don't really know yet? If it's something else, can you clarify? I'd like to understand.

Thank you.

I wouldn't say that my conclusion is "we don't know". Like I said, we have a huge amount of evidence that shows a plant-based diet is extremely healthy and has the capability of preventing and even reversing some of our deadliest diseases. From a public health perspective, it is important to use this information as a control under which future health studies are performed. If it has been shown that the only diet thus far to show reversal of atherosclerosis in patients is a whole plant-based diet, then why not use that as a control group to determine what additional foods could be intervened with to determine whether or not they're truly healthy? Contrary to this, we have studies like the Mediterranean study that showed that individuals on a Mediterranean diet died of heart disease less frequently than those that were not. Society then runs with this conclusion to claim that olive oil is healthy for us. Meanwhile, we miss the important fact that those on the Mediterranean diet still died of heart disease, just not as frequently. If, however, those on the Mediterranean diet in the study were controlled against those on a whole plant-based diet alone, then we'd see that the outcomes would be starkly different and we wouldn't be drawing conclusions that olive oil is healthy and that the differences in disease rates could be possibly explained by the remaining differences in diet.

Ultimately, it isn't so much that we don't know what's healthy and what isn't. It is just simply a more conservative approach to drawing conclusions based on flawed study methodology. Since we know what is healthy, it is important that we don't draw assumptions by including further food groups into that "healthy" category until we've performed as study with that food group controlled against what we already know is healthy. Unfortunately, the opposite is done today where studies are controlled against the standard American diet.

Finally, it is important to note that these studies produce results that are for public health guideline purposes only. Obviously, as others have stated, every individual is different. But, it is important to clarify what "different" means. A vast majority of humans are not "different" in the sense of nutritional needs. Showing that one person can't digest gluten as reason for an entire population to avoid gluten is not going to do the general public any good from a nutritional stand point. That is why broad ecological studies are extremely important. While there will be great variations in individuals on a case by case basis because of allergies, intolerances, autoimmune diseases, deficiencies, etc, it is important to remember that when looking at broader ecological studies that compare vast populations from a wholistic point of view, these differences are teased out and aren't noisy enough to cause variations in the overall data. Meta-analysis studies are also good at avoiding variations in data due to individual diet tolerances that can creep up in any given study on its own.

If you look through this thread, you'll see people on both sides of the argument using anecdotal evidence of a friend or family member that tried this or that. Both sides are guilty of this. It is important to just ignore this. There will always be a person that can smoke a pack a day and live to 100 and the person that always ate healthy and died at 55.

Adding to the list, how many millions of people died of heart disease caused, or at least made worse by, the push to a high carb low fat diet and the substitution of trans fats (margarine)? The science was settled on the issue until, oops, we are now finding out that was deadly advice. I'm an engineer and love science, but it's not infallible or sacred, especially something like nutrition which has an almost infinite number of confounding factors.

Except that is actually a false narrative. The narrative that Americans went on a "low fat" diet and were worse off for it isn't true at all. Americans have been consuming more and more fat in their diet since the 1980's. Secondly, the science is and was completely the opposite of that narrative. This is just another example of poor conclusions being drawn from studies that were not controlled against what the media wanted to sensationalize. The media and food industry is more to blame for conclusions like that than the scientific community is.

[FINate]

Except that is actually a false narrative. The narrative that Americans went on a "low fat" diet and were worse off for it isn't true at all. Americans have been consuming more and more fat in their diet since the 1980's. Secondly, the science is and was completely the opposite of that narrative. This is just another example of poor conclusions being drawn from studies that were not controlled against what the media wanted to sensationalize. The media and food industry is more to blame for conclusions like that than the scientific community is.

Citation RE increased fat consumption? My understanding (from, among other places, "In Defense of Food") is that animal fat consumption decreased, fat from oils increased (especially since the "good fat" craze of the 90s), but overall fat consumption remained relatively unchanged. But people ate a lot more carbs and thereby increased caloric intake. Did they eat more carbs because they thought it was healthy to do so? Or perhaps carbs don't satiate the way fats do?

I also think it's disingenuous to say that the high carb low fat diet was not based on science. It was an official government dietary recommendation, based in part on government research and lots of other science. Doctors put large numbers of people on low fat diets. Yes the food industry influence the results for their benefit - in other words science is not infallible and is susceptible to outside interference. See Publication Bias (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Publication_bias) as another example of this.

[mm1970]

Except that is actually a false narrative. The narrative that Americans went on a "low fat" diet and were worse off for it isn't true at all. Americans have been consuming more and more fat in their diet since the 1980's. Secondly, the science is and was completely the opposite of that narrative. This is just another example of poor conclusions being drawn from studies that were not controlled against what the media wanted to sensationalize. The media and food industry is more to blame for conclusions like that than the scientific community is.

Citation RE increased fat consumption? My understanding (from, among other places, "In Defense of Food") is that animal fat consumption decreased, fat from oils increased (especially since the "good fat" craze of the 90s), but overall fat consumption remained relatively unchanged. But people ate a lot more carbs and thereby increased caloric intake. Did they eat more carbs because they thought it was healthy to do so? Or perhaps carbs don't satiate the way fats do?

I also think it's disingenuous to say that the high carb low fat diet was not based on science. It was an official government dietary recommendation, based in part on government research and lots of other science. Doctors put large numbers of people on low fat diets. Yes the food industry influence the results for their benefit - in other words science is not infallible and is susceptible to outside interference. See Publication Bias (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Publication_bias) as another example of this.

Well, actually -

The high carb low fat diet from the food pyramid that was released in the 1990s - wasn't really based on science.  See Death by Food Pyramid by Denise Minger where she references What to Eat by Luise Light.  Luise Light was actually hired to develop the food pyramid.  She assembled a panel of experts, who combed through all of the studies that existed at the time.  They made their recommendations.  Then the upper echelons basically came back with "edits" (policy decisions) that did not match the science of the day. They were placating the food industry.  In fact, the research at the time suggested that for health, people should be eating WHOLE grains only, and a maximum of 3-4 servings a day (though really, the 4 servings was for only young men or very active people).

This was the early 1980s.  She quit that job in frustration, and the pyramid that was released 12 years later did not match her recommendations at ALL.

http://www.whale.to/a/light.html

This book was a game changer to me. 

And you can eat a "plant-based" diet and still eat meat.  Most of the food I eat are plants.  On the order of 2-3 pounds of fruits and veggies per day.

