Chris Kresser debunks The Game Changers, exposing its oversimplified claims—like Roman gladiators being "vegetarian" and Wilkes’ 50-minute battle rope improvement—while highlighting the vegan honeymoon effect, protein bioavailability gaps (beef: 1.39 DS vs. wheat: 0.2), and misleading B12 statistics (92% vegan depletion vs. 11% omnivore). The film’s environmental arguments ignore industrial plant agriculture’s 7.3B animal deaths annually, while regenerative grazing sequesters 3–7 tons of carbon/hectare, contradicting fake meat’s net emissions. Kresser and Rogan argue the documentary cherry-picks flawed studies (e.g., TMAO myths) and promotes veganism as a panacea despite elite athletes like Tim Sheaf abandoning it for health. The real solution? Regenerative livestock, not ideological extremes. [Automatically generated summary]
Especially for someone who doesn't have the background, you know, or science awareness to critique some of the claims, it's going to be really persuasive and compelling.
And I've definitely, you know, whenever a film like this comes out, my email inbox just blows up.
Like, have you seen this film?
Oh my God, you know, like, I'm eating meat, I'm going to kill myself.
Do you think that they're making these films because they believe what they're saying...
Or do you think they're making these films because they are trying to convert people to being vegan and they think that distorting reality and just bending things and cherry picking data is acceptable because the long run, the benefits of getting the world to shift over to a vegan diet, it's worth not being completely objective or honest about the actual facts.
I think people like, I mean, James, for example, I think he's genuinely trying to help people.
I think he's looked at the data and he just came to a different conclusion than somebody like me has.
And, you know, I mean, this is, there's something called confirmation bias.
I'm sure many of your guests have talked about, but it's a basic human tendency where we tend to only look at the data that support our point of view and discount the rest of it.
The beginning of it I thought was so strange when James talked about being injured and doing all the research he did, which seems like an extraordinary amount of, what do you say, like a thousand hours of research?
And that the thing that stood out was that the Roman gladiators, at least in this one particular location, According to the analysis of their bones, it appears that they had a vegetarian diet, that they ate a lot of grain.
They had a life expectancy of about two years once they became a gladiator.
It's interesting they featured Fabian Kanz, who is a scientist, you remember, who they talked to and definitely seemed to kind of buy into the plant-based diet idea or the idea that they were vegetarian, you know, by design or by choice.
They didn't talk to his collaborator, Carl Grossman, who's been quoted in the media saying, here's a quote, And by the way, all of the references, full bibliography, show notes, everything are at kresser.co slash gamechangers because I want this to be totally evidence-based.
People can check what I'm saying right there.
So he said, the vegetarian diet had nothing to do with poverty or animal rights.
Gladiators, it seems, were fat.
Consuming a lot of simple carbohydrates such as barley and legumes like beans was designed for survival in the arena.
Packing in the carbs also packed on the pounds.
Gladiators needed subcutaneous fat, a fat cushion, protects you from cut wounds and shields nerves and blood vessels in a fight.
So they were basically fattening them up so they could survive longer in the arena.
It's not an ideal diet for fighting and muscle protein synthesis and nutrition.
It was basically to fatten them up so they could survive longer.
And the name, my Latin's terrible, I think it was hordiari or something.
It means like barley eater.
It was an epithet.
It was an insult.
It wasn't, you know, a compliment.
It was like, ha ha, you only can afford to eat barley.
So yeah, it was a bizarre way to start the film, I thought.
There could have been better ways to do it.
And let me also just say, like...
If the purpose of this film was to say, it's possible to thrive on a plant-based diet, and look, here are some athletes that have done that, I wouldn't have had any qualms with it.
Clearly there are examples of people who thrive on a plant-based diet.
Scott Jurek, who's one of the athletes in the film, seemed to do well.
Dottie Bausch, who's one of the athletes in the film.
If you really plan it well and you understand what you're doing and you're on it, it's totally possible.
No dispute with that.
But where I take issue with it is it went a step further and said this is the optimal plan.
Diet for athletes and everybody else, which, you know, even though it was a film ostensibly about athletes, it definitely crossed the line into this is the approach that everybody should do.
Yeah, I mean, they made these claims like all of a sudden people got stronger and faster and more endurance.
Like there's no evidence to support that.
There's no evidence other than their anecdotal statements of what they did.
There's no one has ever put anyone on a vegan diet and then run them through extreme endurance tests and found the significant increase in VO2 max or muscle strength or any of those things.
None of this has ever been done.
So, if it's true, anecdotally, for these people, it would have been really interesting if there was some actual data to go with that, where they showed studies.
I mean, we have James talking about his ability to do the battle ropes, that all of a sudden he could do an hour, and before he could only do 10 minutes.
Well, I find that really hard to believe, that you gained 50 minutes of your battle rope time just from ropes, and that was the only thing in the film that I found hard to believe.
I mean, there's that problem, which is there's no peer-reviewed evidence to back that up.
But even the anecdotal evidence is a little shaky when we start to talk about some of the athletes in the film and then also examples of athletes outside of the film who switched to a vegan diet and we look and see what happened to them after they did that.
The problem here is something that I call the vegan honeymoon, which is, you know, you take someone who's been on a standard American diet, they're eating KFC, McDonald's, etc., and they switch from that to a plant-based diet.
Well, of course they're going to feel better.
They've gone from eating absolute crap to real foods.
And so for a period of time, they're going to feel better for sure.
But then what happens over a longer period of time?
You know, not getting enough protein just in terms of quantity and not getting the right quality of protein, that starts to have an impact.
Micronutrient deficiencies, you know, vitamin A, zinc, calcium, iron, things like that take a while to develop.
So you're not going to see that deficiency.
Decline in performance happen right away.
It might take three months, it might take six months, it might take nine months.
It depends on all kinds of factors.
Genetics, health status going into it, the type of exercise and activity that they're doing, the way they're implementing the diet, etc.
So you have to not just look at what happens a month after someone goes vegan.
You have to look at what happens six months, a year after, or two years after.
So, the DS looks at amino acid profile, but then it also looks at bioavailability.
A protein is not worth much if you can't actually digest and absorb it.
So, it's a complex, you know, algorithm that combines all those things and that ranks the proteins on a scale.
So the DS for beef, rare beef, is 1.39.
It's among the highest scores on the whole scale.
The DS for egg is 1.13.
For peanut butter, it's 0.45, and for wheat, it's 0.2.
Those are among the lowest proteins that have been measured on the scale.
So even if the quantity was the same, the effect on your body, particularly on things like muscle protein synthesis, which is of concern for athletes, is not even in the same ballpark.
like so to use that as a reference point to use that as like look you can get this that's plenty that's crazy well that's a common argument in the vegan community and they you know i don't know whether it's because they they really don't understand the science behind it or because they do and they're just you know it's being kind of exaggerated to suit the their claim i can't know This is what I think it is, honestly.
There's a lot of vegan influencers, and there's a lot of people that make YouTube videos, and people who produce things like this.
And then the other folks just parrot what they say.
So instead of reading the actual studies and talking to objective Right.
then the actual film itself that's just how it goes nobody's gonna watch and so especially the people that already convinced for them it's like excellent I knew Jesus was real now I've got the proof you know I mean it's really like that it becomes The ideology becomes so strong, it becomes like a religion.
And look, I've been accused of it from doing it from a meat perspective.
And I understand.
I understand that you would think that if you had an opposing vegan or vegetarian perspective.
