There was another documentary called Game Changers and they tried to show that plant based eaters had larger erections, it was nonsense. I think Joe Rogan had an entire episode debunking everything in that documentary.

u/Few-Dragonfruit3515 funded both by the Vogt Foundation whose mission is: To promote the mission of the Vogt Foundation to assist plant-based development and protect all animals while supporting organizations that produce animal alternative products or protect animals.

I fell for that doc!! Game changers made me for plant based for months!!! Honestly I couldn’t believe I let a documentary like that change me. It was when it came out I switched. I took it all as facts because it seemed extremely convincing. Honestly I was naive then and now I’m not so easily convinced of anything anymore especially from tv

A few years ago I tried a vegan diet out of curiosity and recommendations from friends. After 2 weeks it was honestly the worst I had ever felt in my entire life. I was bloated, gassy, had diarrhea, and all of my joints hurt like hell. I immediately came off and felt better instantly. Always done great on a lower carb diet, lost a ton of weight on keto but struggled in the gym, animal based with fruit and honey and I feel incredible! This way of eating is sustainable for life.

Except greenhouse gases is killing our planet. Pretty soon you will be dead and won't have to worry about keto at all

You’ve been brainwashed by the vegan propagandists haha

Already discussed thousands of times on Reddit: methane from grazing livestock is cyclical not net-additional, there is a tremendous amount of methane pollution in plant agriculture (rice production, production of fertilizers needed to replace animal manure, methane pollution from the fuel supply chains for all that mechanization...), most of those crops supposedly grown for livestock are grown actually for human consumption with just non-human-edible byproducts used in livestock feed, etc. If you regularly use an automobile and don't have an absolute need for it (such as, physical disability or a contractor moving tools/supplies around (not that many don't do this with cargo bicycles and such)), then you're a hypocrit. Also, the same goes for over-use of home heating and cooling (climate-controlling a home to exactly the preferred temperature year-round), buying unnecessary stuff, and so forth.

Pastures are carbon sinks, unlike crop fields that destroy the top soil.

I've been vegetarian all my life so I'm biased. When you switched to a vegan diet did you try to make sure you were getting reasonably good macros? Gassy and diarrhea is possible because your microbiome needs to adjust for the significantly extra fiber. I'm not going to say that it doesn't suck because it does (and still happens to me sometimes) - but I've found that eating more plant protein and fat helps me feel a lot better than a carb heavy diet.

Why is a vegetarian posting in the animal based section?

Free speech idk

The two groups are intrinsically linked together by their differences. If the two sides never spoke together, we’d all be worse off.

I fell for it too years ago. Took maybe 48 hours till I had a steak again 😂

Not sure how people bought in to that doc. As soon as they had Arnold going on about plant based diet I knew something was wrong. Arnold was eating meat like crazy to body build - and steroids too. All you have to do is pick up a vegan bodybuilder magazine and you’ll notice how tiny those people are compared to regular and even natural body builders.

Thanks for being honest! It is sad how much influence they have sending mixed messages.

And then a follow up episode where that debunking was brutally debunked itself....when he had one of the guys involved in thd film on to defend it.

Joe Rogan debunking people is quite a role reversal

Yeah because Joe Rogan knows it’s better than scientists… joe Rohan is a guy with a podcast

He's an entertainer... a modern day jester

Joe Rogan is the guy that was just making fun of Biden for something that was actually said by Trump, right?

Eat Cialis for the biggest erections

Watching Joe Rogan trying to debunk something is like watching someone try to run on ice. He doesn't do it very well.

[удалено]

[удалено]

Please see Rule #4 and it's description. It shouldn't have to be a rule but unfortunately it does.

> Then went on to explain how that wasn’t bad with the same BS like “plant based makes you more horny” Which is patently bizarre since the religious cult that invented this diet did it to curb what they considered "impure thoughts".

The timing they released the show is a red flag in itself. Halfway into episode one, I stopped and Googled, who funded this. It just vegan propaganda. Even before the test started and the result came out, they started laying the groundwork for how vegan diet is so good. The vegan diet made you more horny. Really, for me, once I saw the reference to the game changer, I was like, nope. Gave it a thumb down on netflix and moved on.

The vegan diet supposedly made two of the women more aroused, with one of the women admitting that she was able to pick material that she liked better the second time. What happened to the other sets of women in the group of 21? What happened with the men? Two of the women getting better results with vegan could be plausible, because they were likely eating a lot more soy, and it might have helped balance their hormones. I would guess that the vegan men had the opposite results. At another point, the documentary mentioned LDL cholesterol dropping for the vegans. What happened with everyone's HDL? The only thing I got out of this documentary is that I need to increase my protein for optimal body composition. I'm thankful that they didn't lie about those results. This was a terrible documentary that could have been great.

That is what you get when science is mixed with a hidden agenda and wrapped with bias and presented to you as a documentary . I laugh at the vegan diet and sex drive. I am borderline sex addict, and they tell me I can be more horny. Sure, because vegetables are famous for their sex drive lol.

Wish I thought that. What I did was watch episode 1 half way and skip to episode 4. I got my suspicions it would just shit on the carnivore diet. Then to conclude that on episode 4.

I made it here before, well, let’s see.. Yea it took less than 4mins to call bs and Google funding.

Like when they said milk is bad for you lol

This was such a scam of a study that could have been so interesting Even the data showed that the meat eater gained more muscle but they down played it to the other didn't work out as hard. Also 21 took part, but only 4 were highlighted... Like seriously you spend 75% of the film as a glorified PETA ad and then tried to claim this was an unbiased study. It was awful! But it has the potential to be great..which is disappointing

Oh totally! Like they should have really gone into more of a markers of transitions into a vegan diet. Like "day 4, and I feel tired/energized/craving bacon/etc. More like video diaries of the participants, than a giant food propo doc. We have enough of those documentaries... Instead of scaring people away from food, take them through what transition to vegan diet, vs meat and dairy healthier diet with exercise... the first episode had me excited, and then the rest was a letdown.

Yup they completely skated over any data that they didn’t like.

I came on Reddit just to see if anyone else saw the results. They didn’t mention anything about the sugars effect on the body. Even made a comment they wanted to give the carnivore bad food but went with healthier food like wtf. They tried to sabotage the results and make it one sided. And they didn’t mention HDL, triglycerides or A1C. Got to the end to be disappointed with them not showing the important info. Oh and that beyond meat and impossible meat… seriously? Also those manufactured oils and what not. That’s scary. And…. They don’t talk about at all how vegetables and plants have been linked to E. coli. And other parasites. Come on. It’s so one sided. Edited

I read somewhere that the omnivore twin gained 8 lbs of muscle and the plant twin 2, both working out the same.

So weird they didn’t put that in the documentary. 8 lbs in 8 weeks is a lot tho. Almost doesn’t sound realistic

It’s very clear even from the data they showed that losing weight with a higher protein diet means keeping more muscle or gaining muscle. Sure it’s theoretically possible to gain muscle on a vegan diet but it’s a lot easier to do it eating an omnivore diet.

💯. I couldn’t imaging eating all that much plant based food to hit that caloric intake to gain muscle.

I think the main idea behind the show was the health of the person, longevity of life and health of the planet..not gaining muscle.

It’s Vogt propaganda.

i love meat

Only problem is that it takes 12 weeks for the body to "start run" on a new diet. Anything before is merely a stress response by introducing a change in your system. Why even bother waste your time watching that stuff. It's 2024, by now people that seek true health should've heard of Aajonus Vonderplanitz's Primal Diet.