[lifeanon269]

Citation RE increased fat consumption? My understanding (from, among other places, "In Defense of Food") is that animal fat consumption decreased, fat from oils increased (especially since the "good fat" craze of the 90s), but overall fat consumption remained relatively unchanged. But people ate a lot more carbs and thereby increased caloric intake. Did they eat more carbs because they thought it was healthy to do so? Or perhaps carbs don't satiate the way fats do?

I also think it's disingenuous to say that the high carb low fat diet was not based on science. It was an official government dietary recommendation, based in part on government research and lots of other science. Doctors put large numbers of people on low fat diets. Yes the food industry influence the results for their benefit - in other words science is not infallible and is susceptible to outside interference. See Publication Bias (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Publication_bias) as another example of this.

It can be misleading to state that fat consumption has decreased when looking at it from the standpoint of a percentage of total calories. Because of the fact that total calorie intake has been ever increasing, total fat intake as a percentage of that has been decreasing, but the amount of fat in our diets has been increasing since the start of the 1990's. According to CDC's and USDA's website, total fat consumption has remained steady or increased. Our bodies don't care much for percentages of total intake. They care more about intake as a whole.

https://www.cnpp.usda.gov/sites/default/files/nutrition_insights_uploads/insight5.pdf

Make no mistake, consuming a diet that consists of 100g of fat, regardless of its percentage of total calories and regardless of the source of that fat is not a "low-fat" diet, nor would it likely be the result of a diet of an individual consuming a diet that leans heavily on whole plant-foods. This was the point I was making earlier. When looking at nutrients, it is important not to take the nutrients as causal to the diseases themselves, but more as merely indicative of the type of diet as a whole that the individuals consuming these nutrients are likely to be eating as a whole. In otherwords, if an individual is consuming a lot of dietary cholesterol, then it is likely that their diet is filled with lots of animal products and that any disease outcomes are not as a result of the cholesterol nutrient itself, but as a result of the foods as a whole. This is where ecological studies are helpful.

[FINate]

Well, actually -

The high carb low fat diet from the food pyramid that was released in the 1990s - wasn't really based on science.  See Death by Food Pyramid by Denise Minger where she references What to Eat by Luise Light.  Luise Light was actually hired to develop the food pyramid.  She assembled a panel of experts, who combed through all of the studies that existed at the time.  They made their recommendations.  Then the upper echelons basically came back with "edits" (policy decisions) that did not match the science of the day. They were placating the food industry.  In fact, the research at the time suggested that for health, people should be eating WHOLE grains only, and a maximum of 3-4 servings a day (though really, the 4 servings was for only young men or very active people).

This was the early 1980s.  She quit that job in frustration, and the pyramid that was released 12 years later did not match her recommendations at ALL.

http://www.whale.to/a/light.html

This book was a game changer to me. 

And you can eat a "plant-based" diet and still eat meat.  Most of the food I eat are plants.  On the order of 2-3 pounds of fruits and veggies per day.

I get that politicians ultimately set dietary guidelines, but it was based on input from experts from the nutrition science establishment. Low fat high carb was the accepted conventional wisdom of the day, and there was indeed a strong publication/confirmation bias. I'm not aware of any leading nutritionists who sounded the alarm that we were headed down a bad path. There were contrarian voices like Dr Atkins but they were dismissed as fringe elements (I've always regarded his diet as unhealthy and dangerous, still do, but I'm willing to accept now that there was an element of truth).

So yes, it was based on bad science. We can play semantic games arguing that bad science != science, but I think that misses the point that a lot of support was found in the nutrition establishment and medical journals. I'm not saying science itself bad...we vaccinate and greatly appreciate science. It has great potential, but it is human endeavor after all and therefore susceptible to error. It usually self corrects over time, but we should maintain a certain amount of skepticism with accepted results and conventional wisdom, especially scientists.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/10/05/opinions/debate-low-fat-diet-ludwig/index.html

[FINate]

Upthread you stated the following:

Americans have been consuming more and more fat in their diet since the 1980's.

The paper you linked to shows that absolute fat consumption has declined slightly since the late 1970s (the closest numbers for the start of the 80's). From 113 to 101 grams/day for men and 73 to 65 for women. If you want to have a discussion about total calories then that's quite different from your original claim. I don't think the science is clear on why people started taking in more calories. Was it driven by the move to trans fats? Or highly processed foods low in fiber and important nutrients that leave the consumer feeling hungry rather than satiated? Is it from a flood of simple carbohydrates overloading our bodies pancreas/insulin system? It's unclear. Is a whole food plant based diet better than a whole food mostly plant based diet? Again, unclear.

[lifeanon269]

The paper you linked to shows that absolute fat consumption has declined slightly since the late 1970s (the closest numbers for the start of the 80's). From 113 to 101 grams/day for men and 73 to 65 for women. If you want to have a discussion about total calories then that's quite different from your original claim. I don't think the science is clear on why people started taking in more calories. Was it driven by the move to trans fats? Or highly processed foods low in fiber and important nutrients that leave the consumer feeling hungry rather than satiated? Is it from a flood of simple carbohydrates overloading our bodies pancreas/insulin system? It's unclear. Is a whole food plant based diet better than a whole food mostly plant based diet? Again, unclear.

Starting in 1990, fat intake has largely been on the rise. So for largely the last 30 years, fat intake has been increasing.

Furthermore, as I already stated, fat intake, even going back to the 1970's would in no way ever have been regarded as "low-fat". Like I said, our bodies don't care what percentage the fat we're ingesting is relative to the rest of the food we're ingesting. If we're stuffing 100g of fat into bodies, it doesn't matter if that is 30% of our daily calories or 45%. The CNN article you linked to makes the same erroneous claim about fat in relative terms as a percentage of daily calories.

"As a result, within one generation, the proportion of fat in our diet decreased from above 40% to near the government-recommended 30%. But rates of obesity and diabetes surged, and the decades long downward trend in heart disease seems poised for reversal."

This is grossly misleading. Like I said, it creates the narrative that American's have adopted a low-fat diet with drastic consequences, but that just isn't true. The truth is that absolute fat consumption dropped slightly from the 1970s-80s and then has slowly increased from the 90s onward. All the while the number of calories people consume rises.

