What the Health/Cowspiracy/Forks Over Knives

[millennialonfire]

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!

[Linea_Norway]

I didn't see them, but just finished a book about the same subject. Yes, it would be a great advantage for humanity's ability to grow enough food for the population if people would stop eating meat and in particular beef.

From my book:
A chicken needs to eat 1-2 kg of food to produce 1 kg of meat.
A pig needs to eat 5 kg of food to produce 1 kg of pork.
A cow needs to eat 17 kg of food to produce 1 kg of beef.
If a cow would only eat grass, it might be a different matter, because they don't compete with human food. But cows are fed corn. America has some extremely large fields of corn that are used mostly for feeding cattle, and the rest for biodiesel. All of this land could easily have produced a lot of human food, that we might need if the population ever grows to 10 bilion people.

I am a vervent meat eater. But I am trying to eat vegetarian a couple of times a week. Or eating selfcaught fish, which also has a low footprint.

[mm1970]

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!

I have not seen Cowspiracy.
I have seen Forks over Knives, but don't remember much.
I recently saw What the Health.

My take:
*MOST* food documentaries are incredibly one-sided.  Doesn't matter if it's a pro-Vegan or pro-Paleo.  So when you watch a documentary like that, you really have to put on your critical thinking cap.

If I'd rolled my eyes any harder during "What the Health" they would have fallen out of my head.

When they started talking about how "sugar doesn't cause or affect diabetes" I just about fell off the chair. *NO* discussion at ALL about the effects of sugar and simple carbs on insulin.  I mean, really, that's just incredibly dangerous.

And every single vegan documentary that I've ever seen likes to go on also about the "dangers" of fish.  They paint all fish with the same brush, and gloss over (or ignore completely) the benefits of sustainable fish that is shown to have low levels of PCBs and mercury.

And don't even get me started on the "low fat vegan" camp.

[PoutineLover]

I don't think it has to be black and white like all meat is bad and all plants are good. There are plenty of health, social and sustainability concerns with common vegan/vegetarian foods as well, so I don't think those diets are necessarily better. I try to go by Michael Pollen's mantra of "eat food, not too much, mostly plants". I like it because it emphasizes real food over extremely processed and packaged foodlike substances, and it's not super restrictive so I can enjoy animal products in moderation. I'd also add that variety is important, so I'm wary of any "diet" that prescribes certain things to be eaten daily or cuts out huge swaths of foods.

[YoungGranny]

I watched "What the Health" and was actually kind of disappointed with it. I think the eat less meat message is good and especially agree with the eat more vegetables message. Truly I don't even eat meat very often but watching the film did inspire me to cut back even more. I eat locally and seasonally so living in the Midwest it's very east to shift to more plant based in the summer. All that being said while I agree with that message I kind of felt like it was sloppily done without a lot of facts and discussion from both sides. They also promoted sugar (?!?) which in many, many studies has been proven to have no benefit and lots of consequences. I liked 'Food Choices' much better - very similar information but presented a bit better IMO.

[PDXTabs]

A cow needs to eat 17 kg of food to produce 1 kg of beef.
If a cow would only eat grass, it might be a different matter, because they don't compete with human food. But cows are fed corn. America has some extremely large fields of corn that are used mostly for feeding cattle, and the rest for biodiesel. All of this land could easily have produced a lot of human food...

Additionally, our tax dollars paid for that corn with massive corn subsidies. So, its cheaper to feed corn to cows because the US Government is paying for it. But, corn fed beef is bad for you. It is high in omega 6 and low in omega 3 and probably leads to heart disease.

[Sailor Sam]

I've watched all 3. I've also read the (in)famous China Study, and the rebuttal in Good Calories, Bad Calories by Taubes.

My opinion is that the field of nutritional science is still very new, and we don't have all the answers. Heck, I'd be willing to say we don't have 50% of the answers. Figuring out what feels good for your body is still trial and error. Someone who didn't thrive as a vegan shouldn't write off other vegans when they say they feel great. No vegan should flap their hands at Whole30 people who rave over their tiger blood.

My other opinion is that we're also only 50% along the path of finding out what's good for the earth, and that this answer is much more important than what we actually put into our mouths. There has to be a balance between husbanding the people, and husbanding the land. Every small-scale experiment I've seen has thrived under a mixture of both crops and livestock. Maybe that will work in all climates, maybe not. Local? Organic? Pescatarian? Ethically raised? Low meat? No meat? The answer is going to vary by location.

Since there isn't a simple answer, each person has to examine their conscious and monetary means, and make decision accordingly. I've decided to eat meat and eggs, but not dairy. I've increasingly moved towards ethically raised meat, but will emphasize local over organic. In 6 months all my food will be supplied by the govt, and I'll eat institution food, or I'll starve. I've decided the loss of control over my food is worth the amount of money I'll be compensated with.

The only thing we can really seem to agree on is that food-like products are probably pretty bad for you. But you'll pry my All-Dressed chips out of my cold, dead hands ;)

[marielle]

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.

I probably should care more about my health but lack the motivation or care right now. Not that I eat absolutely terribly, still incredibly better than the Standard American Diet! I don't avoid all processed foods and still occasionally eat fried.

[Schaefer Light]

I'd rather die than give up eating meat.

[nouveauRiche]

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

We are not vegetarian or vegan but moving in that direction.  Eating a lot less meat & adding fruits, veggies, beans. 

Before we watched it, I thought Forks Over Knives was going to be a PETA-style appeal to people, based on how badly animals are treated.  Instead it was evidence-based & statistics-based reasons why eating a "whole food, plant-based diet" is better for people's health.

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.