I totally understand.
But man...
You know, we saw it with the Joel Kahn discussion, and you see it almost every time someone who's actually informed has a conversation with one of these influencers.
Like, they're not being 100% accurate, objective, or even honest in a lot of cases.
The best argument, in my opinion, is this factory farming is disgusting, and that the cruelty of treating animals like a commodity and serving them up for slaughter in these horrific conditions, these factory farming conditions, and these horrible pens that we've all seen.
So I want to go back to the RDA. I don't want to forget that, because that's super important.
Yes.
Yeah, so where to start with that?
So first of all, you know, the idea that plant-based agriculture doesn't kill animals is just false.
I mean, there have been studies that show that particularly monocropping type of plant agriculture kills animals.
Far more animals than are killed from eating cows, for example.
Insects, rodents, mice, birds, fish, all killed in the process of industrial agriculture.
And so that presents an ethical dilemma, really.
If you are saying, I'm a vegan because I don't want my food choices to involve killing animals, is killing a whole bunch of small animals Is non-mammal animals better than killing mammals?
Or what about killing more small animals than one cow?
Does size matter?
Where do you draw the line between an animal that is sentient enough or cute enough maybe to not be killed versus...
So if you want to have a meal out of wheat, most likely more animals are going to die.
It's like if you have a hundred wheat meals with wheat in them, you're probably killing more animals than if you have a hundred meals with cows in them, because that's like a cow.
Right, but what they're saying is that you're saying that eating a vegan diet and all these monocrops, that these monocrops are killing all these small animals.
They're saying, no, these monocrops, most of them actually exist to feed livestock.
If you follow this through, especially when you start talking about fake meat, what are those based on?
Soils.
They're industrial crops.
They're not grown on the family farm.
These are industrial GMO monocrops on a massive scale.
There was a great study published in the journal PNAS in 2017, and it was specifically addressing this claim of would removing animal products from our diet have, you know, saved the world?
Basically, would it reduce greenhouse gases?
Would it improve our nutrition?
Basically, they found that it would only reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 2.6%, but our intake of carbohydrates, total calories, would go way up, and the incidence of nutrient deficiencies would go way up.
And they did the math and found that without animal products, domestic supplies of calcium, EPA, and DHA, which are the long-chain omega-3 fats, retinol, and B12 were, quote, Insufficient to meet the requirements of the U.S. population.
So translation, everybody would have to be supplementing with those nutrients if everyone went on a vegan diet.
And they went on to say that basically there's already a surplus of calories in the diet of 145%.
If we removed animal products entirely, that would go up to 230%.
So, because the volume of calories in food that would be required to meet basic nutrient and protein needs would be that much higher.
So, you know, there's a lot of downstream consequences that I don't think have been fully thought through, even if a plant-based diet might work for one person.
Will it scale?
If you take that to the full level of everyone eating a plant-based diet, which is the argument that is being made, does it really work from a nutritional perspective, from an environmental perspective, and even from an ethical perspective?
Yeah, I know you had Joel Salatin on the show a while back, and Alan Savory talked a lot about this.
One of the biggest issues right now is soil.
Soil erosion.
Soil is eroding.
The FAO has said we only have about 60 harvests left if soil continues to degrade at the rate that it's going.
And so one of the arguments for regenerative, holistically managed livestock is that that can actually help regenerate healthy soils.
And some, like Joel Salatin or Alan Sabry, would argue that that's the only way we're going to be able to feed the world because only about 60% of available land is not suitable for cropping.
Even if we decided, hey, let's just plant soy and corn and, you know, plant plants everywhere.
We couldn't because it's too rocky or hilly or the soil is not adequate to do that.
So this is where I wonder, too, about whether it's...
Is this disingenuous?
Are they not aware of what's happening here, or is it disingenuous?
So here's the thing.
Here's what they did, Joe.
So the specific number in the film, they say greenhouse gas emissions from cattle are 15%, and they compared that to 14% for all of transportation.
But the problem with that is that they're using the full life cycle analysis for livestock.
So that means the carbon needed for feed, for transport, for processing the cattle, not just emissions, not just methane burps from the cattle.
Whereas for transportation, they're only looking at what are called direct tailpipe emissions, just the emissions that come out of the tailpipe.
They're not looking at the carbon needed to manufacture the vehicle, the cars, the buses, the airplanes, the inputs for making the fuel, the fuel production and distribution, the final use of the fuel.
That life cycle analysis for transportation hasn't been done just because it's enormously complex and it would be a phenomenally big number.
The EPA has estimated that something around 80% of the greenhouse gas emissions comes from industry, basically fossil fuel.
So it's not an apples to apples comparison.
They're doing the full life cycle for livestock versus just the direct emissions for transportation.
Well, if we look at just the direct for both...
It's 5% for livestock globally and 14% for transportation.
But in the U.S., it's only 3.9% for livestock because we have more efficient practices here versus 14% for transportation.
So not even in the same ballpark.
And it's just, yeah, I mean, they can just say that in a film.
Most people will hear that and nod their head because they've heard those numbers before.
What's going on is what you see in a lot of these videos where only one person gets to talk.
One person who has a specific agenda gets to cherry pick the data and distort it and then put it on the film.
And you can accuse us of doing that right now because both of us are clearly on the same page.
And I would be happy to have James come in with you afterwards.
We did it with Joel.
James is way more reasonable than Joel and not slimy.
So I'd be happy to do that.
And I think that when it's all said and done, I would just like people to be informed.
And everyone is going to have their own ideological bias.
Everyone's going to have their own preference.
But to make poorly informed decisions, or that's being kind.
To be more blunt, deceptive, Information, forming your decisions, and having health consequences because of that, to me, pisses me off and freaks me out.
The health aspects are not being represented accurately.
There was a case recently where I was going to tweet it, but I was like, God damn it, I can't even tweet it.
It's so sad, where a child had died from malnutrition because the parents were feeding it a vegan diet, and all the other kids looked like they were starving to death, too.
And then the social workers came in, and it's a goddamn nightmare.
I mean, if you hear about that from people that are starving their kids on a regular diet, they're just either extremely poor or they're monsters, and they're treating their kid terribly.
Just one more thing on the greenhouse gas question.
All the numbers I just gave you were from conventional methods, you know, like basically CAFO beef.
When they have looked at regenerative, holistically managed livestock, they've found that it can either be carbon neutral or even a carbon sink.
So there's a guy who's written some papers on this, Richard Teague.
And in his 2018 paper, which again you can find on my website, thecressor.co slash gamechangers, he found that these larger, more complex, holistically managed sites can sequester between 3 to 4 and even up to 7 tons of carbon per hectare per year.
So these holistically managed beef operations are actually removing carbon from the atmosphere.
This is a little out of my wheelhouse, but it's part of the whole methane cycle, the natural biogenic cycle.
And this is important to understand, the difference between transportation, which is basically taking out fossil fuels that have not been part of that natural cycle for millions of years and then just emitting them into the atmosphere, With the carbon, the biogenic carbon cycle, you have methane, you know, cows are burping out methane.
Methane goes up into the atmosphere, and then via hydroxyl oxidation, it's converted into CO2 and water vapor.
Then the plants take in CO2, and then via photosynthesis, they convert it into food, basically.
And then the cows eat the food, and the whole cycle keeps going.
I mean, like Joel Salatin, for example, from Polyface Farms and Savory Institute, they basically educate farmers on how to rotate their livestock.