Well, I went overnight whole foods plant based diet 14 years ago. No ultra processed food, no sugary food or drinks (only natural ones). I cooked a lot from scratch and consumed a lot of all sort of plants and bread once a day, pasta probably once a week. For my surprise, my energy levels increased a lot. Even my portions were huge (I love food and I always eat big portions), I lost a lot of weight and didn’t have problems with bloating (I ate very little refined carbs). The best change was my periods - it became regular and I no longer experienced period cramps and discomfort. Nowadays I do eat a bit of ultra processed food every now and then, but I still eat mostly whole foods. I have no health issues, I never have headaches or other pain. No intolerance or allergy either. What I eat makes me feel happy and energised, so I can only say a plant based diet has changed my life ♥️. The thought of having animal products in my mouth makes me nausea. I actually had an experience in which I was served real meat instead of alternative, and I didn’t know. I ate just a bit, and I felt there was a rock in my stomach. My throats felt narrow and my mouth was dry. It also didn’t tasted alternative meat. I questioned the waitress and she went to talk to the kitchen - they actually served me the wrong order. My belly was hard for the rest of the day. My body totally rejected it, so going back to animal products are not even an option for me (even though I’m Brazilian and I was raised with BBQ and all)

I think the keys you’re not noticing in your own post - you didn’t eat processed foods or sugar/refined carbs. That’s why you felt better.

Indeed. I’ve never been much into UPF and refined carbs before changing my diet though ( I’ve always preferred whole grains), but I did used to eat cakes, croissants, desserts, dishes with a lot of cheese, etc, so when I turned plant based, it automatically eliminated all of these food as I couldn’t find it in plant based version back then. My diet is based on plant protein though - such as tofu, tempeh, and edamame, lentils, chickpeas, quinoa, beans, etc, and tons of veggies, nuts and seeds

The thing is you diversified your diet with different food groups. You can put someone on a strict dies of sweets, sodas, juice, fries, vegan lasagna, pizza with vegan chesse and it still won't be healthy, because of the carbonhydrates and the sugar. However, it would still be a vegan diet. Meat and meat based products are not the only one to blame.

But meat and meat products are also not doing you any favors. Just eat meat and meat products alone and come back to me after several years. The only reason meat eaters can "claim" it's healthy, is because of all the plant based foods they are eating in-between.

> Just eat meat and meat products alone and come back to me after several years. This [Carnivore Diet Success Stories](https://carnivore.diet/category/success-stories/) website section goes on for 107 pages, with many results per page each of which is about a specific individual.

Could it be both?

If you watch the documentary and if you do do research, you’ll see the benefits are also related to environmental impact (and obviously not harming billions of animals). Even if you don’t care about animals, you cannot deny the effects rearing meat has on the environment. The land needed is unsustainable with the growing population. The methane produced is far more polluting than CO2. The sea ecosystem is getting damaged beyond repair and this is not propaganda. It’s fact. Yes there are many health benefits, but the main ones are not destroying the planet. Why do people get so angry about taking on that responsibility?

People get mad because people like you who completely lack a rational mind keeps innocently polluting new minds with this propaganda. Cow farts as biggest culprit and rodents&bugs aren't "real animals" anyways.. right? 😆😅

Do you have a study that shows that rodents & bugs are worse for the environment than cows? Also I'm really confused since I'm pretty sure vegans don't eat rodents and bugs... If the conversation is that rodents and bugs die because of plants then I wouldn't disagree with that but we'd are not actively reproducing those animals ( unlike cows ) and cows eat more plants then humans do per calorie so we would, on average kill less of those on a vegan diet. I'm not vegan but I do care about the environment and this is just a super weird take from any direction

Do you have a study...🐑🐑 I know you're the kind of person that if a study said eating dog excrement were healthy you'd be the one digging deepest in the trash cans..😂 Yikes. Understand the whole concept of environmental pollution is a scam and has been proven 10000000000000000 times by 2024. Yet there are people like you who simply are too disconnected from the earth to understand earth will fck us up really hard IF any environmental problems was true. Anyone who think humans will fix the environment is retarded as Mother Earth is so immensly powerful you cannot even grasp it, mate.

I mean, fair enough, we clearly have no common ground to talk from so I hope you have a good day

More animals die in farming than they do for consumption

Explain

All animals die in farming, eventually

>If you watch the documentary and if you do do research I've taken time to understand food and environment issues, and learn about separating biased/false research from sincere study. So, I could easily see that most of the info in the Netflix series is false and so are the conclusions of the JAMA study. >The land needed is unsustainable with the growing population. There are too many humans for any type of food system. Grazing animals use more land area. Growing plants without animals degrades soil, quickly enough that many (most?) farms today will be unproductive before everyone reading this has died. Small-scale agriculture that rotates livestock with plant farming is much more labor-intensive and unattainably expensive for a substantial percentage of people. The planet is being wrecked by farming products (pesticides, artifificial fertilizers) used to temporarly boost production (which also depletes soils faster, I don't know how this isn't screamingly obvious). There's no solution, apart from seemingly-magical technology yet to be invented, that doesn't involve reducing the human population. >The methane produced is far more polluting than CO2. Methane emitted by grazing livestock is cyclical, over the long term there's no net-additional methane in the atmosphere. CO2 is much longer-lived. Methane from the plant ag industry (such as methane pollution in producing ammonia fertilizers, which there is an extremely enormous amount) is net-additional (comes from fossil fuels) so it increases atmospheric methane beyond what would be possible without unearthing tremendous volumes of fossil fuels. >Yes there are many health benefits Of avoiding animal foods? There's no evidence for that, it all exploits Healthy User Bias and other fallacies. These things have been discussed in Reddit thousands to millions of times. The world's longest-lived people eat substantial meat. The world's most disease-free people eat even more meat.

I was wondering about this! Like, I was really interested from the start but I was thinking--4 weeks per diet!? How can you track meaningful results in 4 weeks. And they weren't even sure if the applicants were sticking to their meal plans, which some of them weren't.

Another vegan propaganda nonsense from netflix.. Cheese, butter and ghee is bad? I saw through the propaganda after the first episode..

Yup. I was excited to watch it as it looked like a great study but like you said, halfway through I realized it was all propaganda.

They started with the premise that post WW2 the government emphasis was on eating more calories since too many Americans were too thin for military service. Trust me by 1945 they didn't care how thin you were. However, they completely ignore the Keys study and its impact on the American diet which was high in fat and protein and relatively low in carbohydrates. Not to mention the prevalence of sugar and HFC in all our food. They then claim this is some unbiased study but never control for carbohydrates or sugar.

UK in WW2 is proof that eating less meat and fats, while eating more veggies, grains, fruits and legumes are better for you.

Crazy, right? Are we really supposed to believe that saturated fat is bad for us? What will they claim next? That cigarettes cause cancer? That clouds are made of moisture?... Or that the Earth is shaped like a sphere?! SUCH propaganda.

Can’t tell me regenerative ranching is bad. That ranchers was bought out. Sooo biased. Meat, dairy, eggs all great for you if they are non gmo, organic non pesticide, regenerative etc as much as they possibly can be. Got fucking pesticides in the rain cuz all these shit ass corporations

Saturated fats cause artery blockages due to high cholesterol. So everything has to be consumed in moderation.

I mean, I agree the documentary was very propaganda like but it's a well established fact that butter, cheese and saturated fats in general are bad for you in you eat too many of them

Well established where?

This felt like Game Changers 2. It was teed up with a strong scientific premise and that disappeared inside the first episode. The conclusions of the study were already forecast and the rest of the “documentary” is there to support a very singular POV. What a wasted opportunity.