[Bicycle_B]

I don't think it has to be black and white like all meat is bad and all plants are good. There are plenty of health, social and sustainability concerns with common vegan/vegetarian foods as well, so I don't think those diets are necessarily better. I try to go by Michael Pollen's mantra of "eat food, not too much, mostly plants". I like it because it emphasizes real food over extremely processed and packaged foodlike substances, and it's not super restrictive so I can enjoy animal products in moderation. I'd also add that variety is important, so I'm wary of any "diet" that prescribes certain things to be eaten daily or cuts out huge swaths of foods.

+1

I did see Cowspiracy.  It got me to drop meat for about eight months.  I felt really good physically after adding some meat back in a few months ago, though.

[nouveauRiche]

I'd rather die than give up eating meat.

This is also kinda like MMM.  No one is telling you that you have to give up meat.  It's more about having more information so people can make informed decisions about diet (and money). 

Money:  "I'm going to buy this brand-new car, understanding that it will push my FIRE date out X years."

Food:  "I'm going to eat tons of beef and processed food, understanding that my life may be shortened by X years as a consequence."



Edited to add:

Forks Over Knives advocates a "plant-based, whole food diet".

In Defense of Food advocates "Eat Food. Not Too Much. Mostly Plants."  Michael Pollan doesn't say to give up meat - just eat less of it and more fruits & veggies.

[Schaefer Light]

I'd rather die than give up eating meat.

This is also kinda like MMM.  No one is telling you that you have to give up meat.  It's more about having more information so people can make informed decisions about diet (and money). 

That is true.

[zarfus]

I eat everything in moderation.  I happen to love meat/carbs/sweets/alcohol/everything else that has been given a bad rep.

On average, meat is featured in our "main course" about 3 dinners/week.  Always got veggies on the plate!

[BuzzFire]

For me, this was a lot like discovering MMM when a friend gave me the China Study to read in 2005. At the time, I ate more meat and protein supplements than anyone as a tall and skinny guy trying to gain muscle/weight. I was extremely stubborn, but she wore me down with books and videos by Campbell, Greger, Barnard, Esselstyn, Ornish, McDougall etc. I started with a fair amount of junky vegan food like boca burgers. Now, I would consider myself a Dr. Fuhrman nutritarian. I only eat whole plant based food including two superfood smoothies a day. It has been easy to maintain my weight and muscle, and I have not had so much as a cold since 2006. More importantly, I have no worries about heart disease, cancer, diabetes or other chronic diseases that most will succumb to. And of course eating this way is compassionate to animals and the environment.

[Hotstreak]

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

Don't call them documentaries, that gives people the impression they have a level of factual basis which they lack.  These pieces rely on half truths and outright lies to push their agenda.  They are vegan propaganda films.

[samsonator54321]

I've seen all three:

I thought conspiracy was good. Since watching we have lowered our meat intake. In the sense that we will split a chicken breast instead of each having our own. We try for 3 oz meat portions or so.  We also try to buy more free range organic meats.

Forks over knives I watched awhile ago so don't remember it all. Again I think it brought to my attention how I probably eat too much quantity of meat. It also reinforced what I've been hearing about how important it is to eat whole unprocessed foods. I do feel like it was a little biased towards veganism.

What the health I thought was complete nonsense.  My wife and I were rolling our eyes the whole time. I agree with other posters about how nutrition is a budding science, and I feel like I've been following it closely. I think they have proven that sugar and processed foods are really the culprit here and that saturated fats and eggs are actually healthy (all in moederation). So this documentary went against everything I've learned about nutrition in the last couple of years. I thought it was extremely biased and suspect it is an animal rights documentary in disguise.

[lifeanon269]

Don't call them documentaries, that gives people the impression they have a level of factual basis which they lack.  These pieces rely on half truths and outright lies to push their agenda.  They are vegan propaganda films.

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?

In most cases, I'm not sure how you could objectively answer yes to any of those questions.

It is easy to just brush off a documentary as "propaganda" without addressing any of the points made in those documentaries.

[caracarn]

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

Don't call them documentaries, that gives people the impression they have a level of factual basis which they lack.  These pieces rely on half truths and outright lies to push their agenda.  They are vegan propaganda films.

Yes, I think all these sources of information can be helpful, but you need to understand their focus.  My wife and I are watching a college course on nutrition, and a registered dietitian indicates there can be problems with being strictly vegetarian and recommends some meat from time to time, not to stop entirely.  Our bodies are made to process all types of food well.  It is when we overindulge that we cause ourselves problems.  She even mentions that the studies that seem to indicate meat might decrease life span are not that solid. 

[Sockigal]

I have watched many different documentaries about food, starting with Food Inc., which I found very informative and life changing. Food additives are usually my biggest concern. My son and I both get migraines when we eat artificial food additives, so cut most of those out 8 years ago. I'm still amazed at all the preservatives and chemicals that are added to foods. All you have to do is look at the nutritional label for a regular loaf of bread at the market. A loaf of bread should not have 50 ingredients.

Here are some food documentaries that haven't been listed:
The Future of Food
King Corn
Food Inc.
Cooked

The food documentaries I have found the most interesting are those that really dig deep into the history of food and those that promote healthy eating through a mostly whole foods type diet.

[ReadySetMillionaire]

I thought What the Health was a PETA propaganda film disguised as a nutrition documentary.  Honestly, when they went on about how sugar doesn't cause health issues, I just about rolled off my couch. Each of the doctors seemed like a complete quack.

[meatface]

"Eat food, not too much, mostly plants." - Michael Pollan

Those seven words sum up pretty much all that is needed to know about eating well.