This is a good article that explains our scientific shortcomings with regard to government recommendations and why concentrating on nutrient levels like this is faulty:

http://nutritionstudies.org/2015-dietary-guidelines-commentary/

[FINate]

The paper you linked to shows that absolute fat consumption has declined slightly since the late 1970s (the closest numbers for the start of the 80's). From 113 to 101 grams/day for men and 73 to 65 for women. If you want to have a discussion about total calories then that's quite different from your original claim. I don't think the science is clear on why people started taking in more calories. Was it driven by the move to trans fats? Or highly processed foods low in fiber and important nutrients that leave the consumer feeling hungry rather than satiated? Is it from a flood of simple carbohydrates overloading our bodies pancreas/insulin system? It's unclear. Is a whole food plant based diet better than a whole food mostly plant based diet? Again, unclear.

Starting in 1990, fat intake has largely been on the rise. So for largely the last 30 years, fat intake has been increasing.

Furthermore, as I already stated, fat intake, even going back to the 1970's would in no way ever have been regarded as "low-fat". Like I said, our bodies don't care what percentage the fat we're ingesting is relative to the rest of the food we're ingesting. If we're stuffing 100g of fat into bodies, it doesn't matter if that is 30% of our daily calories or 45%. The CNN article you linked to makes the same erroneous claim about fat in relative terms as a percentage of daily calories.

"As a result, within one generation, the proportion of fat in our diet decreased from above 40% to near the government-recommended 30%. But rates of obesity and diabetes surged, and the decades long downward trend in heart disease seems poised for reversal."

This is grossly misleading. Like I said, it creates the narrative that American's have adopted a low-fat diet with drastic consequences, but that just isn't true. The truth is that absolute fat consumption dropped slightly from the 1970s-80s and then has slowly increased from the 90s onward. All the while the number of calories people consume rises.

This is a good article that explains our scientific shortcomings with regard to government recommendations and why concentrating on nutrient levels like this is faulty:

http://nutritionstudies.org/2015-dietary-guidelines-commentary/

See table 216 of https://www.census.gov/prod/2011pubs/12statab/health.pdf - total fat consumption was flat throughout the 80's and 90's. It has increased since 2000 largely due to an increase in monounsaturated and polyunsaturated fats.

I never made claims about pre-1980's being low fat or high fat or otherwise. The "low fat" diet fad did indeed happen, even if it didn't actually lower fat intake. It changed our entire food chain and it was a disaster. People ate foods that were "reduced fat" but instead loaded with sugar/carbs. It's clear now that the obsession with fat was a red herring - at least that is what the science is now finding.

It's the same issue with any nutrient that becomes the "bad" nutrient fad: First it was protein, then fat, then cholesterol, then salt, then carbs, gluten...at some point we run out of bad guys. 

The percentage of fat to protein and carbs matters, the balance matters. As does the total amount we consume. Without a doubt we consume too much. I'm more interested in why we over consume.

All this to say, I think people would be much better off focusing on eating a balanced diet of whole foods...real food prepared at home. Mostly fresh fruits and veggies. Whole grains. Avoiding highly processed foods with tons of ingredients and preservatives. Quality meat, fish, and dairy in moderation. A focus on reducing fat, or cholesterol, or sodium, or whatever becomes a distraction. I know it's anecdotal, but when I started focusing on simply eating real whole foods I started losing weight, my blood pressure returned to normal (was prehypertensive for years), I stopped having GI tract distress, and had way more energy. Whereas attempts to tweak specific nutrients such as fat, salt, were counterproductive for me.

[lifeanon269]

See table 216 of https://www.census.gov/prod/2011pubs/12statab/health.pdf - total fat consumption was flat throughout the 80's and 90's. It has increased since 2000 largely due to an increase in monounsaturated and polyunsaturated fats.

I never made claims about pre-1980's being low fat or high fat or otherwise. The "low fat" diet fad did indeed happen, even if it didn't actually lower fat intake. It changed our entire food chain and it was a disaster. People ate foods that were "reduced fat" but instead loaded with sugar/carbs. It's clear now that the obsession with fat was a red herring - at least that is what the science is now finding.

It's the same issue with any nutrient that becomes the "bad" nutrient fad: First it was protein, then fat, then cholesterol, then salt, then carbs, gluten...at some point we run out of bad guys. 

The percentage of fat to protein and carbs matters, the balance matters. As does the total amount we consume. Without a doubt we consume too much. I'm more interested in why we over consume.

All this to say, I think people would be much better off focusing on eating a balanced diet of whole foods...real food prepared at home. Mostly fresh fruits and veggies. Whole grains. Avoiding highly processed foods with tons of ingredients and preservatives. Quality meat, fish, and dairy in moderation. A focus on reducing fat, or cholesterol, or sodium, or whatever becomes a distraction. I know it's anecdotal, but when I started focusing on simply eating real whole foods I started losing weight, my blood pressure returned to normal (was prehypertensive for years), I stopped having GI tract distress, and had way more energy. Whereas attempts to tweak specific nutrients such as fat, salt, were counterproductive for me.

Table 216 is not for consumption of food. It is for the calculation of nutrients in the foods available to consumers. Their data is pulled from CNPP which is the exact organization that the document I linked to earlier was from, except the document I linked to was with specific regard to fat consumption, so I'm not sure why you tried to mislead with a graph from the same organization, but with a completely different data set. If you look at the numerical table on the first page (https://www.cnpp.usda.gov/sites/default/files/nutrition_insights_uploads/insight5.pdf), you'll clearly see that since the 1980s starting in 1990, fat consumption has gone up. However, people have been eating more and so fat as a percentage of calories is lower.

Like I said, if our bodies can't handle consuming 120 grams of fat each day, its percentage of our daily calories doesn't matter. It will lead to an increase in intramyocellular lipids that will cause insulin resistance. Yes, the extra calories people are consuming will exacerbate this problem and lead to spiking blood sugar levels because our bodies can no longer process those sugars in our blood stream. But, my main point still stands...

The narrative that Americans have gone on a "low-fat" diet is completely false. Consumers have largely just shifted from consuming less red meat and instead have been consuming large amounts of lean chicken as a replacement. Combine that with a large increase in processed foods (which has increased total calorie consumption) and you have a recipe for extremely poor health.

We completely agree that focusing on individual nutrients is a bad idea, but you can't have it both ways and push a wrong narrative focusing on an individual nutrient (like fat). The CNN article you linked to trades one bad conclusion for another. It is mostly the media to blame (which is why you shouldn't look to CNN articles for health stories). The media takes scientific studies and pulls out irrational conclusions like olive oil and dark chocolate being healthy (the studies they cited don't draw those same conclusions). They're just sensational claims looking to make a headline on foods people love to eat. People love hearing good things about things they already love.