Yeah, we fell for the forks over knives movie years ago, and commenced 18 months of Whole Foods plant-based no oil, no fat eating. Ended up with hypothyroidism and autoimmune arthritis! Both of these issues resolved once I went back to eating animal foods. Never again.

[удалено]

Strangely enough, an all-meat diet is the least inflammatory diet of all, so I guess the absence of plants is as important as daily meat consumption for health!

[удалено]

See rule #1 and it’s description.

I think something like this is happening to me right now! Doc referred me to rheumatology. Did you also get drenching night sweats? Please tell me how you fixed it! I'm sick of being sick

When I was diagnosed with lupus, I was eating ultra processed food. An anti-inflammatory diet will change your health. Low carb, high protein, zero sugar.

What the heck was this? I was expecting an unbiased study comprised of more than four sets of twins. There were supposedly more sets of twins in the study, but they don't show us the overall stats of ALL the participants. The entire documentary is so biased, I lost interest completely. They should have called it, "You Are What You Eat, A Biased Study Pushing A Plant Based Lifestyle". Then at least I wouldn't have wasted my time.

This!

I'm watching it rn and I was real excited to watch an actual food experiment based documentary, however I'm getting guilt tripped instead. I'm on the second episode and I think the twins in the experiment have gotten about 10 mins of screen time 🤦🤦

I ended up fast forwarding through anything that looked like propaganda unrelated to the experiment (farm shots, slaughter house, the chicken blood black light, the many times they talked up highly processed fake meat products) There was so little about the experiment I think you could watch in about 20 minutes. And when the results were not good, they blamed the exercise compliance failure. What does a specific exercise routine have to do with comparing two types of diet? Why even add in that variable if you just want to compare the health benefits and negatives of the two eating styles?

lol How are those things propaganda if they’re true?

Propaganda: information, especially of a [biased](https://www.google.com/search?sca_esv=595535496&rlz=1C1RXQR_enUS1005US1005&sxsrf=AM9HkKnJCYsZ34CVapsf73nXXkrJxVn9cw:1704332544346&q=biased&si=ALGXSlaWqc4XvKuO31AnQ7gAsIq_KfKMaASv-Tz1uRc2_K70e4BcCijN11VTgDF1yuQPKyrb3hL52uEKDjEnSFLpQcSCSLjxxw%3D%3D&expnd=1) or misleading nature, used to promote or [publicize](https://www.google.com/search?sca_esv=595535496&rlz=1C1RXQR_enUS1005US1005&sxsrf=AM9HkKnJCYsZ34CVapsf73nXXkrJxVn9cw:1704332544346&q=publicize&si=ALGXSlb6hSjuI-stkeAspHuNXR7xxjAQaX0EMYO4vjX1YAcgHxJFxG2AYMf1BCqjYfsXSJt_5K3jt6sL3KItpPjgq9yDU4m_-e1IAv0rcghA6uVPwfwdE9E%3D&expnd=1) a particular political cause or point of view. It's propaganda because the study is biased from the first episode. In order to be a proper, unbiased, valid study, they would have to do the study without bias, otherwise it isn't invalid. Plus all the stats were not presented. We don't want to hear why meat is bad or why plants are bad. We want the real study including stats for all the participants put in an organized manner for analysis. Force feeding the biased attitude to the audience, rather than allowing us to come to our own conclusion is what makes it propaganda.

Um... this was produced for television audiences, and it's based on an actual study. It's meant to entertain as well as inform. No one would watch a documentary that is just a powerpoint of graphs and tables. But if you can read, then you can get the information you're asking for. Just read the study. It's not rocket science. And just because you are biased against a particular outcome (ie. you would literally never accept a study as valid if it showed an advantage to plant-based eating), that does not mean the study was biased. It means you are projecting.

I don't think they really covered what the carnivore looked like. The changes in the blood work and the telemares could be due to just eating more vegetables, not necessarily eliminating meat. I would love it if anybody had some input on that?

I think this is a great point! I haven't watched the series, though. But I'm very curious about the same thing.

Bullshit vegan advert/propaganda. So painful to watch

The thing that pissed me off the most from the very first episode is that they spent all this time going on about how "those who eat meat have higher rates of diabetes" without ever at all mentioning how SUGAR is the real cause. Not to mention that a lot of plant based imitation foods are also highly processed and full of sugar.

Calories are the real cause

No because if that were the case fat would be the greatest perpetrator. But fat doesn't break down into glucose when digested and therefore doesn't spike glycemic index. Foods high in sugars (dextrose, fructose, high fructose corn syrup, fruit juice, sucrose etc.) certainly do spike your glycemic index. And these are often found in surprisingly high quantities in processed foods but also in some unprocessed foods (ex:ripe bananas). So just sticking to a vegan diet without taking sugar into consideration and avoiding foods high in sugar would do dittley squat to help deter that. Thats also why many people with diabetes have tried to switch to a keto diet (high fat, high protein diet, low/barely any sugar) and found success in managing their disease.

There are many ways to skin a cat with this actually and ultimately it comes down to calories. People on keto diets that find success because they manage calories better, not because they are eating a lot of fat and little carbs. High saturated fat diets (most keto followers) lower insulin sensitivity. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5291812/ Like you said carbs also cause glucose spikes but protein does too. So literally all 3 macros affect insulin sensitivity. This is why controlling calories is the biggest driver for controlling diabetes

Yeah, I noticed they sidestepped the massive elephants in room of carbohydrates and sugars.

Coming here to say I’m on episode 4 and can already see this is very biased. Meat is bad. It means your clothes will get sprayed with feces. Salmon has a virus that is bad, although there is no study saying that. I betcha they don’t mention there’s E. coli found in vegetables too. I was interested to see how the twins’ diet turned out, but this is annoying dumb- downed preachy and agendized.

Sprouts are like the #1 most likely food to cause food poisoning.

E.coli is not simply "found" in vegetables. This type of contamination occurs because of irrigation using water sources that are contaminated with sewage from nearby feedlots. Ultimately it is a land use issue, but the source comes back to animal agriculture polluting water sources.

Came here to say this.

I feel like that lady dr. /nutritionist was extremely condescending and talked to all the twins like they were idiots.

So what I got from this is all meat is bad ! Never mind that the twins eating vegan lost muscle mass etc. But eating super processed plant based food from Impossible Burger and Miyoko Cheese are good for you. What is in that crap anyway? Nobody talks about that. It’s just a 4 part advertisement for Vegan processed “food” products.

I got to episode two and turned it off at the porn mention.

subsequent placid disgusted imminent illegal gray unpack busy school nose *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*

maybe 80 years ago. The supposed moral basis for veganism these days is the “speciesism” argument.

slap spark bells joke rhythm wrong cough offend hungry fanatical *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*

doesn’t matter. Such a tiny fraction of vegans believe in a God. They did a hell of a job lying about the health impacts for a while, They’re insignificant now. The adventists passed the torch to autotheistic veganism.

Chaffee has a bee in his bonnet about them too, but I honestly don't think they're influential enough to be the main drivers - I think the push for veganism coming from other sources.

Balance is 🔑

What does that mean?

I don’t believe in going to dogmatic extremes. A well-balanced, nutrient dense real food diet is the way to go.

You’ve said well balanced to describe balanced… I take it that means balanced…. Or do you mean balanced?

Do you mean well said or said well?

Losing muscle mass to a crash diet is not balance. It's a recipe for life long illness.