"Eat food" means "eat real food (a.k.a., plants and animals), not junk food. Junk food is shit and is the source of most Western diseases."
"Not too much" means "don't eat yourself into a metabolic disease state like obesity, diabetes, etc."
"Mostly plants" means "eat some meat if you want, but keep your diet focused mainly on plants."

[Hotstreak]

Don't call them documentaries, that gives people the impression they have a level of factual basis which they lack.  These pieces rely on half truths and outright lies to push their agenda.  They are vegan propaganda films.

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?

In most cases, I'm not sure how you could objectively answer yes to any of those questions.

It is easy to just brush off a documentary as "propaganda" without addressing any of the points made in those documentaries.

1.  They're not pushing a diet with less meat, they're pushing a diet with zero meat.
2.  I think everyone knows that CAFO's are terrible for the environment.  There are ways of raising meat for slaughter that are beneficial for the environment (you can find this meat at many health food stores and online).
3.  Not sure how this is relevant to health, which is ostensibly a main point of these films (especially the new one).

I thought What the Health was a PETA propaganda film disguised as a nutrition documentary.  Honestly, when they went on about how sugar doesn't cause health issues, I just about rolled off my couch. Each of the doctors seemed like a complete quack.

Yep, they're a bit nuts!  They want people to stop eating meat and they will do anything it takes to accomplish that, including twisting half truths and telling outright lies.




If anyone wants to read a relatively short debunking of the newest of these movies, check out the link below.  WARNING:  Critique is better referenced than the film.


https://robbwolf.com/2017/07/03/what-the-health-a-wolfs-eye-review/

[lbmustache]

I thought What the Health was a PETA propaganda film disguised as a nutrition documentary.  Honestly, when they went on about how sugar doesn't cause health issues, I just about rolled off my couch. Each of the doctors seemed like a complete quack.

I also felt like What the Health was mostly BS. A shame, because I think some of the points they made were quite good and they could've taken it further. The sugar thing was bogus, and quite frankly the end of the documentary where people with diseases or chronic conditions were suddenly "cured" or 5000% better after a "few weeks" of a plant-based diet was total nonsense and IMO is pretty dangerous to peddle.

Now, generally speaking, I do think avoiding meat when possible is good, and eating more plants is good. For environmental and health reasons. I try to keep my meat/dairy consumption low.

[FireHiker]

I have watched many different documentaries about food, starting with Food Inc., which I found very informative and life changing. Food additives are usually my biggest concern. My son and I both get migraines when we eat artificial food additives, so cut most of those out 8 years ago. I'm still amazed at all the preservatives and chemicals that are added to foods. All you have to do is look at the nutritional label for a regular loaf of bread at the market. A loaf of bread should not have 50 ingredients.

Here are some food documentaries that haven't been listed:
The Future of Food
King Corn
Food Inc.
Cooked

The food documentaries I have found the most interesting are those that really dig deep into the history of food and those that promote healthy eating through a mostly whole foods type diet.

I haven't watched the shows listed in the OPs initial post, but I did watch Food Inc. I, too, cut out the processed food/food additives, and both the frequency and severity of my migraines plummeted, from 30+ per year to 4 last year, and one of those I KNOW was triggered by MSG I unknowingly consumed (realized it an hour later when the migraine hit and I checked the ingredients...we were at a friend's house and I should have checked first but didn't want to be rude). Sockigal, you're the first other person I've come across who has done the same.

I tend to agree with the Michael Pollan approach, though we still need to work on portion control and (homemade) treats in our house.

[cairnstone]

I have seen Forks Over Knives and Food Inc., as well as read numerous books with their assertions and rebuttals. The issue that you always run into is that someone is desperately ill, tries some healthier eating plan, becomes marvelously healthy, then seeks to share what they learned with the whole world. The things that are always missing from these samples are:

-We are always talking about someone who was seriously ill to start. Robb Wolf of Paleo fame has Celiac, so of course he is drawn to research that says you can be healthier without grains.

-Health comparisons are always made to a Standard American Diet. Compared to that metric, any diet that involves thinking about what goes into you mouth will be a vast improvement.

I think perhaps my favorite perspective on all of these possible diets comes from www.nomeatathlete.com. He is a vegan, and the way he puts it is,roughly, "All whole food diets can be very healthy, even for elite athletes. Why not pick the one that takes the fewest resources to feed the world?"

To me, that line of logic works far better than cherry picked studies and scare tactics.

[rpr]

Yes, I think all these sources of information can be helpful, but you need to understand their focus.  My wife and I are watching a college course on nutrition, and a registered dietitian indicates there can be problems with being strictly vegetarian and recommends some meat from time to time, not to stop entirely.  Our bodies are made to process all types of food well.  It is when we overindulge that we cause ourselves problems.  She even mentions that the studies that seem to indicate meat might decrease life span are not that solid. 

I'd love to know what these problems with being strictly vegetarian are (*). Millions of people have been born and raised in strictly vegetarian societies.  Look at the Blue Zones studies which seem to indicate that what these societies with the most centenarians have in common is that they eat very little meat and only on rare occasions.

But I do agree with you that what we have currently is a problem of over indulgence. 

(*) B12 deficiency could happen for vegans but can be taken in pill form once a week.

[Fomerly known as something]

I watched Forks over Knives, Food Inc. and it along with Pollen's eat mostly plants is what lead me to being vegetarian.

The person's story who struck me the most in Forks over Knives was the immigrant from China and his story of growing up where the consumption of meat was almost the opposite of the standard American Diet.  Vegetables and rice were the stars of the meal, meat was the side dish.  I was already primed with Pollen to be against things like factory meat farming.  After Forks over knives was added, I began to eat less and less meat until a few years later I just stopped eating it at all. 

[rpr]

... and that saturated fats and eggs are actually healthy (all in moederation).  ...