[FINate]

Table 216 is not for consumption of food. It is for the calculation of nutrients in the foods available to consumers. Their data is pulled from CNPP which is the exact organization that the document I linked to earlier was from, except the document I linked to was with specific regard to fat consumption, so I'm not sure why you tried to mislead with a graph from the same organization, but with a completely different data set. If you look at the numerical table on the first page (https://www.cnpp.usda.gov/sites/default/files/nutrition_insights_uploads/insight5.pdf), you'll clearly see that since the 1980s starting in 1990, fat consumption has gone up. However, people have been eating more and so fat as a percentage of calories is lower.

Like I said, if our bodies can't handle consuming 120 grams of fat each day, its percentage of our daily calories doesn't matter. It will lead to an increase in intramyocellular lipids that will cause insulin resistance. Yes, the extra calories people are consuming will exacerbate this problem and lead to spiking blood sugar levels because our bodies can no longer process those sugars in our blood stream. But, my main point still stands...

The narrative that Americans have gone on a "low-fat" diet is completely false. Consumers have largely just shifted from consuming less red meat and instead have been consuming large amounts of lean chicken as a replacement. Combine that with a large increase in processed foods (which has increased total calorie consumption) and you have a recipe for extremely poor health.

We completely agree that focusing on individual nutrients is a bad idea, but you can't have it both ways and push a wrong narrative focusing on an individual nutrient (like fat). The CNN article you linked to trades one bad conclusion for another. It is mostly the media to blame (which is why you shouldn't look to CNN articles for health stories). The media takes scientific studies and pulls out irrational conclusions like olive oil and dark chocolate being healthy (the studies they cited don't draw those same conclusions). They're just sensational claims looking to make a headline on foods people love to eat. People love hearing good things about things they already love.

I was looking for data that went beyond 1995 (your paper was published 1998, almost 20 years ago)...I misread table 216, my bad (aside: why is it so hard to find reputable and up to date stats for his?). The table you keep referring to:

Average total fat consumption, individuals 19 to 50
years of age
Years Men Women
 ------------Grams per day-----------
1965 139 83
1977-78 113 73
1989 96 62
1990 89 64
1991 100 62
1994 101 62
1995 101 65

This does not show  an increasing trend. The row with data closest to the start of the 1980s (1977-78) has 113 g/day for men, dips in the late 80s, then flattens out in the 90s. I'm having a terrible time finding any reputable data about absolute fat consumption since 2000. I would love to see a reputable source of data for your claim that "Americans have been consuming more and more fat in their diet since the 1980's."

One sources I've found, though I don't really trust:



Again, would love to see your up to date data if you have it.

I get that Americans never really reduced their fat intake (though still waiting for data showing a substantial increase). But you seem to be missing my point that we still attempted a "low fat" diet. And it wasn't for lack of trying either. Government recommended it, our doctors encouraged us to cut back, industry was more than willing to produce a bunch of "reduced fat" foods, an entire cottage industry of diet companies sprang up. Didn't work, was a disaster. I don't take any article, from CNN or otherwise, as gospel truth. But it provides some of the backstory to this discussion, the idea that we can crowd out fatty foods by stuffing ourselves with low fat foods.

If you're arguing that we should reduce fat as part of a balanced diet - essentially the same as saying we should eat less in general - then this is entirely different from the accepted wisdom of the past that fat is bad and eating low fat foods is the key to health.

While I agree that fat consumption never really decreased (at least not for long), it's clear fat is not the boogeyman it was made out to be, and that all the focus and effort on reducing fat (the "low fat" diet craze) caused way more harm than good.

I think we're going to have to agree to disagree. But for me and mine, we're over being jerked around by whatever nutrient (good or bad) is the latest fad. We're focused on eating real and delicious food, from local sources, in healthy amounts, together as a family, and have cut out processed foods/drinks (also great for the budget!).  It's so simple and easy to do and we are all healthier than ever. Of course you can choose to live however you like.

[mm1970]

All this to say, I think people would be much better off focusing on eating a balanced diet of whole foods...real food prepared at home. Mostly fresh fruits and veggies. Whole grains. Avoiding highly processed foods with tons of ingredients and preservatives. Quality meat, fish, and dairy in moderation. A focus on reducing fat, or cholesterol, or sodium, or whatever becomes a distraction. I know it's anecdotal, but when I started focusing on simply eating real whole foods I started losing weight, my blood pressure returned to normal (was prehypertensive for years), I stopped having GI tract distress, and had way more energy. Whereas attempts to tweak specific nutrients such as fat, salt, were counterproductive for me.

This is pretty much true for me too.  It helps me, always, to think about what I *should* eat and not what I *shouldn't* eat. 

So I focus on having a fruit or vegetable for every meal (or 2 or 3, really).  Every meal/ snack is usually at least 1/2 produce.

Unfortunately with age comes other issues, and requires tweaking. 
- I cannot eat a lot of fatty/ fried foods - at all - because of GI issues.
- I cannot drink more than one cup of coffee a day.
- I cannot eat more than 3 servings of heavy carb foods (rice, potatoes, bread, wheat, pasta) - 1/2 cup being a serving - or my weight starts to climb
- I'm currently eliminating wheat because I've had recent issues with bloating & I'm trying to figure out the cause. 

As long as every meal/snack is mostly produce with a little fat and some protein (which may be meat, dairy, eggs, or beans/rice/quinoa), I'm good.

[mm1970]

I get that Americans never really reduced their fat intake (though still waiting for data showing a substantial increase). But you seem to be missing my point that we still attempted a "low fat" diet. And it wasn't for lack of trying either. Government recommended it, our doctors encouraged us to cut back, industry was more than willing to produce a bunch of "reduced fat" foods, an entire cottage industry of diet companies sprang up. Didn't work, was a disaster. I don't take any article, from CNN or otherwise, as gospel truth. But it provides some of the backstory to this discussion, the idea that we can crowd out fatty foods by stuffing ourselves with low fat foods.

I spent a decade or two attempting a low fat diet.  Weight watchers time was in there too.  Fat free yogurt, lots of pasta, was nearly a vegetarian for quite awhile.  Fat free cheese, nonfat milk.  It certainly lined up with the 90s.  I was hungry a lot, had a difficult time controlling my weight, and possibly related - had a difficult time getting pregnant in my early 30s.

[caracarn]

I saw two studies today saying coffee will extend your life.  They should perhaps study if we just eat a coffee plant in our plant based diet.  Add this to the pile of trends to follow today that will probably be gone tomorrow.