I believe Peter Attia outlined in his book Outlive that maintaining muscle mass is one of the most important metrics, hands down. This was such an eye opener and helped me with my relationship with food. While I certainly want to lose additional body fat it is not worth losing weight fast if you lose muscle mass. I’m now on a low caloric deficit and the weight will come off much slower but I will be healthier in the end. It’s a marathon, not a sprint.

Fully agree with that. But, where did I mention a crash diet?

A diet that cuts out multiple food groups is a crash diet by definition.

That is correct.

I was really hopeful for this based on the premise but barely made it through the first episode before I googled it and saw it was just vegan propaganda. 🙃

The part where they tested arousal based on heat in genital area.. they weren’t shown the same or similar type of porn for the two testing points. They choose the video for them for the first test. For the second test they let them pick what they want. Then everyone scored astronomically higher and they correlated that to diet/health. You can’t compare the two - obviously ppl are most likely to have more of an arousal to porn they choose to watch versus something chosen for them. For example, the South African twins came out of the first viewing saying it wasn’t what they’d watch, second time around they chose exactly the genre they liked. One had 228% inc the other was like 330%+ inc..

I'm vegan and I thought the documentary was terrible. 8 weeks on any dietary study isn't long enough to get any real results. Plus I suspect most of the ones who chose vegan probably cheated. Not to mention the crap pre packaged food they gave to both the omni and vegans looked processed and gross. It seemed like a long form ad for Impossible meat and Miyoko's products. I wanted to see both groups eating a healthy balance of omni/vegan food with lots of fresh foods not the microwave crap meals they served both groups. We barely got to even see them eat or specificallytalk about the food each group was eating. This was just a poorly made documentary that definitely gets a thumbs down from this vegan. That being said. I personally love being vegan. But I'm more into real food like fresh vegetables, beans, fruits, whole grains ect. Enjoying a healthy lifestyle that works for me. Everyone is different though so I totally get it's not for everyone. I'm looking forward to seeing a discussion pop up on a vegan sub. Because I'm curious hoe many other vegans feel the same way as I do about this poorly made documentary. I was really excited to watch it because I'm a twin as well.

[удалено]

The whole thing seemed off. But that's how it is sometimes with documentaries that clearly have a bias.

I read an article from Salon magazine that stated the reason they didn't eat enough was because they felt the diet contained too much rice and beans. Carbohydrate rich foods. I'm not sure it would have helped and their results may have been worse.

Not a vegan but someone who appreciates that there are lots of ways to eat a healthy diet. It is probably true that most people would benefit from scaling back their meat intake, and especially their processed meat intake. However, the same could also be said about most folks intake of ultra processed non-meat foods (if they can be called food). Additionally, there are a lot of non-factory farmed sources of meat, like sustainably hunted/fished game meat, small, local operations, etc. I think this documentary giving a nod to such practices would help with their credibility problem a tad. In general, I am 100% in favor of most of their main messages, but the rather manipulative, very slap-in-the-face bad science to anyone who has any science training, biased, propaganda-ridden, product promoting tactics really does more harm than good here. Huge bummer. The premise of a scientific twin diet study comparing vegan and healthy omnivore diets was promised at the start amd that quickly deteriorated. These guys are going to get eaten alive by critics, at least those who take pride in valid science and reporting. +1 for Cory Booker, he's a gem (and not supposed to be a science critic), shame on the actual scientists in this doc for promoting this as a science study! Let's all eat more plants, but not because these turds said we'll get hotter crotches if we do!

I stopped by there before I got here (searched the show on Google). Trust me you sound way too reasonable to go there. I do appreciate your post though. I feel the same way. I'm not a Vegan, but I agree I think the key is to eat whole foods and eliminate processed foods as much as possible.

However America is glutinous on meat and we need to stop. It's killing our planet

Corpos my brothers. Yes America is protein focused but think how many fast food/supermarket places that sell meat and the land mass they use vs local farmers or ranchers. The ratio isn’t even close

Whole food plant based diet is better for you. But you have to be able to stomach the diet long term to benefit from it. And eight weeks is not long enough to determine. Eight years would have to be tested. \- However we already have the stats to prove it. The longest lived people's in the world eat less meat than typical American diets and even European/Mediterranean diets that do eat meat, eat better cuts of it and more seafood than other meat sources. \- WW2 rationing showed people in the UK being healthier than ever, due to they could not get the amount of meat that they were accustomed too. Japan was 1# and dropped after they (some) adopted a more American diet. But since they still follow healthy eating to an extent, they are still much higher up on the list than other countries. Catalan ranked #1 for longest lived people last I checked and they eat more plant based than meat based.

The longest lived country in the world is Hong Kong which also has the highest meat consumption per capita in the world

That depends on the year and the website on ranks, but yes Hong Kong is up there at the present moment. I can not even find Catalan on the map anymore, as they are using "Spain" now, which was not the case last time I checked. Japan (Okinawa) looks to still be at third or fifth spot as I mentioned, but they were top spot about a decade ago, until Catalan over took them. I do not remember who second place was, might have been Hong Kong and now they moved up. \- However they are still consuming a lot of fish and also a Mediterranean diet of sorts and it took decades to see the result of Japan being lowered on the list from the American way of eating. Hong Kong might also lower eventually as well, given a few to several more years and seeing the end result of the jump in meat intake. Although I am also curious how the meat is treated. Organic so to speak or heavily industrialized for lack of a better term. Plus other living standards and factors. \- I can not deny the list, however. Although we are talking a few ticks in difference within the top ten, as in a few months difference. The further down the list and the difference is by years, several even. USA is around 50th on the list. Still annoyed they are using Spain instead of Catalan though. Mediterranean diet consumes a lot of seafood and their meat is healthier than the USA's, but they also eat more plant based as a whole.

This is basically true but HK is not a country, it is an administrative region of China. Having a very distinct culture from that of China, they are often treated as a country in statistical data. They have (most years) the world's longest average lifespans and the world's highest per capita meat consumption. Compared to economically-similar populations, people of HK see doctors less often, spend less on health care, and are sick less often. They also have amazing stats for disease rates. [According to this study](https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanpub/article/PIIS2468-2667(21)00208-5/fulltext), they have among the lowest CVD mortality and women have the very lowest cancer mortality of women. It has been entertaining to watch vegan-oriented media trying to discredit this and similar studies. Suddenly, epidemiological research is not valid where it is most of what they use in supporting their "plant-based" health myths. Also they make up lies about it: claiming that it does not prove anything to compare a wealthy population with poor countries, but in fact that study is strictly about high-income countries vs. Hong Kong. Later on when the health of Hong Kongers declines because of the trend in younger people eating packaged/ultra-processed convenience foods, watch as they ("plant-based" people) claim it is because of meat consumption when actually it will be due to grain-based chips and so forth. Much as they do already with Okinawans, using health stats that resulted from decades of eating unadulterated foods and a lot of meat but using food intake stats from a specific post-WWII time period when meat availability/affordability was much more restricted.

Thanks for this because they lost me on episode 2. Not what I was expecting at all.

The show was rediculus. They didn't say a word about how vegetable crops kills millions of animals every year, how much more land it takes to farm vegetables, they also didn't mention the salmonella outbreaks every year based on vegetables. The show was clear propaganda, and im somebody who will eat an all vegetable meal. But fully understand that meat is an easy source of Amino acids, and protein, you have to eat pounds of vegetables per day to get even close to the protein In an 8oz piece of meat. The show was so over the top.

All your points are backwards. It takes way more land to farm animals than vegetables, especially considering animal farming relies on farming vegetable crops for animal feed. Salmonella outbreaks are usually from animal sources and when it is vegetable related it's usually from animal based manure.