Can you point me to any unbiased studies that show saturated fats and eggs are actually healthy? i.e. not sponsored by the meat and egg industry.

[Hotstreak]

... and that saturated fats and eggs are actually healthy (all in moederation).  ...

Can you point me to any unbiased studies that show saturated fats and eggs are actually healthy? i.e. not sponsored by the meat and egg industry.

This article supports saturated fats being better for health than other oils.  It was conducted by two people with a vested interest in showing the opposite - which might have something to do with why it wasn't published for decades.  I link the article instead of a more formal study page because the context is so compelling.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/records-found-in-dusty-basement-undermine-decades-of-dietary-advice/


Summary:  switching from a diet containing regular amounts of saturated fats (for the time) to one containing less sat fat and more vegetable oils resulted in higher rates of both cardiac events and death.  Study was done in mental home patients who's food was entirely prepared and tracked over a long period of time, which makes it vastly more reliable than anything based on food questionnaires (which is a large portion of nutrition research).

[lifeanon269]

1.  They're not pushing a diet with less meat, they're pushing a diet with zero meat.
2.  I think everyone knows that CAFO's are terrible for the environment.  There are ways of raising meat for slaughter that are beneficial for the environment (you can find this meat at many health food stores and online).
3.  Not sure how this is relevant to health, which is ostensibly a main point of these films (especially the new one).
Yep, they're a bit nuts!  They want people to stop eating meat and they will do anything it takes to accomplish that, including twisting half truths and telling outright lies.




If anyone wants to read a relatively short debunking of the newest of these movies, check out the link below.  WARNING:  Critique is better referenced than the film.


https://robbwolf.com/2017/07/03/what-the-health-a-wolfs-eye-review/

You claim that article is better referenced than the film, yet throughout that entire article, there are only 5 links to peer-reviewed studies supporting the claims he makes. The rest of the links are to blog articles such as Denise Minger (oye), webmd (oye again), or other various news sources without any citations themselves. Finally, in some of his critiques, he claims how you cannot use petri-dish based studies as in vivo evidence for proof (which I agree with). But, then that stance would invalidate one of those 5 studies he linked to supporting his cause (since it used petri-dish and vivisection methodologies). Double standard much? Looking at things objectively, I don't know how you can make the claim that the documentary was biased and somehow don't find that article biased in any way.

With regard to those three questions I posed above, I think you're missing the point. Here is the point I was making.

It is clear that many people agree that eating less meat than is found in the standard American diet is better for your health overall and better for the environment overall. The question then becomes at which point do you reach a level of "moderation" (I put it in quotes since it is a subjective term) where on an ecological and public level, there is a diminishing returns that balances the effort to restrict further with the benefits gained. The problem with looking at each of those 3 points on their own is that the diminishing returns of each question should not be considered on its own.

For example, the difference in health outcomes with diets consisting of 10% versus 20% animal derived is only a small percentage and the ecological benefits exist but are not as profound as the jump from say 60% animal derived to 30%. Then there are obviously animals saved from suffering, but at consumption levels that are much lower, the number of factory farms have been greatly reduced. The point is this, looking at each one of these factors on their own might not make the drop from 20% to 10% meaningful, but when looking at all the benefits combined (still less human disease, less ecological damage, less animals harmed, less land use, less starvation, etc), the benefits across the board are still profound. This is why there are advocates for reducing out meat consumption, not just to 20% or 10%, but to 0%. Because the benefits across the board continue to extend down until we've moved to largely plant-based diets for humanity.

At the individual level, will reducing your meat consumption from 20% to 10% change the fate of your health outcomes? That's impossible to say, but statistically speaking it probably wouldn't. However, at the public health level, a drop in that much would save thousands of people every year from disease. That's not an insignificant amount. That's why no one goes around saying that its OK to smoke cigarettes as long as you only smoke once a week. Because when it comes to public health, that would be awful advice to give, since if that advice were followed, a large portion of our population would be condemned to disease risk.

As rpr points out, we know vegetables and fruits are healthy and most of the counterpoints to vegans simply attempt to come to the defense of meat simply trying to create doubt that they're not unhealthy. But they're is almost no evidence out there that backs up the claim that, when compared to fruits and vegetables, meat is healthier. Therefore, with that mindset, why add meat to the diet, especially when as I've shown above, there is a overwhelming number of reasons to avoid it (health reasons aside).

[lifeanon269]

This article supports saturated fats being better for health than other oils.  It was conducted by two people with a vested interest in showing the opposite - which might have something to do with why it wasn't published for decades.  I link the article instead of a more formal study page because the context is so compelling.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/records-found-in-dusty-basement-undermine-decades-of-dietary-advice/


Summary:  switching from a diet containing regular amounts of saturated fats (for the time) to one containing less sat fat and more vegetable oils resulted in higher rates of both cardiac events and death.  Study was done in mental home patients who's food was entirely prepared and tracked over a long period of time, which makes it vastly more reliable than anything based on food questionnaires (which is a large portion of nutrition research).

That doesn't answer his question. None of those studies support the claim that rpr was requesting to be supported. Just because one type of oil is "healthier" relative to another, doesn't support the claim that it is healthy. You wouldn't see any of the nutritionists in any of the documentaries that are the subject of this thread making claims that you should be eating less animal foods and more vegetable oils. If that's what you want to argue, that's fine, I won't take up that argument, but don't extrapolate those claims from "healthier" to "healthy".

[mm1970]

As rpr points out, we know vegetables and fruits are healthy and most of the counterpoints to vegans simply attempt to come to the defense of meat simply trying to create doubt that they're not unhealthy. But they're is almost no evidence out there that backs up the claim that, when compared to fruits and vegetables, meat is healthier. Therefore, with that mindset, why add meat to the diet, especially when as I've shown above, there is a overwhelming number of reasons to avoid it (health reasons aside).