Again, this is not my area of expertise, but rather than just having the cattle...
Stay in the same place the whole time, like in a feedlot.
They're moving the cattle around, the cattle are pooping, then they bring the chickens to where that was, you know, where the cattle were, and they move it around in a way, again, that I don't fully understand, but the effect of this is that the amount of carbon that is sequestered from the atmosphere is greater than the amount of CO2 that is emitted.
And these life cycle analyses have been done and published in the literature.
It's true that right now that type of holistically managed livestock is not very common, but that doesn't mean that it's not what we should be doing.
This is the thing.
With the film, I agree with the problem, the premise, which is that the feedlot beef production is a nightmare.
It can be bad for the environment, and we have to do something about it.
Where we disagree is what the solution is.
They go to a plant-based diet or fake meat or lab meat.
I go to regenerative, holistically managed livestock.
One really good alternative and one terrible alternative.
That's not a choice, like you were saying before the show.
That's not even a choice.
You just obviously do the right thing.
We're choosing...
It's like, on the one hand, if we try to scale up plant agriculture in an environment where, according to the FAO, our soils are in only, quote, fair, poor, or very poor condition, and we only have 60 harvests left due to rapidly deteriorating...
Soil due to erosion and nutrient depletion, then we desperately need new methods of restoring healthy soil.
And if we can do that with regenerative, holistically managed livestock, which has been shown in the scientific literature to be possible, then that may be the only way we can feed everybody.
One would be we need to return all the croplands that are being used to feed livestock and feedlots right now to grassland.
And number two, we need to put all unused land like the rocky, hilly soil or land that can't be used for plant agriculture into production with animals.
And number three, farmers and ranchers would need to adopt regenerative practices, you know.
So I'm not saying – this is an enormous undertaking.
We're not – we're talking – but so is feeding the world with plant-based agriculture.
Yeah, this – I mean, it's just – it's so confusing when a film like this gets made because so many people get up in arms and so many people get influenced by it and so many people think that this is the way to go.
My take on a lot of this is there's a lot of people that have kind of fashioned their careers out of this ideology, whether they believe it or not.
Yeah, so one of the founders was Ellen White, and she taught that meat was a toxic substance and that flesh should be avoided because it increases our carnal urges.
And then one of the other, an early Adventist church member, Lena Cooper, she co-founded the American Dietetic Association, which is still to this day one of our major dietetics organizations.
And she wrote textbooks that were used in dietetic and nursing programs all around the world for 30 years.
years.
So we have this weird meshing that goes back to like the early 20th century between religion and science.
But the argument is often made that that's related to diet.
Well, it could be that it's related to, you know, part of their creed is to eat healthy whole foods, but they also don't smoke, they don't drink, they're advised to exercise.
So, it's kind of like the Dean Ornish studies where, you know, you put together all these interventions, one of which is a low-fat diet, and then you say that the benefit was because of the low-fat diet.
What you're referring to is the study that showed that, and this is what vegans like to say, that vegan diet is, and Joel loves to use this one, a vegan diet is the only diet that's ever been shown in a study to reverse heart disease.
But what this study actually shows is these people had terrible diets, they smoked and they drank, and then they put them on a vegan diet, no smoking, no drinking, and exercise, and what do you know?
Their health improved.
But it's not like we have a corresponding diet where they did the exact same thing and gave them an omnivorous diet with like grass-fed bison meat and then showed a similar set of tests and showed a decline or showed a better performance by the vegan diet.
You have all of these factors that are compiled together.
Quitting drinking, quitting smoking, quit eating shit food, eating a vegan diet, And exercise.
And by the way, the reason why I had him on, and I know people think I'm biased, and I am.
I'm biased.
My perspective is that you're correct, and that all these other Marxists and Rob Wolf and all these other folks, I think they're correct.
An omnivorous diet is the way to go.
But I had him on to try to pursue this path of objectivity, to try to give him an opportunity to express what's incorrect about what you're saying, and it didn't work out for him.
I mean, by everybody's account that I saw that he lost that debate.
So, I mean, you brought up a point which I think is the crux of this whole thing, which is context is everything.
And the problem with a lot of the research on plant-based diets and, you know, low-fat diets and all this is they make the implicit assumption that a diet that includes meat that is like where the context is KFC, McDonald's, you know, cheese doodles, Coca-Cola, the whole standard American diet is the same as a diet that includes meat that's completely whole foods based, you know, like the way you eat, the way I eat, you know.
Lots of vegetables, fresh nuts, seeds, starchy tubers, whatever.
If you ask 100 people on the street, my guess is 100% would say those are obviously different.
But the way that research treats them is they're the same.
So there have been studies that have been done over the past few years that are looking more at diet quality rather than just the quantity of specific food ingredients or foods like meat.
And what those studies are universally saying is that quality is what makes the difference.
So, a great example, we talked about this with Joel, are the studies on looking at omnivorous versus vegetarian and vegan diets and lifespan.
But instead of just looking at the general population that eats meat, they tried to find ways to, like, at least...
a slightly healthier omnivorous population.
So there was one, the health food shoppers study, where they only looked at people who shopped at health food stores thinking, okay, these people are at least thinking about it a little bit.
It's still not controlling for all the factors, but they're saying, let's look at people who shop at a place like Whole Foods, and then let's compare lifespan between vegetarians and vegans and omnivores.
Well, guess what?
Both groups live a lot longer than the general population, but there was no difference in lifespan between people who ate meat and vegetarians and vegans.
It's one of the beautiful things about being able to talk about it on a podcast with a moron like me is at least you're getting a conversation where people are going to ask questions like, what the fuck is he saying?
So I get to ask you that and then people get to hear it.
You know, this is a very strange time when it comes to information, because so much of it is available, but almost too much.
And then when you realize, when you start trying to study nutrition, there is so much to learn.
There's so many factors, and there's so many biases.
I listened to your interview with Matt Tybee and the point, I was thinking about it because you were talking about it politically, how we're just living in echo chambers now.
So you go on social media, you're Republican, you're only going to see stuff that caters to your view.
And the algorithms are even optimized for that because they know that you'll click on that more and that will lead to more ad dollars.
But it's similar with nutrition.
So, you know, if you're vegan, you go on YouTube, you're going to see a ton of vegan videos and vegan perspectives.
Same with your Facebook feed, etc.
And to be fair, it's the same for, you know, people who are into keto or low-carb or carnivore or whatever they're into.
It's the same thing.
So you're just getting this reinforcing...
Confirmation bias, you know, supporting access to information.
That is a weird thing about social media algorithms, whether it's YouTube algorithms or Facebook or any of these things, is that they're giving you what you want to see, which you would say, oh great, well that's what I want to see.
There's so many counter-arguments, especially when you're talking about nutrition science.
There's so many discussions on both sides of the fence, and it seems like both sides are preaching to the choir.
And, you know, if you want to include someone like that guy that ran the Appalachian Trail in 48 days or whatever he did, which is no small feat for sure.
But, I mean, Zach Bitter ran...
He ran a 100-mile race in 11 hours and 40 minutes, which is fucking bananas.
So, sorry, you know how he said, and James said in the study, the average vegetarian gets 71 grams a day, which is not only, you know, the RDA, but 70% more.
That's using the 0.8 number.
But if you use 1.2 grams per kilogram per day, then a lot of people are going to be protein deficient on a vegetarian diet.