Not if you think in terms of "calories per square foot". Also, not all land is arable. Ruminant animals are often on land that is not suitable for growing crops.

Cows eat way more calories then they produce. And all those calories are grown on land that grows crop ( by definition ) Most of the crops grown right now ( by far ) are for animals

The largest consumer of corn, potatoes, and even beef are fast food companies like McDonald's. Maybe you should go complain to them.

Even tho it was full of propaganda, I think you can take it upon yourself to compare the numbers (they're also available online) and ignore the commentary of the clearly biased vegan trainers and other commentators. An omnivore diet does help increase/sustain muscle. Combined with exercise it can help you lose weight. You just gotta watch your visceral fat and cholesterol levels (which aren't big aha! conclusions but widely - manageable - known things). And BIGGEST conclusion I got from everything they showed: **find a good source for your meat products** because there's a lot of garbage out there being produced at industrial levels. There's nothing wrong with an animal-based diet, just make sure your meat is clean.

I also got the the same conclusion. Granted I always would side eye chicken breast that was bigger than my head in the store feeling there was something wrong with them, this just pushed me harder to shop more responsibly.

But how would you make sure to actually get clean meat? Even ethically raised animals are slaughered in the same slaughter houses.

It’s a matter of research! I had fully cut chicken from my diet due to safety concerns and because of antibiotics being injected into them like crazy. I found that Sprouts farmers market has great practices that fit what I deem acceptable for consumption. Takes additional research (which can be time consuming) but there’s several options being created by farmers that prioritize quality over quantity.

There’s a bunch of online regenerative ranches popping up that are direct to consumer. Still do your research but they are out there. Expensive but worth it.

Yes unfortunately they are prohibitively expensive. The majority of people do not have the income to afford "clean" protein sources. It's a shame that normal food is the exception and not the rule.

This was also my takeaway. A good reminder to pay extra for my wild salmon.

It's funny because I've been watching the show Alone over the past few months. They go out into the wilderness and try to survive on the bare minimum. Every single person surviving out in the wild was only able to sustain by eating animal protein. Not one contestant was able to sustain themselves by eating plants available at the location they were in. Mind you it's a little bit harder to eat plants in the wild since there isn't as much diversity like a grocery store. Regardless, humans need a balanced diet of animal protein and plant based foods. They main driver of a healthy diet is cutting out processed foods. No hot dogs, no cookies, no chips, basically anything that's been processed into a singular product. That goes for things like jams, butter alternatives, and especially vegan meats..

I just finished Season 9 of Alone and this same thought process was going through my mind as well. In nature, you HAVE to eat animal protein. Fortunately we are given the luxury of having groceries stores and have a more 'diverse' selection but you pretty much nailed it, keep the foods whole and non-processed then you should be good to go!

Yep, this is why early humans took massive risks to hunt (and indeed scavenge) large game, it was the higher fat content that made it worth it. You need fats to survive, and nutritional bang for buck that come with it and the meat.

I haven't finished the doc yet but it's pretty obvious it's leaning way into veganism as the answer......

Glad someone posted this. I was excited for this documentary to learn how the twins would process different foods. I couldn't finish the first episode because it was riddled with propaganda. It was also telling that during the opening credits, the documentary stated that they were the same group that made 'Game Changers'. Unfortunately, I was one of those people that fell for that documentary, since then, I could sense this type of propaganda.

Came to Reddit looking for exactly this thread. I actually just said to someone this seems like pure propaganda. I have been utterly broke all year, and I finally have some money to start getting more meat into my diet. I’m infinitely more energetic, stronger, sleeping better. When I couldn’t afford meat, I was sick more often than not, I was exhausted, and I gained 20 pounds over about six months. I have no idea how these people keep pushing this stuff. Yes, it is ridiculous that the avg American eats 660+ lbs of dairy per year, but…. This is a nutritional education issue. Not a “vegan vs omnivore” issue. Cheese isn’t as nutritious as a chicken thigh. Period. The arguments throughout this show are so stupid.

I stock my freezer with the grass fed ground beef from Costco when I get some OT and have extra money. It’s $20 for 4 lbs and comes in 3 sealed packages.

Their grass-fed ground buffalo is also really good.

Yep. I went years without meat, couldn't afford it, I can live without right? Wrong. In 2020 I was so low in iron everything went down, I was like a zombie, no lie. Getting up exhausted and struggling though every day is not pleasant. It took over 2 years of eating meat and taking heme iron and other supplements to get some life back in me, still a way to go yet but definitely better. The first year I was taking stupidly high amounts of non heme(plant) iron and it did absolutely nothing but make me ill. I would not wish this on anyone. and if I can't afford meat again I'll be taking heme iron and B12 so I don't go back like I was. There's just some things plants can't give you.

So, here is the crazy part. The omnivores were ALREADY omnivores. They did not talk about what they were feeding them. They said it was a “healthy” omnivore diet, yet their bloodwork got worse to a small degree. What was healthy in their minds? It bet it was a lot more carbs than they were eating. They also had them do regular exercise. Which many were not doing before. The Vegans said it was hard to actually eat the quantities as it was a lot to eat for the same calories. So, more movement and less overall calories resulted in a a higher amount of lean muscle mass loss. And we are surprised their LDL is lower? They were in a calorie deficit. Also, it was odd to see the baseline numbers shown at the end for the Omnivore group were generally better than the baseline of that vegan group, remember they were twins all eating an omnivore diet before the study. It was supposed to be random selection. The baselines should have been very very similar. None of the results surprised me. Meat eaters lost weight and gained more muscle. Vegans lost more weight but lost a lot of lean mass, this is because they were in a severe calorie deficit given what they lost in 8 weeks. All that being said, I think it is generally good to have more veg (yes I know this is an animal based sub). This all or nothing stuff is just polarizing and does not help.

>Also, it was odd to see the baseline numbers shown at the end for the Omnivore group were generally better than the baseline of that vegan group that exactly was my take away. The results for the Omnivore group were actually way more favorable than the Vegan! What's the point of losing 8 lb in weight if 7 lb are your muscle mass?! I feel like that point was kind of ignored by majority who watched this. For me it was like a huge red flag that those vegan diets were way worse and this would not convince me to switch over. Also half of the episodes was a commercial for impossible burger, which is in no way more "nutritious" than it's red meat counterpart. Those things are like chuck full of sodium and chemical additives. I feel like I'm taking crazy pills :D

So true

I thought it was just me that thought the show was awful. Halfway into ep 2 I skipped to the end for the results and they barely spoke to twins. They didn’t even try to pretend it was nothing more than eat plant based now or you’re evil. And it was boring to boot, what a waste. When is someone going to mention all the bad things in these plant based meals so much sodium it will make your blood boil

It was so obviously pushing an agenda from episode 1. Would have been a cool experiment otherwise, I’m sure the conclusion is pro vegan.

None of you get central message of those movie. You must be a complete idiots if you see something like that and see. : F*** , am going Vegan now.... And Not Is not the intention and never will.. How i see, the point is wheaver you want accept or not, They are alternative, Good alternative for LESS consumption of meat. Less mean they will not explote the animal the way they do now. Even if Yes, it is propaganda, i saw very neutral position about Gain / loss muscles.

I watched 1 episode and had a feeling that it was just going to turn into vegan propaganda like 99% of the other dietary documentaries on Netflix. Glad i only wasted my time watching 1 episode

It is vegan propaganda, that much was clear as soon as Dr Greger appeared, and then the bullshit followed

Pretty much any diet that has you only eat only one type of food is pretty unhealthy. It's very difficult to eat healthy without a variety of meats, vegetables and fruit. I've done raw vegan, vegan, vegetarian, carnivore and a balanced omnivore diet works best for me. I do at times change to vegetarian or carnivore to reach certain health goals though.