You see, this is where you move on to ridiculousness.

They are different.

Vegetables and meat are different.

They have different nutrients, are absorbed differently in the body.  We are literally humans and not apes because of meat.

It is not either / or.  It has never been either /or.

How about this: how about you go on an all broccoli diet.

Come back and tell me how that goes for you.

[rpr]

A little while ago, I read a book called "The Pleasure Trap" by Doug Lisle. He postulates that human beings  are evolutionary (genetically) programmed in the  following way.

1. Human beings are pleasure seeking.
2. Human beings are pain avoiding.
3. Human beings are energy conserving.

What this results in is essentially the following:

Eat the richest food possible.

In stone age days, the richest sources and easily available foods were fruits and tubers. Meat was also a rich source of food but getting it implied consumption energy or pain or death (no genetic propagation).

This pleasure trap affects everyone including both plant based and animal based food consumers. In our current time, there is an abundance of easily available rich food both processed and unprocessed. And our stone age minds go for all of this very rich food all the time.  It takes a  whole lot of conscious effort to realize this and overcome our programming.

[rpr]

As rpr points out, we know vegetables and fruits are healthy and most of the counterpoints to vegans simply attempt to come to the defense of meat simply trying to create doubt that they're not unhealthy. But they're is almost no evidence out there that backs up the claim that, when compared to fruits and vegetables, meat is healthier. Therefore, with that mindset, why add meat to the diet, especially when as I've shown above, there is a overwhelming number of reasons to avoid it (health reasons aside).

You see, this is where you move on to ridiculousness.

They are different.

Vegetables and meat are different.

They have different nutrients, are absorbed differently in the body.  We are literally humans and not apes because of meat.

It is not either / or.  It has never been either /or.

How about this: how about you go on an all broccoli diet.

Come back and tell me how that goes for you.

As I mentioned before, there are civilizations and societies that have thrived on a vegetarian diet of vegetables, fruits, grains, legumes and some dairy (but without meat) for centuries (millenia) without any adverse effects.

[AnnaGrowsAMustache]

I didn't see them, but just finished a book about the same subject. Yes, it would be a great advantage for humanity's ability to grow enough food for the population if people would stop eating meat and in particular beef.

From my book:
A chicken needs to eat 1-2 kg of food to produce 1 kg of meat.
A pig needs to eat 5 kg of food to produce 1 kg of pork.
A cow needs to eat 17 kg of food to produce 1 kg of beef.
If a cow would only eat grass, it might be a different matter, because they don't compete with human food. But cows are fed corn. America has some extremely large fields of corn that are used mostly for feeding cattle, and the rest for biodiesel. All of this land could easily have produced a lot of human food, that we might need if the population ever grows to 10 bilion people.

I am a vervent meat eater. But I am trying to eat vegetarian a couple of times a week. Or eating selfcaught fish, which also has a low footprint.

Cows in Nz are fed grass, and grass related products like silage and balage. I expect there's some kind of fortified other food as well, but they're definitely not fed mainly on corn. They even still live in pastures!

[Hotstreak]

. . . Here is the point I was making.

It is clear that many people agree that eating less meat than is found in the standard American diet is better for your health overall and better for the environment overall. The question then becomes at which point do you reach a level of "moderation" (I put it in quotes since it is a subjective term) where on an ecological and public level, there is a diminishing returns that balances the effort to restrict further with the benefits gained. The problem with looking at each of those 3 points on their own is that the diminishing returns of each question should not be considered on its own.

I almost didn't respond to your specific questions in my original post because I was worried about getting off topic and I realize they may be somewhat rhetorical.  The movie WTH is not proposing less meat, it is proposing zero meat, and my comments are intended to address that position.  The merits of consuming varying amounts of animal products have been discussed and argued ad nauseam on this forum and elsewhere and I don't think there's any benefit to re-doing it here.

. . . As rpr points out, we know vegetables and fruits are healthy and most of the counterpoints to vegans simply attempt to come to the defense of meat simply trying to create doubt that they're not unhealthy. But they're is almost no evidence out there that backs up the claim that, when compared to fruits and vegetables, meat is healthier. Therefore, with that mindset, why add meat to the diet, especially when as I've shown above, there is a overwhelming number of reasons to avoid it (health reasons aside).

I apologize, since upon re-reading my previous posts I took a rather confrontational tone.  I think you and I would agree more about diet than we would disagree, and we would both say the standard american diet is a travesty. 


In my experience a person can eat a huge amount of vegetables (to obtain many of the vitamins, minerals, and fiber your body needs to thrive) which fill your stomach and contain a small number of calories.  You're left with three additional dietary needs: meeting calorie requirements, obtaining essential amino acids, and obtaining essential fatty acids.  Animal protein is an easy way for me to get the amino acids and fatty acids, with added fat from things like olive oil and carbs from fruits and tubers to round out the calorie count.  I'm sure you're not trying to make a strawman out of the notion that people are saying meat is better than vegetables.  I'm sure that somewhere that idea is being stated, but as far as I can tell it's not in this thread and not in any of the linked material either. 

[samsonator54321]

... and that saturated fats and eggs are actually healthy (all in moederation).  ...

Can you point me to any unbiased studies that show saturated fats and eggs are actually healthy? i.e. not sponsored by the meat and egg industry.