[caracarn]

- I'm currently eliminating wheat because I've had recent issues with bloating & I'm trying to figure out the cause. 

Be careful.  I talked about this earlier where my doctor indicated these "self diagnosis" trends where people stop eating something (gluten) and they had no issue before and then they develop an allergy to it and then can't eat it.  So they experiment thinking "hey this might be the cause of my issue" instead of actually getting tested for an allergy, find out, nope not the problem, then try to reintroduce it into their diet and voila, now they are allergic and can't eat it, so they have now eliminated a food item or group for no reason.

[mm1970]

- I'm currently eliminating wheat because I've had recent issues with bloating & I'm trying to figure out the cause. 

Be careful.  I talked about this earlier where my doctor indicated these "self diagnosis" trends where people stop eating something (gluten) and they had no issue before and then they develop an allergy to it and then can't eat it.  So they experiment thinking "hey this might be the cause of my issue" instead of actually getting tested for an allergy, find out, nope not the problem, then try to reintroduce it into their diet and voila, now they are allergic and can't eat it, so they have now eliminated a food item or group for no reason.

Well, it's either "wheat" or "pizza".  So like I said, I'm just experimenting.  I've given up wheat before, for 3-4 weeks at a time, with no long-term ill effects.

[FINate]

BTW, w.r.t. the whole "it's CNN" and "it's the media's fault": The author of the article I linked to (http://www.cnn.com/2016/10/05/opinions/debate-low-fat-diet-ludwig/index.html) is Dr David Ludwig, the author of the JAMA article he references. The full JAMA article is available at http://78.39.227.9/bitstream/Hannan/92532/1/2016%20JAMA%20Volume%20316%20Issue%2020%20November%20%2834%29.pdf and is worth a read.

[FrugalFisherman10]

Watching What the Health now. (Man this guys voice is terrible). Nonetheless, it is pretty eye opening about how bad meat/dairy is, and all the other things you all have said here. It is definitely confusing to watch this pretty poorly produced documentary about it, and wonder how much truth there is in it.

It's kinda fun to report this as I'm watching it, haha, and to take into account most of the things said already in this thread.

"I've never in my professional career seen a protein deficiency."

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

[paddedhat]

Another theory I've heard (but haven't researched fully) is that inflammation is the cause for a lot of these chronic illnesses.  What promotes inflammation? Meat and dairy.  What has anti-inflammatory properties?  Plants.  Food for thought.

Sarah Ballentyne PHD.  and  Loren Cordain PHD.  are both considered by many to be the gold standard when it comes to providing well documented science to back up their devotion to Paleo.  Both can provide a lot of facts, studies. even meta-anaylses that counter the claim that meats, in general, are inflammatory.  I have no doubt that inflammation, leaky gut, and overall gut health will continue to become clearer culprits in most diseases of modernity. I also agree that dairy is a huge problem, and promoted, or even forced upon the public by an extremely powerful industry.

[FrugalFisherman10]

Paleo intrigues me. So does vegan. So the difference is Paleo includes meat and excludes grains. Vegan includes grains and excludes meat (and all other animal products). In both, the focus should be on eating large amounts of vegetables it seems.

From a paleo website:
"When we (over)consume grains regularly, our bodies take those grains, which are composed of carbohydrates, and those carbs get turned into sugar in our system.

That sugar is then either burned as energy or stored as fat. That’s right: the grains you’re consuming are stored as fat in your body"
Is that even true? The "What the Health" documentary would say "no". How does a carb turn into something it's not?

I'm decidedly not fat, so not really worried about that aspect of this, but want to understand the basis for these takes on nutrition.

I was wondering what is included in the definition of "processed meats" that the IARC labeled as Group 1 carcinogenic and found it here, along with a pretty thorough Q&A on this cancerous meats issue: https://www.iarc.fr/en/media-centre/iarcnews/pdf/Monographs-Q&A_Vol114.pdf

[WhiteTrashCash]

I used to laugh at vegetarians and vegans in particular, but now I think they actually make some valid points. Humans are designed for Stone Age hunter/gatherer diets and back in the day we didn't eat anywhere near as much meat because it required a ton of effort to hunt down and kill an animal for it. People mostly ate plants that they found. With agriculture, it became much easier to farm and consume meat and in modern times meats have become so cheap that we have terrible obesity epidemics in all the countries with developed economies.

I was having problems with my cholesterol, so I changed my diet to having three days a week with no meat consumption at all and I removed beef from my diet on the other days and replaced it with chicken and pork. My cholesterol is now terrific and I'm in very good health.

Some people have ethical problems with meat consumption, but I don't really care about that (having grown up on Hillbilly Mountain, I think of animals as delivery systems for meat). I do care about avoiding obesity and other health issues, though, and that means eating a mostly plant-based diet.

[Sailor Sam]

Paleo intrigues me. So does vegan. So the difference is Paleo includes meat and excludes grains. Vegan includes grains and excludes meat (and all other animal products). In both, the focus should be on eating large amounts of vegetables it seems.

From a paleo website:
"When we (over)consume grains regularly, our bodies take those grains, which are composed of carbohydrates, and those carbs get turned into sugar in our system.

That sugar is then either burned as energy or stored as fat. That’s right: the grains you’re consuming are stored as fat in your body"
Is that even true? The "What the Health" documentary would say "no". How does a carb turn into something it's not?

I'm decidedly not fat, so not really worried about that aspect of this, but want to understand the basis for these takes on nutrition.

I was wondering what is included in the definition of "processed meats" that the IARC labeled as Group 1 carcinogenic and found it here, along with a pretty thorough Q&A on this cancerous meats issue: https://www.iarc.fr/en/media-centre/iarcnews/pdf/Monographs-Q&A_Vol114.pdf

Broadly speaking, the paleo website is correct. Grains are mostly carbohydrate. The human body digests carbohydrates into glucose. The glucose is released into the bloodstream, and either used immediately or stored in the liver and muscles for later use. Your liver can store around 24 hours of glycogen, and your muscles can store enough for ~30 minutes of exercise (varies depending on fitness levels). If your liver is full up, and your muscles are full up, any extra glycogen is converted to fat through a process called fatty acid synthesis.

However, based on my own reading, I suspect what the paleo site is trying to belabour is the hypothesis in which eating grain-based carbohydrates primes the body to convert those carbs into fatty acids like a hoarder, instead of simply burning them immediately as glucose.