Yeah, so that's, you know, 1.2 is the RDA, if you use this newer method.
But for athletes, James, to his credit, does acknowledge in the film that athletes need more protein than regular non-athlete people.
But he doesn't say how much more.
So, again, if you use these IAO methods, they've used this newer technique to look at athletes, and they've found that the range is somewhere between 1.4 to 2.7 grams per kilogram.
So, we're now way higher than that 0.8 number.
And just for people who aren't familiar with kilograms, let's say we take the median number there, 2.1 grams per kilogram per day.
Well, anyone who's ever been in the bodybuilding weightlifting community will recognize this.
That's one pound of protein per pound of body weight.
a day Which has been the common recommendation in that community.
Three cups of cooked lentils, three cups of chickpeas, two cups of quinoa, three ounces of almonds, three slices of silken tofu, and ten tablespoons of peanut butter.
But the problem is the Dia score for all of those, like the bioavailability and the amino acid profile would be horrible compared to meat, eggs, dairy.
There was a study that I'd read or had heard about, I should say, where they compared rice protein to whey protein, and they found that at a certain level of grams, like whatever it was, they had an equal effect.
Well, I'm not sure about that, but I mean, leucine is very important for anabolic signaling and muscle protein synthesis.
It's the essential amino acid that's thought to be the most important for that, and it's low in plant proteins.
And the other issue with plant proteins that you have is that they have limiting amino acids.
So these are amino acids that actually interfere with muscle protein synthesis.
Because the levels are so low in that food.
So lysine is a limiting amino acid in grains like wheat and rice.
Maybe there was leucine and lysine discussion maybe there.
And then methionine and cysteine are limiting in legumes like soy.
So, Jamie, on slide 6, I made a chart comparing the amino acid profile in beef to several different plant proteins like white beans, soybeans, peas, and rice.
What you can see there is beef is higher in every single amino acid than every plant protein that's compared there with the exception of soybeans are slightly higher in tryptophan than beef.
Look at leucine.
So beef, it's 2.23 versus 0.58 for white beans, 1.3 for soy.
Soy is higher in leucine than any other plant protein, which is why it's often used.
If you get to a certain number or a certain level of all these, so if you ate enough food that you would pass a certain marker, Would it be possible to have the same effect by eating cooked peas or soybeans?
There's a video that Patrick made himself of his own diet on what he eats on a daily basis and it turns out to be a boatload of protein powder and just shakes with all kinds of powders and supplements and things like that.
Yeah, we can go through it.
So he starts with a bunch of different supplements in the morning, multivitamin, nutritional yeast, zinc, glucosamine, magnesium, calcium, B12, and iron.
Then he has a protein shake with soy protein powder, creatine, and beta-alanine, which probably is because he's aware of the research showing lower levels of muscle creatine and carnosine in vegans.
Beta-alanine and creatine would address that.
Then he has a post-workout smoothie with soy or pea protein powder, glutamine, beta-alanine, creatine, and dried greens.
And then his first solid meal of the day is fried falafel, french fries, soy sausage, fried peppers, and tomatoes.
And then he has some more protein shakes and smoothies throughout the day.
So I don't know.
That doesn't strike me as a super healthy way to eat.
Well, first of all, I think we should primarily get nutrients from food whenever we can.
I'm not against supplementation.
I think there's a role for it, of course, especially with things like vitamin D that you might not be able to get enough of from food or therapeutic supplementation if you're dealing with a health problem.
But eating a diet that is not sufficient in the amount of nutrients that you need and then using supplements to address that doesn't make a lot of sense to me.
So the comparison between him and a guy like Oberst in those legit top of the food chain, strongest man in the world competitions, it's not comparable.
Well, I think it is, though, because for him, for his size, you know, to be a guy who's 5'7 and is carrying that fucking enormous amount of weight, he's obviously doing something that's very impressive, and he's doing it while he's on this vegan diet.
And again, I mean...
Discounting all the illegal supplementation, because I don't think it is illegal in that sport.
You kind of have to do it if you want to get that big.
But if you want to do it and do it as a vegan, he is showing you that it's possible.
So in that sense, I defend what he's doing.
Because I think that he...
That's the only way in that...
But this is a very sport-specific area of performance.
He's just talking about lifting insanely heavy shit.
Yeah, no doubt, you know, enormously strong and he's succeeding.
I would argue that he might do even better if he was eating, you know, more nutrient-dense food and he might need to take fewer supplements and drink less powder.
Because, you know, fish is actually higher often than meat in terms of protein, ounce for ounce.
It's also very high in collagen, which is super important for recovery and repair, and explains lack of collagen probably explains why a lot of vegan athletes get injured, which we can talk about more later.
And then eggs, as you know, are super, you know, they're really high on the DS scale, they're bioavailable, lots of other nutrients, so...
Well, except the rematch with Nate was the only time that he's fought at 170. So they made a decision to fight at 170 instead of 155 because Nate did not have time to reduce his calories and cut the weight.
And it takes a long time.
It's a slow process of...
Nate is a big fella.
He walks around probably over 200 pounds.
Easy.
And he drops weight.
And he didn't want to drop that much weight.
He's a big guy, man.
He's big and long.
And Connor was dropping his weight down to 155, so he's 10 days out, and he just starts packing on food, eating as much food as he can.
Not only that, but stylistically, Nate's a nightmare for him.
Nate has a fucking evil submission game.
He's tough as nails.
His endurance is always fantastic because off-season, he's always doing triathlons, and he's always doing endurance sports.
I mean, he's in phenomenal shape, and his jiu-jitsu is many levels better than Connors.
I mean, he's a legit top-of-the-food-chain MMA black belt in jiu-jitsu.
So they have this fight.
Connor gets tired.
Nate beats him up, gets him on the ground, submits him, and they're saying this is a victory for veganism.
What they don't say is, five months later they fought and Connor beat him.
They fought again.
This time they had a full training camp.
Connor prepared, and it was a very close fight, I should say.
You could have scored it either way.
I mean, it was a really close fight.
Razor thin.
But the fact remains, Connor beat him in the rematch.
So they leave this out of the narrative.
I'm Oh my god, the vegans are dominating.
Look, vegan dominated.
But this is a last minute fight.
Conor goes up in weight.
Nate Diaz steps in and takes care of business and wins the fight.
It speaks more to how good Nate Diaz is than a vegan diet.
Well, the argument against that would be that he's moving up into the upper echelons of the heavyweight division, and it's filled with killers, like any combat sport.
And that as he got in, many fighters don't make it.
They get in.
He lost to...
Wasn't it one of the Klitschkos?
Yes.
I think he lost to Vladimir.
I think he lost to Vladimir Klitschko in a decision, and he handled himself very well.
It was a very good fight for him.
He looked real good.
But yeah, I mean, that upper, when you get to these Andy Ruiz, Deontay Wilder, I mean, killers.
It's like most people that get up into that division, they start losing.
He's a good example, too, of this principle of context being everything.
Because he said in the film, my early years growing up in Philly, the only thing we knew was spinach in a can, collard greens and Popeyes, KFC, everybody frying chicken.
I grew up not even knowing about half these other vegetables.
Asparagus, to me, just came out like five years ago.
And this is the real purpose, my real purpose for getting involved in these fucking discussions over and over and over again.
I want people to understand that there's nuance to this.
And there's also biological variability.
There's some people that are...
They can get along on certain diets easier.
There's some people that have a horrible time with seafood.