Here are some studies rpr:

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/12/161202094340.htm

http://bjsm.bmj.com/content/early/2017/03/31/bjsports-2016-097285

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/04/150402081806.htm

http://journals.lww.com/co-clinicalnutrition/Abstract/2006/01000/Dietary_cholesterol_provided_by_eggs_and_plasma.4.aspx

[mrigney]

I think there are legitimate concerns brought up, especially with practices like CAFOs (Concentrated Animal Feed Operatios) from both ethical and environmental perspectives. However, I agree w/those who say that most of the food docs out there (I've seen Cowspiracy and Forks Over Knives, not What the Health) are really one sided. Some good points. Lots of propaganda. Too balance out, I'd recommend you go watch some videos with guys like Joel Salatin who come from what I'd call a "pro-animal, meat eating, environmentally friendly, sustainable farming perspective." Although I haven't seen this specific talk from Salatin, I've read enough and seen enough interviews that I suspect this is a pretty good summary of his thoughts about the beef/carbon/environment issue: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Z75A_JMBx4 Note...I think Salatin also bloviates sometimes, just like the Cowspiracy/vegan proponents. But, I think Salatin, just like the no-meat docs, have good things to say, too.

[SachaFiscal]

I've heard many people say that eating meat after being vegan for a while made them feel better or healthier. I've always felt the opposite. When I eat animal foods I feel kind of heavy and bloated. Then when I eat a predominantly plant based diet I feel better. I think this is because I grew up in a vegetarian household where we mainly ate rice, legumes, vegetables, and small amounts of dairy mostly in the form of homemade yogurt.  I think many people tend to gravitate to the way they ate growing up. Whether that is healthy or not is TBD. I think the human body can be very resilient. So you will find people who smoke most their life and eat fast food and live to a ripe old age. You'll find some people who eat vegan and still die from cancer (e.g. Steve jobs).

I guess what I'm trying to do is maximize the amount of time I am alive and healthy. I want to prevent the major lifestyle diseases like heart disease, cancer, diabetes, Alzheimer's, etc. while also being able to enjoy some things in moderation. So I've been trying to eat plant based at home and be an omnivore when I go to friends houses for dinner or go on vacation.

So far I've managed to improve my cholesterol numbers significantly by doing this.

I really liked Forks over Knives but thought the other two films were not as well done. They really come off as propoganda films even though I think the underlying message is a good one. I do wish that if people eat meat and dairy, they would eat it in less quantities for the good of the planet and their own health. At least follow the choose my plate guidelines and make sure to get the servings of plant foods recommended before filling up on meat and dairy.

[mrigney]

I guess what I'm trying to do is maximize the amount of time I am alive and healthy. I want to prevent the major lifestyle diseases like heart disease, cancer, diabetes, Alzheimer's, etc. while also being able to enjoy some things in moderation. So I've been trying to eat plant based at home and be an omnivore when I go to friends houses for dinner or go on vacation.

Just a note that the compelling evidence seems to point more and more towards sugar as the major risk factor in lifestyle/western diseases like heart disease, cancer, diabetes, even Alzheimer's. And if we want to talk about an industry that has been dominated by special interests like no one except the tobacco industry, look to sugar. Not going to go dig up links and references b/c I don't have the energy at midnight, but my suspicion is that there is both a better statistical link between sugar consumption and lifestyle disease than between meat consumption and lifestyle disease AND better explanation for the physical mechanisms which cause those increased risk factors.

[rpr]

I guess what I'm trying to do is maximize the amount of time I am alive and healthy. I want to prevent the major lifestyle diseases like heart disease, cancer, diabetes, Alzheimer's, etc. while also being able to enjoy some things in moderation. So I've been trying to eat plant based at home and be an omnivore when I go to friends houses for dinner or go on vacation.

Just a note that the compelling evidence seems to point more and more towards sugar as the major risk factor in lifestyle/western diseases like heart disease, cancer, diabetes, even Alzheimer's. And if we want to talk about an industry that has been dominated by special interests like no one except the tobacco industry, look to sugar. Not going to go dig up links and references b/c I don't have the energy at midnight, but my suspicion is that there is both a better statistical link between sugar consumption and lifestyle disease than between meat consumption and lifestyle disease AND better explanation for the physical mechanisms which cause those increased risk factors.

Interestingly, sugar consumption has been decreasing in the US.  It is still quite high but hopefully trends will continue.



From http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/94/3/726.full

I know we all love to hate sugar but the reality is the meat industry lobbies are far more powerful in the US. I'd love to see a big broccoli lobby.   

[rpr]

... and that saturated fats and eggs are actually healthy (all in moederation).  ...

Can you point me to any unbiased studies that show saturated fats and eggs are actually healthy? i.e. not sponsored by the meat and egg industry.

Here are some studies rpr:

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/12/161202094340.htm

http://bjsm.bmj.com/content/early/2017/03/31/bjsports-2016-097285

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/04/150402081806.htm

http://journals.lww.com/co-clinicalnutrition/Abstract/2006/01000/Dietary_cholesterol_provided_by_eggs_and_plasma.4.aspx

From that final review link --

It is also important to note that 70% of the population experiences a mild increase or no alterations in plasma cholesterol concentrations when challenged with high amounts of dietary cholesterol (hyporesponders).

I don't have access to that article but this seems to say that if your diet is already loaded with high amounts of cholesterol, adding another egg will not change it.

Smoking one extra cigarette did not significantly change the likelihood of lung cancer incidence in people who already smoke 3 packs a day.