If your interested in finding your own hypothesis, you can read both The China Study, and Why We Get Fat by Gary Taubes.

[moof]

...

Is a diet based more on plants and less on meat not healthier?
Is a human population that eats less meat not better for the environment?
Is killing less animals for food not better for the well being of those animals?
...

On the last point, no.  Objectively it is better for an animal species to be either:
a)  Cute, so that it will be protected (i.e. dolphins in tuna nets get sympathy, the tuna not so much)
b)  Tasty, so that the animal species will be domesticated and kept alive for economic reasons.

Species that are not cute or tasty get much less protection and are much more likely to be driven to extinction.

If we all become vegan, cows would vanish from everywhere except a few zoos.  Would that be objectively better for cows?

Now how about the other point "Is a human population that eats less meat not better for the environment?".  There is a lot of nuance there as well.  Who does more to protect wildlife and preserve large swaths of wilderness, hunters or vegans?  It is much trickier than you might think.  Hunters pump heaps of money into preservation, far more than philanthropic vegans, which is really hard swallow.  But objectively it would likely be worse for the environment to stop all hunting than to leave it alone.  I am not a hunter, and don't like hunting, but Prius driving vegans donate vastly less to preserve the environment than 4x4 driving rednecks spend through hunting and fishing licenses.

[marielle]

...

Is a diet based more on plants and less on meat not healthier?
Is a human population that eats less meat not better for the environment?
Is killing less animals for food not better for the well being of those animals?
...

On the last point, no.  Objectively it is better for an animal species to be either:
a)  Cute, so that it will be protected (i.e. dolphins in tuna nets get sympathy, the tuna not so much)
b)  Tasty, so that the animal species will be domesticated and kept alive for economic reasons.

Species that are not cute or tasty get much less protection and are much more likely to be driven to extinction.

If we all become vegan, cows would vanish from everywhere except a few zoos.  Would that be objectively better for cows?

Now how about the other point "Is a human population that eats less meat not better for the environment?".  There is a lot of nuance there as well.  Who does more to protect wildlife and preserve large swaths of wilderness, hunters or vegans?  It is much trickier than you might think.  Hunters pump heaps of money into preservation, far more than philanthropic vegans, which is really hard swallow.  But objectively it would likely be worse for the environment to stop all hunting than to leave it alone.  I am not a hunter, and don't like hunting, but Prius driving vegans donate vastly less to preserve the environment than 4x4 driving rednecks spend through hunting and fishing licenses.

Would that be objectively better for cows? Yes, is this even a question? If an animal doesn't have to be bred over and over just to live a life of suffering, I would take that alternate reality, even if it meant the animal went extinct. Provided the animal wasn't necessary for the ecosystem of course. What if the same was happening to humans, being bred and existing only for the purpose of being eating? Surely anyone would prefer humans to just become instinct to stop the mass suffering. If everyone became vegan it would happen slowly, and less and less cows will be bred each year because of less demand.

Also, I have less of a problem with hunters (mainly with invasive species that are harming the environment, definitely not endangered ones) than people who go to the grocery store and buy mass-farmed meat who justify it because "well hunting is good for the environment" or "but the food chain!!" or "well some farms are ethical" (they're not, but that's another argument). I don't know a single purpose who sources their only meat from hunting and even then they probably still buy dairy and eggs which are just as cruel as the meat industry, if not worse.

[DarkandStormy]

Who does more to protect wildlife and preserve large swaths of wilderness, hunters or vegans?  It is much trickier than you might think.  Hunters pump heaps of money into preservation, far more than philanthropic vegans, which is really hard swallow.  But objectively it would likely be worse for the environment to stop all hunting than to leave it alone.  I am not a hunter, and don't like hunting, but Prius driving vegans donate vastly less to preserve the environment than 4x4 driving rednecks spend through hunting and fishing licenses.

Without a source to back this up as an actual fact, it's hard to take it seriously.  I'm not doubting you, but would like to see some sort of citation here.

[FINate]

Who does more to protect wildlife and preserve large swaths of wilderness, hunters or vegans?  It is much trickier than you might think.  Hunters pump heaps of money into preservation, far more than philanthropic vegans, which is really hard swallow.  But objectively it would likely be worse for the environment to stop all hunting than to leave it alone.  I am not a hunter, and don't like hunting, but Prius driving vegans donate vastly less to preserve the environment than 4x4 driving rednecks spend through hunting and fishing licenses.

Without a source to back this up as an actual fact, it's hard to take it seriously.  I'm not doubting you, but would like to see some sort of citation here.

Prius driving vegans vs. 4x4 driving hunters...on almost all counts they should be allies rather than enemies. Sadly there are many people on both sides too dumb to realize this.

When hunting is well regulated (as it is in the US and all developed countries) the number one determining factor, by far, for animal numbers (and therefore hunter success) is the quality and quantity of habitat. Quotas for things like deer tags are based on the carrying capacity (an estimate for how many animals an area can support) and estimates from field biologists on herd sizes, with the goal of culling the herd to reduce starvation and sickness in the lean months.

Hunters who understand this hate to see urban sprawl and houses or strip malls breaking up wild areas. All the serious hunters I know feel the same way. But for some reason there are many "hunters" for whom hunting is more of a fashion. These folks spend vast amounts of money on camo jackets, camo trucks, camo coolers, camo everything that never actually gets used in the field. They like the idea of hunting mainly because it's seen as cultural heritage so for them, yeah, build that massive Cabela's on previously wild land so they can go shopping in their 4x4s.

I always get a little depressed driving through the Tracy/Manteca area the California Central Valley - in a short amount of time huge areas of grasslands have been converted to housing (and a huge Bass Pro Shop) because the Bay Area refuses to increase the density of its already urban areas, so people are being priced out into these previously untouched areas.

Hunters have protected lots of wild lands through things like the Pittman–Robertson Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Act (a tax on ammo), and through funds raised through annual license fees. To give you a sense of the latter, a California in-state hunting license runs about $47 and each deer tag (limit 2) runs about $30, sport fishing about $47, and then various assorted add ons for different types of activities (upland game $10, etc.). Total annual funding for fish and wildlife agencies across the US is about $2 billion (https://perc.org/sites/default/files/rs00_2.pdf) - I don't know the exact percentages but much of this is paid for with license fees. Then there are private organizations like Ducks Unlimited that spend huge amounts preserving wetlands (more than 12 million acres and counting - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ducks_Unlimited) along with marshaling an army of volunteers on projects to improve and restore habitat. 