There's some people that have a horrible time with certain grains.
We are all different.
We come from an enormous planet where your ancestors developed and your genes developed in different parts of the world.
We're all different.
But what we know about nutrition, it is so important that we are honest about what we know.
This is the problem I have with a lot of these documentaries.
They're not honest about what they know.
They're only giving you little snippets and cherry-picking data and doing things like the study that showed that the vegan diet can clinically reverse heart disease.
You're using all this deception.
Pretending that the gladiators chose to eat gruel.
Like, this is how we're going to kick ass.
We're just going to eat barley.
The fuck out of here.
This is nonsense.
And they know it's nonsense.
Either they know it's nonsense or they just fucking slap some blinders on their head and just plow straight ahead and ignore anything that conflicts with any of these thoughts that they're expressing.
But we could just easily say a serving of salmon has 716 times more selenium than lettuce and provides 100% of the RDA of B12 where lettuce provides 0%.
But I'm not going to say that because that's ridiculous.
And there's another thing that's going on right now, these carnivore folks, which I find fascinating because they are as ideologically driven as vegans.
We have the anti-vegans.
It's like we have Antifa and then we have the alt-right.
Now we have the carnivores and we have the vegans.
And both of them dig their fucking heels in the sand.
And both of them are committed to thinking that their side is the only way to go.
And Rhonda Patrick has talked about this many, many times when people start discussing negative aspects of eating food, particularly plants, because of stressors.
And she's like, no, there's actually...
An effect where your body's reacting to them that's beneficial, much like when you get in a sauna, your body reacts to the heat, it's actually beneficial for your health.
So these folks that are talking about don't eat vegetables, because vegetables give you these things that are bad for your body, like, okay, are you sure?
I mean, there's a lot of work to be done here, folks.
There's a lot of fucking research to be read into, and there's a lot of conversations you have to have with people far more educated than you and the subjects.
So you're introducing an element of uncertainty because if you look at it from an anthropological perspective, every group of people we've ever studied in human history has eaten both plants and animals in different proportions.
Well, the Inuit also ate very little, especially during the winter.
But they went to great lengths to trade for plant foods, and in the summer they ate more plant foods.
So the proportions vary.
You know, the Maasai, for example.
Yes, very, very.
They eat milk, meat, blood, and they eat some plant foods.
But then you have other groups that ate more plant foods.
You know, there was a study, ethnographic study of hunter-gatherer cultures done, 230 roughly cultures studied, and they found that on average...
So hunter-gatherers got about 70% of their calories from animal foods and about 30% from plant foods.
So that's percent of calorie.
That's not looking at a plate because animal foods are more calorie dense.
So it still might be two-thirds of the plate is plants and one-third is animal foods if they use plates.
But that's the rough percentage.
But it would vary from place to place.
We don't know of any group...
That exclusively and by choice, not from living in a marginal environment like the Arctic, but by choice, ate only animal foods for a long period of time.
And a lot of the research that we have, the clinical research, suggests that plants have some useful nutrients, especially some fibers that can feed the beneficial gut bacteria.
There are studies showing that Extremely low-carb diets can have some maybe not great effects on the gut flora.
So again, it could be fine, but we just don't know.
And so you're adding an element of uncertainty there.
And what proportion of plants and animal foods will depend on all the factors that you mentioned, genes, epigenetics, health status, geography, whatever else is going on.
But for some people, that might just be a small amount of animal foods.
It might be Nate Diaz, some fish and some eggs, and then the rest, plant-based diet.
For other people, it might be a lot more animal foods.
That's where I think the individual variation comes in.
And I'm sure most of these athletes that are following a vegan diet, like you were talking about earlier with Patrick, they're taking protein powders.
So they're allowing themselves to get a large dose of protein to fulfill their requirements simply and easily in a shake form rather than having to wolf down four or five bowls of protein.
And if they're not, they're probably not doing that well.
So we have like all these stories of NFL and NBA athletes that went vegan and then stopped because they were not able to maintain their weight or they got injured and they weren't able to recover.
In the show notes for this, I have many, many examples of pretty high-level NBA and NFL athletes.
He had minus two yards on five carries in the first two games, and he rushed for more than 30 yards, 33 yards a game only once in his last nine starts.
It's a broken foot and really hard to recover from.
And some people think it certainly could be career-ending.
I mean, if you lose 10, 20 pounds, that's a big deal for a high-level athlete because the studies have shown that that can interfere with muscle protein synthesis.
It can also increase inflammation and make recovery more difficult.
But the other thing is if they're not eating the protein powders, they're not taking collagen, for example, a vegan source of collagen.
Collagen is critical for muscle recovery and repair.
And it's hard to, you know, you can make some collagen, but I think a lot of people on a plant-based diet, if they're high-level athletes and they're not really getting collagen coming in, it's going to be difficult.
When Travis Barker was in a plane crash, he was, like, severely burned, and they were having a hard time getting him to heal, and he started eating meat in order to heal, because he's a vegan.
I mean, he owns, what's it called, Crossroads, in a really amazing vegan restaurant in L.A., and he talked about it on the podcast.
He was just wolfing down beef jerky, just trying to eat meat in order to get his body to heal.
So you have Djokovic, who's best tennis player of all time, probably.
When he first went dairy-free and gluten-free, he was number one in the world.
He went vegan.
Ranking dropped to 22, which was the lowest he'd been since he was a teenager.
And then he started adding fish back into his diet and, you know, back up to number one.
You have Damien Lillard from NBA. He went vegan for five months.
But then he added animal protein back to slide 35, Jamie.
He said, I did it, but I started to lose a little bit too much weight with all the games and practices and all that.
I had to balance it out, so now I've been mixing it up a little more, having vegan meals and still mixing it up with other stuff.
So it sounds kind of similar to Nate, you know?
Mostly vegan, but adding some animal foods back in there.
You had Tony Gonzalez, Hall of Fame, tight end, went vegan, and three weeks later, there was an article about this.
It's in the show notes.
The 100-pound dumbbells he used to easily throw around felt like lead weights, the article says.
I was scared out of my mind, Gonzalez said.
He had lost 10 pounds.
He ended up adding small amounts of animal protein back to his diet.
You've got Gerald McCoy, NFL. He said, quote, the explosiveness wasn't sustainable because I didn't have that extra oomph that I needed because of the lack of the type of protein I was taking in, so I just added a little bit of animal protein back in my diet, and it's given me that oomph back.
scene for muscle protein synthesis and it should be bioavailable you know all that and in so in comparison to the average person the average person who followed their diet probably wouldn't see any detrimental effect for a long time because they're not requiring their body to do these incredible things i don't know It varies.
Everything, you know, micronutrients really run the show.
I mean, of course, the macronutrients, protein, fat, carbohydrates are important.
And as I said before, you know, if you're 200 pounds, the average American weight is male is 200 pounds.
And so if they're in a vegetarian, they're consuming the average number of grams of protein.
That's less than the updated RDA. We looked at that on that slide.
So I would argue that even for the average person, protein could be a problem, both quantity and quality.
Most people are getting plenty of carbohydrates and enough fat, so that's not an issue.
Then it comes down to micronutrients.
So think B12. That's the thing that came up in the film a number of times.
So we should talk about that a little bit because there was some actually just factually inaccurate information about B12 that I want to correct.
So, the claim...
This is slide 55, Jamie.
James said B12 is not made by animals.
It's made by bacteria that these animals consume in the soil and water.