;)

[Linea_Norway]

Humans need a bunch of essential amino acids to survive on. If I understand it correctly, these are found in proteins. You normally eat them be eating diverse food. But especially eggs contain a whole bunch of them. Soybeans are another such food.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Essential_amino_acid

[rpr]

Humans need a bunch of essential amino acids to survive on. If I understand it correctly, these are found in proteins. You normally eat them be eating diverse food. But especially eggs contain a whole bunch of them. Soybeans are another such food.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Essential_amino_acid

Linda_Norway -- you are correct. Eggs do contain essential amino acids. However egg yolks have cholesterol and saturated fats. I'd rather consume plant based proteins from beans,lentils etc. that provide all essential AAs without the cholesterol and saturated fat.

From the Position of the Academy of Nutrition and
Dietetics: Vegetarian Diets

Vegetarian, including vegan, diets
typically meet or exceed recommended
protein intakes, when caloric intakes
are adequate.[6-8] The terms complete
and incomplete are misleading in relation
to plant protein. Protein from a
variety of plant foods, eaten during the
course of a day, supplies enough of all
indispensable (essential) amino acids
when caloric requirements are met.[7]
The regular use of legumes and soy
products will ensure an adequate protein
intake for the vegetarian, as well as
providing other essential nutrients.[9]
Fruitarian diets are normally low in
protein and other nutrients. Protein
needs at all ages, including those for
athletes, are well achieved by balanced
vegetarian diets.[7,8].

http://www.eatrightpro.org/resource/practice/position-and-practice-papers/position-papers/vegetarian-diets

Plus, Eggs, meat and poultry have been associated with increased risk of Prostate cancer in men.

Men who consumed 2.5 or more eggs per week had an 81% increased risk of lethal prostate cancer compared with men who consumed less than 0.5 eggs per week.

Source: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21930800

[lifeanon269]

You see, this is where you move on to ridiculousness.

They are different.

Vegetables and meat are different.

They have different nutrients, are absorbed differently in the body.  We are literally humans and not apes because of meat.

It is not either / or.  It has never been either /or.

How about this: how about you go on an all broccoli diet.

Come back and tell me how that goes for you.

I'm not even exactly sure what point you're making and you're the one calling me ridiculous without actually stating what statement of mine I made that was ridiculous.

First off, obviously I understand the fact that plants and this was clearly demonstrated by the fact that I was advocating for eating more plants and less meat in one's diet.

Second, not once did I ever advocate for a diet that isn't nutritionally diverse. That being said, you can have an extremely nutritionally diverse and complete diet on plants alone.

Aside from vitamin B12 (which is only synthesized by bacteria and can be easily acquired via pill supplements), there aren't really many nutritional reasons to choose meat over a plant-based alternative for your nutritional needs when also taking into context the downsides of the source of those nutrients as a whole.

As much as I wouldn't choose a diet consisting of only broccoli, choosing a diet consisting of only meat is an even less viable option. Neither of those diets were in question at all in this thread however and so I don't understand the point you're making because of that.

That being said, I'm pretty sure I'd survive much longer if I chose a diet consisting of 10 plant-based sources of food compared to if I chose a diet consisting of 10 meat-based sources of food. Is that the point you were making? Probably not, which brings us back down to earth where this thread was being discussed rationally.

In my experience a person can eat a huge amount of vegetables (to obtain many of the vitamins, minerals, and fiber your body needs to thrive) which fill your stomach and contain a small number of calories.  You're left with three additional dietary needs: meeting calorie requirements, obtaining essential amino acids, and obtaining essential fatty acids.  Animal protein is an easy way for me to get the amino acids and fatty acids, with added fat from things like olive oil and carbs from fruits and tubers to round out the calorie count.  I'm sure you're not trying to make a strawman out of the notion that people are saying meat is better than vegetables.  I'm sure that somewhere that idea is being stated, but as far as I can tell it's not in this thread and not in any of the linked material either. 

That's not a strawman argument though. Choosing what's on your plate for dinner IS an either or thing because of the fact that there is a limit to how much food we could/should eat. Let's say you have an entire grocery store in your kitchen at your disposal (you essentially do since we likely all go to the grocery store to fill our kitchens). Now you have to decide what goes on your plate to eat and you want to make sure you're eating the healthiest (for you and the planet) diet possible. So you decide to fill it up with some veggies, then some potatoes, then some fruits, then some...etc etc. When it comes to putting meat on your plate, it will ALWAYS be an either/or situation. You could either put meat on your plate or you could choose to put a healthier plant-based option on your plate that will supply the same nutritional needs.

Taking that same choice beyond health and the choice becomes even more clearer. When the costs of putting meat on your plate gets extended to the environment, animal welfare, land use, water use, world hunger, human rights, etc, then it becomes apparent that the either/or decision that we all make every time we sit down to eat is made taking every consequence into account. That's the point I was making earlier.

I often live my life in a way that, if everyone lived that way, then the world would be much better off. So if you choose to eat meat once or twice a week, then I applaud your efforts. Because at those levels, the world would see a great deal of benefit gained in those reductions of meat consumption. However, make no mistake, there are even more benefits to be had that extend across many different aspects in our world if the consumption is reduced further yet. That's not a criticism of any individual's lifestyle, that's simply the inconvenient truth in the world we live.

[SachaFiscal]

I guess what I'm trying to do is maximize the amount of time I am alive and healthy. I want to prevent the major lifestyle diseases like heart disease, cancer, diabetes, Alzheimer's, etc. while also being able to enjoy some things in moderation. So I've been trying to eat plant based at home and be an omnivore when I go to friends houses for dinner or go on vacation.

Just a note that the compelling evidence seems to point more and more towards sugar as the major risk factor in lifestyle/western diseases like heart disease, cancer, diabetes, even Alzheimer's. And if we want to talk about an industry that has been dominated by special interests like no one except the tobacco industry, look to sugar. Not going to go dig up links and references b/c I don't have the energy at midnight, but my suspicion is that there is both a better statistical link between sugar consumption and lifestyle disease than between meat consumption and lifestyle disease AND better explanation for the physical mechanisms which cause those increased risk factors.