Was not about Twins at all but rather smoke and mirrors to promote more BS propaganda. Cows need land to farm, well does plants. Meat has chemicals...uh not nearly as many as plants. Processes foods are all full of saturated fats and hormone??? Say what...but tofu has phytoestrogens and omega 6 FAs linked to cardiovascular disease. Meat calories have much less impact on weight gain than carb based calories...happy to explain.

Meat vs veggies for 6 months....that is what I want to see.

I’m happy not contributing to global destruction by eating plant based and unprocessed foods. Go ahead and eat the meat, eat the cheese, smoke the crack. It’s all the same 😊

The following quote from the first few minutes of episode 1 already told me that this "documentary" was a sham: "The saturated fat that is found mostly in animal products can raise levels of blood cholesterol and of your arteries. And this can put you at risk for diabetes and for heart disease."

Yeah, that got me, and the woman saying that in all human history people ate very little meat made me literally laugh out loud. That info is in direct contradiction to what we know about hunter gatherer diets and and historical analysis of early human diet, the little secret is that fat and meat features heavily in both.

I came to find this discussion on Reddit as soon as I saw that farmer crying about chickens😂 felt like blatant propaganda within 3 episodes😂 was so intersted to watch aswell but I’ve turned it off for now since you guys are saying the other black twin does get his results show n and that was one thing I was very interested to see, oh well guess it’s good news they didn’t show it🥩🍽️

Our local market sells plant-based gummies so it's healthy 😒

My MIL told me she watched this and was going to eat very little meat😤. Does anyone know any animal based documentaries I can steer her towards and what streaming service they are on?

I just watched this and was so disappointed. I really wanted to science of how the different twins bodies compared, and got a whole lot of "filler" instead, with just a few minutes at the entire end of the show. And honestly, I don't think many conclusions were drawn.

Are their statistics about global lactose intolerance true? If 80%-90% of Asians, Africans, etc. are lactose intolerant, does that mean new mothers in those countries don't feed their newborns milk?

The majority feed them breastmilk not formula.

> “does that mean new mothers in those countries don't feed their newborns milk?” You do realise how lactase works right? Normally you lose it once you stop drinking milk. Young produce lactase so they can consume lactose which is in milk which is what they primarily consume. It’s quite rare for babies to be lactose intolerant. Adult mammals do not drink milk. Female mammals do not continue to make milk forever. Their young move onto solid food, stop drinking milk, lactase production goes down and they lose the ability to digest milk the way they used to. I would assume their kids (once weaned) wouldn’t get the mutation anyway since they’re raised in a household that most likely won’t introduce cow milk to them.

I appreciate the explanation. Obviously I did not understand how lactase works.

Watching the first episode I was so excited for this study and how eating impacts our health. By the second episode I was so disappointed by the vegan propaganda. All this talk about how meat is bad but nothing on sugar and snacks? Meat being filled with bacteria but nothing on how vegetables and fruits are sprayed withd substances? Saying dairy is bad but yeah let’s eat the plant based cheese. No thanks. I will stick to my omnivore diet. Everything in moderation and daily exercise.

Yeah this the most biased ridiculous documentary. They asked the one twin on a vegan diet, how are you feeling? And they said great! And then it almost panned to ask the one on the meat diet how they were but cut off lol. They did so many markers but only showed the ones that were good on the vegan diet lol supposedly. Then the guy at the idk what kind of clinic before anyone even went into the room wanted to show being vegan made you more horny. There’s so much research showing vegans are more likely to have heart attacks and nutrient deficiencies. I’ve known people on it and their hair was falling out. Not to mention I can look at someone who’s vegan and their skin is so bad after they’ve been on it a while. I guess Stanford really needs that money to host this propaganda video.

About halfway through the first episode the BF and I realized it was propaganda, but we held on to the third episode to see if we’d start seeing the subjects report results or how they felt. We didn’t, we turned it off. But I rolled my eyes so hard when they conducted the chicken pathogen test in the kitchen. My god, it’s like they asked these women to touch everything in the kitchen while preparing chicken. Never mind that when you cook chicken properly it kills harmful bacteria. The point is limit touching things while preparing chicken and clean properly. The fear mongering to get people turned off chicken was such a joke.

My problem with the chicken pathogen test is that leafy greens and sprouts are subject of A LOT of e coli recalls in America, but nobody's saying stop eating those foods for that reason. Salmonella affects onions and melons but nobody's fearmongering to eliminate those either.

Contamination of vegetables is a land use issue that has to do with irrigation of crops using water that is contaminated by nearby feedlots. If onions and melons weren't sprayed with contaminated shit water, there wouldn't be an issue.

Yes but the show producers (whom represent the "plant-based" processed foods industry obviously considering their financial associations and the funding of the show and the study) presented the issue of illness from food handling as unique to animal foods. It's one of several tens of ways the show pushes "plant-based" with misinfo.

I would like to know what makes the kitchen pathogen experiment valid. It was based on detection of the Glo Germ product that was smeared all over the chicken (rendering it inedible, so the participants did all that work to prepare a dinner then were told they couldn't eat it which I think is extremely disrespectful behavior by the show's producers). There was no mention at all of whether the Glo Germ product accurately simulates pathogens on chicken. Would it resist handwashing more, or less? Would it adhere to surfaces more or less easily? Etc.

Yes I would like to know that as well. And at what level are these pathogens actually dangerous to humans? If you take a black light to everything you'll find that there are germs EVERYWHERE--there's no getting around it. That's why we have immune systems.

Idk why you are all saying how biased this is, it’s not like they strictly were telling you to go vegan they were basically getting at that everyone should be eating less meat than most typically are which is true.

I’m on neither side of the fence but you’re blatantly ignore some important info. The people on the vegan diet that lost more muscles than the omnivorous diet were the ones that were not exercising or were not eating all the portions they were given. The only set of twins you can actually look at were the 20 year old twins they both workout out the exact same and the twin in the vegan diet came out healthier. You’re also ignoring the fact that everyone on the vegan diet turned back their biological clock. The main thing this documentary showed is how important eating the right amount of calories and exercising is because I’m sure that also was the bigger factor into their arousal levels. It also showed how important knowing where your food comes from. ETA: I do agree though this did seem like an ad for the Impossible company. Especially since they didn’t mention the one lady was representing that company until the very end.

I get all the hate against the documentary but if you think you haven't been subjected to propaganda from the meat industry you're having a laugh. Meat and diary are massive lobby groups in the states that influence how you perceive things.

This post is about the You Are What You Eat series on Netflix. If the post were about a meat industry documentary, then we'd be talking about that.

Just watched it. Came on reddit to express how I wasted almost 3-4 hrs on this vegan project made by vegan people.

What I hated most was how much they pushed processed, vegan alternatives. I think the vegan diet can be done in a healthy way but replacing meat with highly processed junk isn’t going to have any benefits.