Many of the prius driving vegans are also against urban sprawl and value unbroken wilderness (the ones not digging in their heels trying to stop urban densification). They also want clean water, and healthy habitat, and restoration of previously wild areas.

Hunters and environmentalists would be allies in many areas if they would stop letting political parties divide them.

[DarkandStormy]

So you have no sources showing vegans are less philanthropic than hunters?

[ncornilsen]

So you have no sources showing vegans are less philanthropic than hunters?

Do you have any that show otherwise?

the lack of peer reviewed sources to compare the contributions made to wildlife conservation efforts of hunters and vegans has more to do with the lack of data about how much vegans donate/contribute... I mean, how would that data be collected?

 Data for how much hunters contribute via tag fees and such is readily available, and shows that hunters make a huge contribution.

[2Birds1Stone]

"What The Health" was an incredibly biased and cherry picked data driven documentary.....if you can even call it that.

As someone who is very in tune with the scientific community in regards to nutrition, health, and dietetics I can say that any of the respectable doctors, professors, coaches I follow and interact with agree that it's a crock of shit.

[DarkandStormy]

So you have no sources showing vegans are less philanthropic than hunters?

Do you have any that show otherwise?

You're making the claim, the burden of proof is on you.

[ncornilsen]

So you have no sources showing vegans are less philanthropic than hunters?

Do you have any that show otherwise?

You're making the claim, the burden of proof is on you.

The objective fact is that hunters contribute ~$2bn per year to conservation efforts via hunting license fees. It's a fact that can and has been verified by links on this thread.

You're claiming vegans do more... ergo, it is you who needs to furnish proof. You won't be able to, as there isn't much data you can sort "conservation contributions per capital by diet philosophy" that I can find.

[Hotstreak]

So you have no sources showing vegans are less philanthropic than hunters?

Do you have any that show otherwise?

You're making the claim, the burden of proof is on you.

The objective fact is that hunters contribute ~$2bn per year to conservation efforts via hunting license fees. It's a fact that can and has been verified by links on this thread.

You're claiming vegans do more... ergo, it is you who needs to furnish proof. You won't be able to, as there isn't much data you can sort "conservation contributions per capital by diet philosophy" that I can find.

Hunters contribute a lot which is not counted under license sales.  Excise taxes on firearms, ammo, and fishing gear are a huge source of revenue, as well as hunters who make private donations to conservation groups such as BHA or Trout Unlimited or the RMEF.  These fees and donations go towards restoring wildlife habitat, enforcing poaching and waste laws, highly successful efforts to battle invasive species, and stream restoration among other projects.  Fishermen and Hunters volunteer year round to protect and preserve the delicate wild areas that exist in this country.

[Cromacster]

So you have no sources showing vegans are less philanthropic than hunters?

Do you have any that show otherwise?

You're making the claim, the burden of proof is on you.

The objective fact is that hunters contribute ~$2bn per year to conservation efforts via hunting license fees. It's a fact that can and has been verified by links on this thread.

You're claiming vegans do more... ergo, it is you who needs to furnish proof. You won't be able to, as there isn't much data you can sort "conservation contributions per capital by diet philosophy" that I can find.

Darkandstormy actually said she doesn't doubt hunter's spend more

Without a source to back this up as an actual fact, it's hard to take it seriously.  I'm not doubting you, but would like to see some sort of citation here.

~2bn from fee's is easiest number to collect for hunter's, but as you said collecting the number based vegans would be pretty hard or near impossible.

[runewell]

I've seen all three, but I'm vegan mainly for the ethical and partially environmental reasons. Ethical meat doesn't really exist in my eyes. Many inhumane practices exist on every farm big or small, such as culling male chicks, cropping pigs' tails, ears, and testicles, using male dairy calves for veal, selling off dairy cows to slaughter when they're only 5 years old, etc. The furthest I would go is maybe have my own chickens for eggs, but only if there is a 50/50 rooster/hen ratio. Either way, I don't miss or need eggs or any other animal product.

What about vegetables?  They aren't treated very nicely either.  Corn forced to grown in rows in close proximity to other stalks, then mercilessly cut and sold off to be eaten. 

[Cromacster]

This is the best I can come up with for vegan numbers based on environmental impact (it's a bad comparison I know)

From one Article they cited a study that claims if the entire US went vegan the environmental impact would save us 40bn in environmental related costs in the year 2050.

40bn in 2050 is about 4bn in todays dollars, which is also assuming the entire US went vegan.  This article claims about %3.2 of the US in Vegan.

Going with a very flawed conclusion Vegans in the US today are accountable for saving 128mm in environmental costs just by being vegan.

In my brief search it seemed like many organizations that associate with being vegan seem to advocate against factory farming of animals and for marine wildlife (whale hutning, shark culling).  I wasn't able to find anything specifically related to habitat and wildlife conservancy.

[FindingFI]

Confirmation bias can be a nasty bitch, so tossing some more info into the ring.  "The Big Fat Surprise" by Nina Teicholz claims that the push away from saturated fat (ie. meat and dairy) was largely orchestrated by one man with a huge ego aimed a proving that his "heart-diet-hypothesis" was the answer to reducing the rate of heart disease and was not only based on premature science but was ineffective in achieving its goal.  I have not dug into all the research in the book to verify sources, but it provides an opposing view to the idea that animal protein is unhealthy because there's always at least two sides to any story. Also going to add "Omnivoure's Dilemma" by Michael Pollan for his take on how CAFOs, large scale organic farming, and pastoral farms effect both the environment and human health.

[DarkandStormy]

So you have no sources showing vegans are less philanthropic than hunters?

Do you have any that show otherwise?

You're making the claim, the burden of proof is on you.

The objective fact is that hunters contribute ~$2bn per year to conservation efforts via hunting license fees. It's a fact that can and has been verified by links on this thread.

You're claiming vegans do more... ergo, it is you who needs to furnish proof. You won't be able to, as there isn't much data you can sort "conservation contributions per capital by diet philosophy" that I can find.

Being forced to pay via license and fees doesn't make one philanthropic.

[ncornilsen]

So you have no sources showing vegans are less philanthropic than hunters?

Do you have any that show otherwise?

You're making the claim, the burden of proof is on you.

The objective fact is that hunters contribute ~$2bn per year to conservation efforts via hunting license fees. It's a fact that can and has been verified by links on this thread.

You're claiming vegans do more... ergo, it is you who needs to furnish proof. You won't be able to, as there isn't much data you can sort "conservation contributions per capital by diet philosophy" that I can find.