Yeah I try to reduce processed foods as much as possible. Including any concentrated sweeteners and flour products. Also reducing salt and oil (e.g. Fried foods) has helped. Mostly I eat whole grains, beans, vegetables, fruits, nuts, seeds, spices. Then occasionally dairy and rarely meat, mostly just to fit in with this culture.

But I grew up that way so it is natural for me to eat that way. Plus I come from a culture that has been vegetarian for a long time. So maybe my body thrives better on this type of diet. I admit that I tend to search out studies that prove that this way of eating is healthy because I do really like eating this way. I've had abnormal cholesterol for a while and only recently reduced my dairy, fat, and processed food intake. After a few months of that I'm seeing my numbers go from high risk to moderate risk. So I'm going to continue and see if I can get them to low risk. Since heart disease is the number one killer in this country I think it is worth a try. My blood sugar has always been normal so I don't think I have to worry about diabetes on this diet, but I will monitor and see.

[ReadySetMillionaire]

For the life of me, I can't understand why we can't agree that humans are just different and react differently to different things.

My wife practices a gluten free diet because she has a noticeable difference when she doesn't eat gluten.  When she does eat gluten, her skin turns red, her stomach hurts, and she feels bloated.  When she does not eat gluten, her skin is as clear as can be, she feels healthy, etc.

I, conversely, eat gluten 2-3x every day.  I always eat it for breakfast, I have a couple pretzels as a snack, and I will probably have gluten for dinner.  I feel healthy and fine.

Neither one of us is right or wrong. It's just the way we've observed our bodies over the years.

I could also make this comparison with animal diet vs. vegan. My twin brother tried going vegan for a month and he felt lethargic and tired all the time. He's back to his normal diet and he feels great. I'm 100% sure other people have had the exact opposite experience.

Why we can't agree that humans are different, and that the science on nutrition is in its infancy, is beyond me.

But argue away, folks. It's been an entertaining read.

[Sailor Sam]

For the life of me, I can't understand why we can't agree that humans are just different and react differently to different things.

My wife practices a gluten free diet because she has a noticeable difference when she doesn't eat gluten.  When she does eat gluten, her skin turns red, her stomach hurts, and she feels bloated.  When she does not eat gluten, her skin is as clear as can be, she feels healthy, etc.

I, conversely, eat gluten 2-3x every day.  I always eat it for breakfast, I have a couple pretzels as a snack, and I will probably have gluten for dinner.  I feel healthy and fine.

Neither one of us is right or wrong. It's just the way we've observed our bodies over the years.

I could also make this comparison with animal diet vs. vegan. My twin brother tried going vegan for a month and he felt lethargic and tired all the time. He's back to his normal diet and he feels great. I'm 100% sure other people have had the exact opposite experience.

Why we can't agree that humans are different, and that the science on nutrition is in its infancy, is beyond me.

But argue away, folks. It's been an entertaining read.

I wonder the same thing. Why can't folks relax, and take other people's food choices in stride? My hypothesis is 2-fold:

1. Food choices have increasingly been pushed into the moral realm. There's suddenly a 'right' way and a 'evil' way to consume calories. The split makes it easy for food threads to take on the same fervor as religious threads.

2. We've been sold the idea that finding the exact. right. diet will allow us to live forever. Obviously we don't consciously believe this, but it's a theme that runs through the propaganda of every major way of eating, plus 100% of the cleanses, fasting, juicing, etc. Health! Longevity! Avoid cancer, avoid heart disease, avoid Alzheimer. Defy aging! Avoid death, ye cowering mortals. 

So, suddenly we have a new quasi-religion, where people on the 'righteous' path can pass moral judgement on other paths, while also winning immortality. It's a potent coctail. Maybe we should just go back to tipping North Irish Protestants into the dustbins on the way home from parochial school, eh?

[lifeanon269]

For the life of me, I can't understand why we can't agree that humans are just different and react differently to different things.

Why we can't agree that humans are different, and that the science on nutrition is in its infancy, is beyond me.

Taking out the anecdotal information, we're left with this. Can you elaborate more on the point you're trying to make? I only ask that not to be confrontational, but only to point out the fallacies in an such an argument that I often see people make who simply would much rather just keep status-quo rather than actually further our collective understanding of a topic.

It just seems to me like you want everyone to just stop debating this subject without any reasoning behind doing so.

Humans being different is a great argument and all, but this discussion goes beyond nutrition alone. Anecdotal data about one's friends and relatives does very little to advance the discussion about public health, the environment, human rights, animal welfare, water use, etc.

If 90% of people have a behavior that has drastic consequences, then doesn't it behoove those people to see if there is another behavior that they could adopt that would not result in those consequences?

Sure, let's say your anecdotal data pans out correctly and only 50% of those 90% of people could actually modify their behavior in such a way. That's still a drastic improvement for the betterment of society. Is it not? Then certainly it would mean that the only way to see that end come about would be for that 90% to recognize the consequences of their behavior.

The problem is that too many people take anecdotal data as factual data and never bother to look beyond to other possibilities. There is no denying there are some terrible consequences of a meat-centric diet and for those on a diet like that, it is imperative that all alternatives are considered, regardless of whether or not it is convenient for you.

Finally, saying that nutritional studies are in their infancy is a cop-out argument that simply allows one to ignore the science as it stands today in favor of status-quo in hopes that further clarification will come later down that road. That approach to understanding is dangerous. Yes, we should be cautious (especially with the way the media distorts scientific literature), but that doesn't mean that we can't learn from all the nutritional studies that have been conducted over the last century.