Before industrial farming, farm animals and humans could get B12 by eating traces of dirt on plant foods or by drinking water from rivers or streams.
But now, because of pesticides and antibiotics and chlorine that kill the bacteria, this vitamin even...
That produces this vitamin.
Yeah, that produces this vitamin.
Even farm animals have to be given B12 supplements.
That's just all false.
That's all just factually wrong.
So first of all, B12 is made by bacteria, but animals don't get it from consuming soil and water.
The B12 is made by bacteria in their gut.
So in ruminants like cows, in the rumen, which is a chamber in the stomach, the bacteria convert cobalt that they get from grass that they eat into cobalamin, which is B12. And then they are foregut fermenters.
So they can absorb the B12 the bacteria produce in their intestines and utilize that themselves.
Primates, including humans, also have bacteria that make B12, but we're hindgut fermenters, so we cannot absorb the B12 that our own gut bacteria make.
Well, that's not exactly true.
Chimps and gorillas can, but that's only because they eat their own poo.
So that is one potential strategy for meeting your B12. I hope you didn't just put that out there.
And if there is any B12 in soil, it's only from manure that's come from animals.
There's also zero evidence that B12 is fed to cattle, and there's no evidence that humans have ever been able to meet their B12 needs from just eating soil and water.
If you pull up slide 56, Jamie, Jack Norris, who's a vegan dietician, you know, we don't agree on a lot of things, but I appreciate his rigor with the science.
He has a big article on B12 and I don't know where to go with that claim because it's demonstrably false, even from the perspective of a vegan registered dietitian.
Yeah, I don't know why he said that either, but I just think that that's something he probably heard, and he was probably having a conversation with someone, and they told him that, and he just repeated it.
The second part of that claim was up to 39% of people tested, including meat eaters, are low on B12.
As a result, best way for humans to get enough B12, whether they eat animal foods or not, is simply to take a supplement.
He didn't provide a reference for that, so I can't-- it's hard to check that.
But again, this contradicts mounds of evidence on B12 deficiency.
So there's four stages of B12 deficiency.
I don't want to go too far in the weeds here, but basically serum B12, which is the marker that's usually used, only goes down in the fourth and final stage of B12 deficiency.
There are other markers that will go out of range earlier that are more sensitive and detect those earlier stages.
So the most sensitive marker is holotranscobalamin or holotc.
So, in a study in 2013, this is slide 58, Jamie, they compared B12 depletion according to holotranscobalamin levels in vegetarians, vegans, and omnivores, and you can see the results here.
Only 11% of omnivores had B12 depletion, 77% of vegetarians, and 92% of vegans.
One more, if I can, because I'm just passionate about this because it's super important.
Slide 59. So homocysteine is a marker that is also more sensitive than serum B12. It's a sticky inflammatory protein that's associated with heart disease and dementia.
So 9 out of 10 comparisons that looked at B12 levels or homocysteine levels in vegetarians and omnivores found higher homocysteine levels in vegans and vegetarians.
Higher means worse, and it means more B12 deficient.
And in fact, the studies, they said the prevalence of hyperhomocysteemia, which is high homocysteine levels reflecting low B12, among vegetarians may actually be higher than among non-vegetarians already diagnosed with heart disease.
So this is kind of a big deal.
It's like the B12 issue is serious, and even folks like Jack Norris, to their credit, do acknowledge it and strongly recommend that people who are on a vegan diet supplement.
So if people watch this film, you know, I'm glad to hear James saying that vegetarians and vegans should supplement.
I don't think omnivores need to, usually.
You can watch that film and get the idea that B12 is maybe not that big of a deal.
One of the things that I thought was well done about the film was that they took someone, James, on the journey of starting as an omnivore and then having these realizations and turning into a vegan.
But the problem was...
That journey happened long before the film was made, I think.
Well, that's why I'm saying he's sitting there with those knee braces on and he's going over his research and just happened to have a camera crew there while he's learning how to heal himself.
And he says, this whole fantasy we need to eat meat to get our protein, it's actually bullshit.
I mean, look at a gorilla.
A gorilla will fuck you up in two seconds.
What does a gorilla eat?
I just do the same things as these big gray things out here that we're trying to protect, elephant and rhino.
That's just, it's a nonsensical argument.
You know what will fuck you up even faster than the gorilla?
A human who has a gun that eats McDonald's and KFC. I'm serious.
What is a gun?
It's a tool.
How did we develop tools?
Because we started eating meat and fish, and we came down out of the trees, and we weren't spending more than half of our waking hours eating leaves and low-calorie fruits.
Comparing our digestive...
What we should eat with a gorilla is just asinine.
For a gorilla, the largest volume of their digestive tract is in their large intestine, which is ideal for breaking down tough foods, fiber, seeds, and those kinds of plant foods.
Whereas in humans, the largest volume of our digestive tract is in the small intestine, which is better for absorbing nutrient-dense bioavailable foods like meat and cooked foods, cooked tubers and things like that.
A gorilla, in order to get the amount of protein that gets them strong and ripped, they eat 40 to 60 pounds of food a day, and they're eating for more than half of their waking hours.
So it's really, you know, that's just not comparable at all to compare us to...
I mean, and then there was the anthropologist woman.
You remember that scene in the end where she, that's where I really started rolling my eyes because she was making the arguments that humans have always followed a plant-based diet.
So, I mean, we've got isotope studies that show that humans have been eating meat for at least two and a half million years.
And if you go back even before we were really actually human, there's a lot of evidence now that our chimp ancestors were also eating vertebrates.
One of the biggest shocks for people has been the observation that chimps hunt and they kill other monkeys and other animals and eat them.
I mean, it kind of blew apart this whole idea of primates only eating plants.
If that happened, if an animal evolves complex behavior like hunting or tool use in order to eat certain food, it means that food has a lot of value or else that behavior wouldn't have evolved.
But then we have bone collagen studies.
Let me see if I can find this slide, Jamie.
So that's 47 and 48. So bone collagen isotope studies are much more accurate than some of the previous methods that were used.
And the earliest hominids that were studied with these were Neanderthals.
So there's three studies that have been done in Neanderthal groups ranging from 130,000 to 28,000 years ago.
And then they compared those isotope levels with contemporary species.
And they found that Neanderthals were similar to top-level carnivores.
So they all derived the vast majority of their protein from animal sources, likely to be large herbivores.
So on the next slide, there are two stable isotope bone collagen studies that have been done with modern humans, homo sapiens sapiens.
And the first group was 13,000 years ago in southern England, and the second group was 30,000 to 40,000 years ago in La Gravette, which is in France.
And they also found that they were, you know, carnivores, mostly large herbivores, but the French group consumed a more diverse mix of protein, including seafood.
So the fossil record clearly, clearly indicates that humans were eating, you know, humans and Neanderthals, you know, homo sapiens and Neanderthals, all of our hominid ancestors were eating a lot of meat.
She was using that lame anatomical argument that we have, you know, relatively flat molars like herbivores do, and we don't have claws, we don't have sharp canine teeth.
Yeah, and the argument that human beings over two million years ago, the doubling of the human brain size corresponds with the learning how to hunt, consuming more meat...
The appearance of tool marks on bones corresponded directly with the doubling of brain volume, the reduction in our gut volume, which indicates a move to a more nutrient-dense diet, the increase in the volume of our small intestine relative to our large intestine, and then what's called the gracilization of our jaw,
which means our teeth and jaw became less robust, And that's thought to be an adaptation to more digestible, nutrient-dense, bioavailable food where we're not like chewing cud or chewing on leaves or low-calorie fruit like a gorilla is all day.