Being forced to pay via license and fees doesn't make one philanthropic.

Nobody is forced to hunt.

[Hotstreak]

Just read a fascinating article on vegan.com about the WTH film.  The author validates a lot of the critiques of the film, concluding that although there are many good reasons to go vegan, the film misleads or outright lies, and overall will have a negative effect on efforts for widespread adoption of a vegan diet.

https://www.vegan.com/posts/vegan-dietitian-review-what-the-health/

"<What The Health> cherry-picked the research, misinterpreted and over-stated the data, highlighted dubious stories of miraculous healing, and focused on faulty observations about nutrition science."

"Most of the misinformation in the film is due simply to a poor understanding of nutrition science and research. But some moments struck me as overtly dishonest."

"There is at least as much evidence that plant-based (but not vegan) diets can reverse heart disease as there is evidence indicating vegan diets can reverse heart disease."

"... the vegan movement’s credibility is undermined when we make claims that are so easily refuted. If we get caught lying or exaggerating about the health aspects of veganism, why should anyone believe us when we try to tell them about the treatment of animals on farms, in zoos, and in research labs?"

[Re3iRtH]

Interesting discussion all around.

As disclosure, I am an M.D. with a lot of free time, access to a lab with blood tests including all the expensive send outs available to us in the US. My main interests are lifestyle optimization and self-experimentation.

My general conclusion is, the optimal diet for humans is PROBABLY one that is heavily plant-derived, on the order of 95-98% of meals. It should include some fish and probably eggs.

The 100% plant based, vegan diet is too tricky. The omega 6:omega 3 ratio is too high. You need the marine DHA and EPA for optimal eye, brain, and cardiovascular function. Even if you wanted to supplement with vegan omega 3s (assuming pills are as effective as eating food, which I am not sure is true), you would have to take 9-12 capsules of Algae based omega 3s per day to get enough of the quantity shown to have a beneficial effect.

Eggs, only recently we are discovering have so many obscure nutrients that are very beneficial, in both the yolk and white. Alas, they are not vegan.

My biggest problem with the vegan diet is : I spent 3-4X of my typical time thinking about, sourcing, preparing, and eating food. This is time that could be used to save human lives, build a business, philanthropy, humanitarian work etc. So when I do my 6 week or 3 month experiments eating 100% plant based, I feel SELFISH, like I am focusing on myself too much. I think this is parodoxical to the intent of the diet, but there it is.

People who believe they got this benefit going on a vegan (or other) diet, in my experience did so because they cut processed food from their diet. Most tempting things we see on the shelves and at Starbucks (cakes, cookies, brownies, etc) are NOT vegan, so people end up eating less processed food.

For those who haven't already, I recommend reading the book "Bad Science". This is one of the few 'must reads' I would recommend across the board.

[FINate]

My general conclusion is, the optimal diet for humans is PROBABLY one that is heavily plant-derived, on the order of 95-98% of meals. It should include some fish and probably eggs.

The 100% plant based, vegan diet is too tricky. The omega 6:omega 3 ratio is too high. You need the marine DHA and EPA for optimal eye, brain, and cardiovascular function. Even if you wanted to supplement with vegan omega 3s (assuming pills are as effective as eating food, which I am not sure is true), you would have to take 9-12 capsules of Algae based omega 3s per day to get enough of the quantity shown to have a beneficial effect.

Eggs, only recently we are discovering have so many obscure nutrients that are very beneficial, in both the yolk and white. Alas, they are not vegan.

This reminded me of something. We think of deer as herbivores because their teeth and overall ruminant digestive system all point to a strict plant based diet. However, we're finding out that deer raid nests to eat the eggs and fledglings, probably because these are packed with nutrients. I wonder how many other animals are better classified as "mostly herbivore" or "mostly carnivore" - where they focus on getting most of their nutrition from a specialization that they've evolved (such as the ability to break down grass), yet are willing to take advantage of other opportunities.

http://www.nola.com/outdoors/index.ssf/2015/03/white-tailed_deer_shown_to_rai.html

For those who haven't already, I recommend reading the book "Bad Science". This is one of the few 'must reads' I would recommend across the board.

Thanks for the recommendation, looks interesting.

[Gunny]

We've watched Forks Over Knives as well as King Corn & In Defense of Food (not mentioned yet).

In a way, it's like finding MMM.  You take the red pill and realize that processed food is engineered to cause people to crave it and buy more of it so that the manufacturers can make more money.  That a Dorito isn't actually food.  That the US government doesn't design the food pyramid to be good for people's health, it designs the pyramid to conform to what the dairy/meat/food industry wants.  That high-fructose corn syrup is in everything because the US government subsidizes corn farming (for some reason) and so HFCS is the cheapest sweetener.  Etc.

^THIS!  We eat meat and we think it is healthy for us. We eat mostly chicken and self-harvested game and fish.  We do try to eat more veggies and fruit and stay away from "pre-packaged food-like products."  We recognize that HFCS is poison.  Obesity is epidemic in our area and every time I shop I see buggies full of pre-packaged crap which is adding to the problem.  If it comes in a brightly colored, or even green, card board or plastic package...it's bad for one's health.

[thisisjeopardy]

Watched FOK and immediately gave up meat, most dairy (still have cheese on occasion). Lost 40 lbs, blood pressure back to normal, cholesterol levels are excellent (they were worrisome before), I'm in my early 40s and feel better than I did when I was in my early 20s.

I watched What the Health and biases and criticisms aside, there are indisputable facts that can't be labeled as spin or subjective. Like the American Red Cross labeling red meat as a type 1 carcinogen but then was given money by the producers of red meat and put things like bacon or deli meat under their "healthy recipes" section.

[Larsg]

Has anyone watched these documentaries? They seem to make good points about why we should eat a plant based diet. The main points are

-better for your health
-better for the environment
-better for animal well being

luckily beans and rice is pretty mustachian so I imagine many of us could at least cut out animal products from most if not all of our meals. Just seeing if anyone has thoughts on these! Cheers!

Yes, we're firm believers and quit eating meat and dairy a few years ago. It has made a huge difference in our lives. No more Gi issues what so ever, dropped weight, we look younger, feel better, more energy, etc. Once you get used to the new lifestyle, meal time becomes more simple with no aftermath issues ever...life is good.

[runbikerun]

Bad Science is a superb book.

I'd also recommend the Angry Chef, which I read over the summer. It's not a million miles from Bad Science in its tone and approach.