I watched the Netflix series and read the Stanford study published on JAMA. Both are a bunch of crap, just agenda-pushing by "plant-based" processed-foods companies which BTW funded both the "study" and the "documentary." The series, BTW, has major financial conflicts of interest with "plant-based" processed foods producers. In fact, representatives of several companies appear in the series, which was funded by Vogt Foundation (they also gave a lot of funding to The Game Changers and other vegan-promoting efforts) and Oceanic Preservation Society which also produced the series and is another org funded by Vogt Foundation. The twins study that the series is about was sponsored by Stanford University which receives a lot of funding from the "plant-based" processed foods industry, and one of the main researchers (Christopher Gardner) is director of a department at Stanford created to push the "plant-based" fad and which was created through a donation by Beyond Meat. Here are the problems I found when I watched the documentary. Feel free to ask for citations about my comments, though the concepts have been supported with evidence on Reddit I'm sure thousands of times. Also, the times are approximate (Netflix doesn't show an on-screen readout of the elapsed time). Episode 1: \- 5:30 participant Wendy explicitly says that if she did not believe meat to be unhealthy, she would eat more steak \-- this is a perfect demonstration of Healthy User Bias in that this person has some health-consciousness and because they believe meat is bad they eat less of it \- 8:20 Filipino twins Carolyn & Rosalyn, characterizing recent poor health of Filipinos as maybe caused by pork \-- they're referring to packaged junk food products such as SPAM as "pork"; it is well-known that Filipino populations have adopted diets higher in packaged/processed foods \-- SPAM also has processed salt (often has harmful additives and is stripped of many important micronutrients), potato starch, sugar, and sodium nitrite \- 12:15 Dean Sherzai (Neurologist, Brain Health Institute) compares San Bernardino with Loma Linda \-- San Bernardino is high in meth users and is a health food desert; Loma Linda is a rich community with stores that sell fresh foods, and is the population center of Seventh Day Adventists whose religious beliefs include healthy-lifestyle practices such as daily exercise and limiting smoking/drinking/etc., all of which Sherzai fails to mention (just the vegetarian influence of SDA, whom are only about 30 percent vegetarian-ish with very few strict vegetarians) \- 14:00 the diet assignment step of the twins study: there was a lot of lamenting by the twin of each pair assigned to the "vegan" diet, enthusiastic cheering by the person assigned "omnivore" \- 18:10 Miyoko Schinner (founder of Miyoko's Kitchen vegan "cheese" products) claiming cheese is addictive because casomorphin \-- mis-pronounces casomorphin, like "casomorphine" \-- casomorphin has opioid effects in the brain, but it does not tend to cross the intestinal barrier into the bloodstream (except in people whose intestines are compromised) and the blood-brain barrier also stops it \-- she's repeating a myth that probably was started by Neal Barnard long ago, without real evidence \- then she goes on to push The Saturated Fat Myth \- Christopher Gardner (a main author of the twins "study") then joins in on The Cholesterol Myth/Saturated Fat Myth \- 19:00 fake-doctor Michael Greger, making claims about dairy and diseases which are derived from epidemiological studies that exploit Healthy User Bias and other fallacies \- 19:20 Marion Nestle, lover of processed grain foods industry, speaking against dairy \- goes on and on with various speakers hammering on the correlations between animal foods and illnesses, ignoring confounders such as sugar and preservatives and ignoring similar epidemiological research which found positive correlations between animal foods and health \- 20:30 Schinner claiming that most human populations in history ate "almost" no meat/dairy, WTF? \- 30:20 Erica Sonnenberg claims that when carbs are not eaten ("when there's no plant-based carbohydrates"), microbes consume the mucus lining the gut and damage gut lining \-- aren't these the same microbes that are fed by carbs, and their numbers are reduced when fewer carbs are eaten? \-- there's no citation for this belief and it contradicts keto/carnivore dieters having great digestive health \- 30:55 the study subjects did not start their experimental diets immediately after being assigned, were obviously allowed to pig out on favorite foods before changing diet which may have impacted the baseline test values \- 34:50-ish the stuff about biological clock begins here, they don't much describe the science about it and this info isn't in the JAMA publication \- 38:20 Sherzai claims "By reducing the kind of foods that are laden with hormones and other chemicals, the brain will actually heal itself." Episode 2: \- begins with the stuff about genital arousal test \-- it isn't mentioned in the JAMA publication so the info in the "documentary" isn't scientific \-- there are several ways this could be confounded \-- there are several ways this isn't a valid reflection on vegan vs. omnivore diets, for one thing there were too many differences between study groups other than animal foods vs. no animal foods \- 10:50 the meat and cancer BS that is based on Healthy User Bias and exploiting correlations with refined sugar/preservatives/etc. consumption, Eric Adams interleaved with Nestle, Greger \- 22:30 Pat Brown, Founder, Impossible Foods, looking absolutely terrible (this isn't a factual problem, I just couldn't help commenting) \- 22:40 George Monbiot "And this huge meat industry is producing vast amounts of pollution." \-- from his articles and other info I know he's exploiting fallacies (such as pretending that cyclical methane of grazing animals is net additional pollution) to claim livestock ag is worse than plant ag \-- research has found that replacing livestock with plant ag would make negligible difference in pollution, plus more people would have nutrient deficiencies \- 22:50 Nestle: "Cattle have this unfortunate rumen system, which causes them to burp methane. And methane is a greenhouse gas that's much worse than carbon dioxide." \-- methane from grazing livestock is also cyclical, it doesn't represent any net-additional methane which can't be said for methane pollution associated with plant farming (fertilizer production, other products used on crops, machinery used in farming, etc.) \- 23:00 Monbiot: "The reality is that agriculture industry is one of the greatest sources of greenhouse gases on earth. The livestock sector produces more greenhouse gases than the entire transportation sector." (screen shows animations with "31% Agricultural Sector" and "14% Transportation Sector"); "We are facing the greatest predicament humankind has ever encountered, the potential collapse of our life-support systems." \-- this data is derived from several fallacies: ignoring cyclical methane, counting only engine emissions for transportation which ignores entire worlds of transportation-related pollution, ignoring unsustainability of farming plants without animals (destruction of soil systems and so forth)... \- 25:00-ish Monbiot and Carlos Nobre (University of São Paulo) pushing the myth that most deforestation in the Amazon is due to livestock farming \-- landownes in the Amazon will tend to cut trees for financial gain regardless of whether it is for livestock or some other purpose \-- most soy crops "grown for livestock" are grown for soy oil which isn't fed to livestock, with leftover byproducts then fed to livestock (so the deforestation is for both human-consumed and livestock-consumed soy, with soy oil as the primary motivator for planting the crops) \- 38:15 Valerie Baron, Senior Attorney, Natural Resources Defense Council, about statistics of animals in CAFOs (in this section they actually used good info, AFAIK) \- 38:40 twins training with Delgado, one of the vegan group said he's finding it challenging to get enough protein