And this argument about nutrient density, this is why that term is very important because people always want to use that for plant-based foods, nutrient-dense, plant-based foods.
Meat is far more nutrient-dense per calorie, per ounce, per amino acid profile, With essential nutrients, yeah.
I mean, this is where I argue that plants do belong because plants do have certain nutrients, phytonutrients, fibers, and things that actually don't feed us but feed our gut flora that I do think are important.
Even though they're not considered essential like vitamin B12 or vitamin A, you know...
Vitamin D or something like that, I do think they're still important and they play a role.
What I'm talking about is the difference between caveman altering its diet or ancient man altering their diet and this doubling of the human brain size corresponding with consuming more nutrient-dense foods.
So then there was the whole section that you probably remember about chicken and fish causing cancer, dairy products causing cancer.
They started to just...
It really kind of went from just like you can do well on a plant-based diet as an athlete to like animal products are horrible and are going to kill you, which was a big leap.
So they had one study, James Wilkes says, you know, research funded by the National Cancer Institute found that vegetarians who had one or more servings per week of white meat like chicken and fish more than tripled their risk of colon cancer.
Well, that's scary.
You know, I don't want to triple my risk of colon cancer.
But again, if you look at the totality of the research, slide 42, Jamie, 2017, a meta-analysis of 16 prospective studies with almost 2.5 million participants found no increase in cancer risk from consuming fish or poultry.
And then you have a statement from the American Cancer Institute itself saying, So where's that coming from then?
One study that looked at Seventh-day Adventists who added some of those foods back into their diet.
This is a perfect example of healthy user bias because Seventh-day Adventists are not supposed to eat meat.
So if you have a Seventh-day Adventist who's rebelling and eating meat, Then what else are they doing that is also not healthy and not following the dictates of that healthy lifestyle?
They reviewed all of the available literature on red meat and its relationship with any disease, heart disease, cancer, type 2 diabetes.
It was dozens of studies following people for up to 35 years and millions, again, millions of participants.
They looked at randomized controlled trials.
They looked at observational cohort studies.
They looked at all kinds of outcomes, total mortality, cardiovascular, cancer, etc., And they found, quote, only low or very low certainty evidence that red meat causes any kind of disease.
And then in the editorial, in the Annals, which is what it was published, Annals of Internal Medicine, the journal it was published in, they said, quote, this is slide 19, Jamie.
Over and over again, they, the authors, stressed that even if the results were statistically significant, their certainty was low and the absolute differences seen were small and potentially confounded.
Meaning, could have been that they were smoking more or drinking more or not exercising or whatever.
Yeah, because some studies showed no difference with fresh, but some difference with processed red meat.
I think you could make a stronger argument that too much processed meat might be harmful because of things like nitroso compounds that are formed, etc.
But even then, you have to consider context.
Most people are eating hot dogs with buns.
French fries and big gulps.
It's probably a different effect than having bacon a couple times a week with your whole foods diet or having some salami and nuts.
Not the same as eating fake processed meat all the time.
And one of the things that's weird about this whole conversation is there's a battleground.
So like a volley gets thrown out there like this.
Like boom!
It's okay to eat red meat.
And you see the other side scrambling to refute the evidence and then fire back with all these epidemiology studies that show that red meat can kill you and red meat's causing you to age quicker and red meat kills your boners and red meat does this and does that.
I found that to be entirely hilarious, ruthlessly unscientific, and like the whole thing with the guy saying, you know, I'm going to eat what a gorilla eats.
I mean, they're showing this guy who's protecting rhinos who are being slaughtered for their horns.
Like, what does that have anything to do with eating meat?
Yeah, so for those who haven't seen the film, the boner experiment, if we're going to call it that, it was Aaron Spitz, who's a urologist, and he puts penis rings on a bunch of NFL players, and then he measures the effects of different meals on their erections, both the circumference, I guess, the size of the erection, the duration, and the intensity of the erections.
So he feeds the players burritos with meat in them and then he feeds them the same burrito with like a plant protein.
I'm not sure what it was, tempeh or something like that.
I think it was beans.
Was it beans?
Okay, maybe.
And then he claims that the athletes who ate the pure plant burritos had 500% more frequent erections and also increased strength of erections.
So what can we conclude from this experiment?
Absolutely nothing.
Because it was just an experiment that was made up and done in a film.
That's why we have reproducibility, meaning even if one group comes up with one finding, it's not really worth much until somebody else reproduces that.
Something like 90% or more of scientific findings are not reproduced.
I would like to know if they were asked to not engage in sexual intercourse or masturbation during that time period because that would make sense that they were getting more erections and more fuller erections the next day, especially the young guys that are savages out there playing football.
Like, is there any peer-reviewed research that shows that plant-based diets are better for erectile function and lower the risk of erectile dysfunction?
Couldn't find anything.
I did find studies.
One study of a Mediterranean diet, which includes some animal products, reduced erectile dysfunction relative to a low-fat diet, which maybe might have fewer animal products.
So that kind of contradicts it, perhaps.
There were studies that showed that, like, diet quality is important.
So Western diet and high in processed foods led to erectile dysfunction, diet rich in flavonoid-containing foods, which would be fruits and vegetables, reduced erectile dysfunction.
But none of that says it has anything to do with meat.
It just says, like, don't eat a junk food diet if you don't want erectile dysfunction.
And so then I went and I thought, okay, well, what does the peer-reviewed research show about animal protein and endothelial function?
Because their claim was that eating the animal protein reduces your endothelial function and increases inflammation.
So there was one...
There are a couple studies that show a low-carb diet impairs endothelial function, but they tend to be short-term, like four weeks.
I look for longer-term studies.
There was a 2009 study that followed subjects for 12 weeks, and they found that a low-carb diet actually improved endothelial function, whereas a low-fat diet decreased it.
And then there was a 2007 study that followed subjects for a year, and there was no change in endothelial function on a low-carb diet.
There's strong evidence that high blood sugar and insulin resistance impair endothelial function.
So a low-carb diet that would lower your blood sugar and improve insulin resistance would be expected to improve it from that perspective.
So again, when you look at the actual science, the actual peer-reviewed research, you don't see that relationship that they're talking about.
I've been working with patients for over 10 years.
I test every single person that comes through the door with a full lipid panel.
And I have people who are doing keto, super low-carb diets who have totally optimal normal cholesterol.
And then I have people who go from eating, you know, a moderate-fat diet to like a high-fat keto or low-carb diet, and their LDL-P goes up to 2,500 or 3,000, and their LDL cholesterol goes up to 300. So,
yeah, I mean, what I can, I think what, stepping back a little bit, as we talked about this with Joel, but cholesterol for decades was, it was the boogeyman, you know, it was like, that led to like egg white omelets and boneless, skinless chicken breast and, you know, bagels with nothing on them when I was growing up.
So yeah, you know, the U.S. quietly actually removed the limitation of dietary cholesterol.
They used to limit it to 300 milligrams now that they don't have that anymore because the evidence didn't justify having that in the dietary guidelines.
We were the last industrialized country to do that.
Every other country had done that years ago.
But because, you know, how entrenched that was in our country, and I think, you know, they don't want to lose credibility.