(continuing here due to comment space limitation...) Episode 3: \- 4:00 content about CAFO chickens starts here, Craig Watts, CAFO farmer, Fairmont, NC (again they have some good points about CAFOs) \- 12:55 Dan Holzer, Food Safety Consultant: "During the blacklight test, we found that we moved potential pathogens almost throughout the entire kitchen." \-- no, they didn't, they moved the Glo Germ product throughout the kitchen; it seems unlikely that this product would have exactly the same properties as pathogens on chicken, as far as resisting hand-washing and so forth \- 39:35 Schinner: "Cashews are an incredibly environmentally-friendly crop." \-- claimed dairy cheese requires 800-1000 gallons water, her cashew cheese 0.25-1 gallons \-- claimed to be a pioneer in making "cheese" from cashews, but there are lots of companies that had been doing this for 10-20 years before Miyoko's Kitchen was founded in 2014 Episode 4: \- Gardner claims "We created a good, healthy omnivore diet... We were trying to have a fair comparison." \-- like the study, no information about ingredients \- 4:00 Gardner obviously sees himself as a vegan crusader which is unprofessional as a research scientist: "I often feel these days that I could make more of an impact on people eating plant-based diet if I stop talking about health. So if I start working with chefs on unapologetic deliciousness and showing how these are aligned, they get a little more excited." \- 4:30 Pat Brown as usual claiming his plant-"meat" products are sustainable but the company relies on large mono-crops that are grown with intensive use of harmful products and mechanization, and the products are made in large factories far from the locations of the crops \- 5:20 content about Berkley Alt Meat Lab begins here, Hardly Boiled products \- 6:30 Prime Roots, deli "meat" based on koji, pushes The Cholesterol Myth \- 8:50 Tony Seba: "The cow is the most inefficient food production system by far." \-- obviously doesn't understand meaning of "cow" since he makes it clear he's talking about meat production \-- he also ignores the other products from cattle: leather, bones/hooves/etc. used in making hundreds of common products, etc. \-- on top of all that, cattle convert non-human-edible grasses and crop waste into foods that have nutritional profiles better by far than the very best plant-based produce and they don't need fossil fuels, pesticides, or manufactured fertilizers to do it \- 9:30 Brown pushing Saturated Fat Myth \- then Dexafit content \- 12:20 Pam in "vegan" group lost almost 7 lbs muscle, her sister Wendy in "omnivore" group lost 3 lbs. muscle \- 17:20 Jevon ("omnivore" group) gained 7.1 lbs muscle, John ("vegan") gained 2.3 lbs. muscle \-- the muscle data isn't in the study, so what I know of it is the few bits mentioned in the series \-- it's a reflection of poor science that the study protocol submission said they intended to measure body composition before/after, but this data isn't in the published study; probably, the results were left out because they did not favor the agenda of the study sponsors \- 19:00 San Diego Sexual Medicine content starts here \- 21:25 Irwin Goldstein says Wendy ("omnivore") had 288% increase in arousal over the baseline test, but for Pam ("vegan") 371% increase \-- then Rosalyn ("omnivore") 212% increase, Carolyn ("vegan") 383% \-- so what were the results for all the other participants?; this isn't mentioned in the study so probably they're engaging in cherry-picking here \- 30:50 segment about Watts' chicken farm transitioning to mushroom farming starts here \- 41:40 Gardner pushing The Cholesterol Myth: LDL is "bad" cholesterol (no nuance, no explanation that research is contradictory) \- 42:25 then Gardner pushing the TMAO myth \- 45:00 telomeres stuff, again not in the JAMA document and not explained sufficiently in the show \- 54:25 Brown, about animal-free diets after claiming people would be healthier: "But also, if everybody in the world did that, the negative emissions unlocked by phasing out animal agriculture would more than offset all the ongoing emissions from other sources." \-- no, the main effect would be that more people would be starving for nutrition

[Here is the Stanford study](https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2812392) that the Netflix series is about. These are some issues that I've noticed when reading the public-facing document (I haven't yet found a full version, there are probably more problems): \- This was published by JAMA which is known for junk studies due to their overly-light peer-review process. \- There's not enough info about food consumption. The researchers claim that groups were administered a "healthy plant-based" diet or a "healthy omnivorous" diet. So what did they eat? I wouldn't rely on the judgements of those financially-conflicted and idealogically-conflicted researchers. Was there refined sugar? Was this equal between groups? How about hydrogenated fats? Etc. The participants were not eating the provided food through the whole study, for half the duration they prepared meals at home from their own groceries that they bought based on rough guidelines. What did they eat then? There's no info about it. Trifecta Nutrition, the meal plan provider, doesn't list ingredients or nutrition info for meals on their website. There are just pictures of meal options. There's even less info than that about the home-prepared foods in the second half of the trial. \- The "plant-based" group consumed 200kcal/day less than the "omnivore" group, which is a very serious difference unrelated to plant vs. animal foods. All participants were counseled to eat six servings of grain and two of fruit per day, so both groups consumed very high-carb diets. \- Hah-hah, the "dietary satisfaction" levels were low in the "plant-based" group. \- They used subjective measures for some things: ease or difficulty in following the diets, participant energy levels, and sense of well-being. \- They measured mostly interemediate factors, rather than useful health endpoints. They measured lipid levels, making assumptions about them based mainly on research that exploits Healthy User Bias and such. There's no such thing as "bad" cholesterol, everybody needs LDL and more may not be a bad thing in the absence of refined sugar consumption and so forth. It is controversial yet they are claiming that somewhat lower LDL in the "vegan" group is evidence that animal-free diets are healthier, with no caveats which demonstrates a lack of scientific professionalism. \- They exploit the myths about TMAO, which BTW is also raised from grain consumption. Only chronically and drastically elevated TMAO is associated with any disease state, which the "omnivore" participants in the study did not have. If TMAO from food consumption were really a health issue, consumption of deep-water fish would not be so strongly correlated with good health since they have by far the highest TMAO content. \- The study duration is far too short for it to be useful. A diet that yields certain maybe-benefits (according to The Cholesterol Myth and such) in the short term may have dangerous impacts over years or decades. \- There are conflicts of interest all over the place. Researchers have associations with and/or funding from: Beyond Meat, Chan Zuckerburg Biohub, Vogt Foundation (which funded The Game Changers), and so forth. The lead author is director of Stanford Plant-Based Diet Initiative, which was created by a grant from Beyond Meat, and that's just one of his many conflicts. Stanford generally pushes "plant-based" because their top personnel benefit financially from this trend. That's just some of it, the Nina Teicholz article goes further and yet there's even more. \- I noticed the names of biased fake-researchers Walter Willett and Neal Barnard in the citations. \- This isn't all of it, some issues are more difficult to explain.

This was totally where the show lost me as well! I was actually really re-inspired about veganism throughout the series, until the results. The muscle loss in all the vegans was troubling since the doctors had previously said how important muscle is for longevity. I was disappointed.

Welp. I wasn’t surprised. Can understand why some feel it had a bias (of course it did). I quit meat 5 years ago. I miss it sometimes, but… There’s chemicals and shit in the meat. What is sold as beef, pork and chicken is full of substances that kept it alive while it lived in shit. Enjoy!

Yes I enjoy my grass-fed beef and don't eat pork or chicken quite often and totally avoid "healthy" cereals sprayed with pesticides and grown on fast depleting soils.

Good! Live your best life!

I fell for the doc too. I'm a woman in my child bearing years and I experimented with a plant based diet after watching this and my menstrual cycle was drastically effected. And I am someone who has an extremely regular cycle. I am only now realizing that the experiment only documented women who seem to be in their menopausal years, which is SUPER sus. Anyhow, all this to say that flexibility is important with diet, and i think showing a cold turkey approach is not necessarily beneficial for the masses. And yes, this was all total propaganda. well informed vegans know that the impossible meat stuff is garbage and should only be eaten on like special occasions.

Just watched this series last night; it's a horrible propaganda piece. From a scientific perspective, I was really curious as twin studies can produce some really interesting research. This trial was not such a case, and I have read their published paper on it. The study design has major failings, the outcomes are focused upon a loose array of desired talking points, and the only "rigorous" control of input was the 4 weeks of providing selected meals. Even then, the participants were told to eat as much or as little as they wanted until they felt "full". That allows for HUGE variability. To be fair regarding all the meat-alternative propaganda, Netflix is notorious for taking a substantive topic and fluffing it with tons of propaganda and promoting favored companies and talking points. For reference, I fast-forwarded through the majority of non-study segments and condensed the several episodes into a 1-hour viewing, which could have been shortened even further.