It's like they've been saying not to do something for so long, then to turn around and say, actually, there's no evidence to support that.
And when people talk about saturated fat and they talk about it as being only a meat or animal diet issue, one thing that I always like to bring up is avocados.
So you have saturated, monounsaturated, and polyunsaturated.
And dairy products are actually the only category of foods that consistently have more saturated fat than any other type of fat.
Pork, for example, often has more monounsaturated fat than saturated and even sometimes lean beef.
And what's really interesting about that is that studies consistently show that full-fat dairy, which would be like the highest saturated fat class of foods, is associated with reduced risk of heart disease, reduced risk of diabetes, reduced weight.
Well, so it wasn't until 11,000 years, 12,000 years ago, we didn't raise animals for dairy.
So there was no need that we only had to digest lactose while we were breastfeeding.
So like in a hunter-gatherer culture, as soon as you stop breastfeeding, you no longer had the need to digest lactose.
And so our bodies are efficient.
We stopped producing lactase, which is the enzyme to break down lactose for the rest of our adult life.
But then about 12,000 years ago, we started, you know, somebody figured out, hey, let's drink some milk from that ruminant animal over there.
And dairy products help people avoid starvation, and there was a good source of hydration and nutrients.
And so that mutation started to spread.
And now it's about one-third of the world has lactase persistence, which means they can digest lactose all the way into adulthood, and two-thirds don't.
So the people who tend to be lactose tolerant are people of European, particularly Northern European descent.
Like lactose tolerance or lactase persistence approaches like 97% in Scandinavia.
So Denmark, Norway, Sweden, they can almost all...
Digest milk.
And then East Africans, so you have like the Maasai, you know, people who've been raising cattle for a long time tend to have that capability, whereas like in Asia, other parts of Africa, and other parts of the world, not as much.
I mean, it contains enzymes in it that help you break down the lactose.
So that can make a difference.
But, I mean, just...
I would love to see research that further differentiates the health benefits of dairy according to whether it's organic or whether it's homogenized or not and all that.
But even just talking about dairy as a whole category...
I mean, you had Dr. Walter Willett in there saying, there's evidence of high consumption of proteins from dairy is related to higher risk of prostate cancer.
The chain of cancer causation seems pretty clear.
But if you bring up slide 44, Jamie, there was a 2019 study.
Largest review of dairy ever been done before.
It was 153 meta-analyses that they reviewed.
So not just individual studies.
They reviewed 153 studies that were also reviewing other studies.
And 84% of the meta-analyses on dairy showed either no association or an inverse association between dairy and cancer, meaning when it's inverse, it means people who ate more dairy had lower rates of cancer.
So it's frustrating to see someone make a claim like that, and then you go and you look at the full totality of the research and you see a just exhaustive study like this with 153 meta-analyses.
And 84% are showing no relationship or a beneficial effect of dairy on cancer.
The thing that's hard, I mean, and this was true with Joel, is like that was three and a half hour plus debate.
I don't know how long we've been going now, and we've even barely scratched the surface of like what we could say about the movie.
Yeah.
And...
It's frustrating because these kinds of movies leverage this rhetorical effect called the illusory truth effect, which is basically if you repeat something enough times, it starts to sound true.
And politicians are great at this.
Trump is actually a master at this.
So, you know, meat is bad, meat is bad, meat is bad, meat is bad.
We've heard that so many times that someone can get on, make a film, and just include one little tidbit of information and say meat is bad, and it seems like, oh, that's true.
But then to break that down, we're here for...
Two and a half hours and we're just getting started.
A lot of the people who were amazing athletes, they didn't start out vegan.
They weren't born to vegan parents and then were vegan growing up and then had all these amazing records and performance.
They built their strength or their agility or their speed or whatever on a diet with animal products.
And then at some point, they became vegan.
And, you know, maybe their performance continued and they continued to do well like Scott Jurek or Dottie Bausch.
Or maybe they had the vegan honeymoon where they did well for a while and then they declined.
Or maybe they just declined like some of the NBA and NFL athletes we talked about.
But this is a critical point because there are key developmental periods when we're kids and also in utero that if you're not getting the nutrition you need then, it's going to carry through to your whole life.
And so it's like, what did your parents eat?
What did your mom eat when she was breastfeeding you?
What did you eat as a young kid?
So we follow that whole argument through.
If everyone becomes plant-based, It's going to have a huge intergenerational impact on performance.
It's not like people who built their strength and performance eating meat and then they go vegan and they do okay for a little while.
It's like, what are the consequences of that happening to everybody?
Of the mom starting that way and then getting pregnant and becoming deficient during pregnancy and then the baby being breastfed by a mom who's nutrient deficient and then the kid being fed a vegan diet and developing B12 deficiency which then has irreversible effects.
Like I said before, all it takes is a little, because like organ meats and shellfish and fish and eggs are so nutrient dense, you don't have to eat a lot of them to get to meet your nutrition needs.
Yeah, I've had this conversation with vegans too about mollusks.
And I was like, you know, I've heard it argued, and Sam Harris was talking to me about this, that you can actually make an ethical argument that mollusks are more primitive than plants.
And that plants actually exchange more information through mycelium, through their root structure.
But I think the argument would be that if you just grew the same, use that same area to grow human food, you could do that because we're using that area to grow cow food.
Well, so you replace the feedlot beef with grasslands and then you have naturally, you know, holistically managed cattle there and then you take the land that we can't, as I said before, 60% of land you can't grow crops on.
So you can't say that.
You can't say we can just take everywhere that we could have livestock and plant.
But the other option is to use that land for grasslands, which could make it a carbon sink rather than having still emissions coming from mono-industrial agriculture.
I understand what you're saying, but I mean, if I was on the other side, I would argue, well, wouldn't it be easier to just grow human edible corn in that place instead of...
If you look again at this idea that animals are the middleman, yes, that's not a bad thing.
That's a good thing.
If you look at the conversion ratio of feed like corn, which is super nutrient poor, you know, corn is low in protein.
It doesn't have many nutrients at all.
2.6 to 2.8 kilograms of corn get converted into 1 kilogram of beef.
So even in that 14% of human edible food that livestock are eating, they're converting it to highly nutrient-dense, bioavailable protein that humans can eat.
And if you do the conversion with just protein instead of by weight of food, they take 0.6 kilograms of corn or other low-value protein and convert that into one kilogram of very high-value nutrient-dense protein.
So it's always more nuanced than the argument makes it seem.
So just for people who aren't aware, there are companies like Impossible Burger and Beyond Meat that are promoting this idea of fake meat that tastes like meat, but it's made typically from soy.
So Impossible Burger's main ingredients are GMO soy, coconut oil, sunflower oil, natural flavors.
Beyond Meat is pea protein isolate, canola oil, refined coconut oil.
So Impossible Burger has publicly criticized holistic land management or regenerative agriculture and saying, ah, it's not really that different.
In fact, sometimes the emissions can be even more than feedlot beef.
But there was a third-party lifecycle analysis, full lifecycle.
So they looked at the whole process, not just methane emissions from cows burping, but the whole process.
At White Oak Pastures, which is a beef operation.
It's a Savory Institute hub.
So they're following the Regenerative Savory Institute practices.
And they found that their beef operation was a net carbon sink.
So again, it actually sequestered carbon from the atmosphere.
I think the amazing thing about the regenerative livestock or holistically managed beef, though, is it can actually restore grasslands.
It can restore the soil and improve the soil.
So you're not only producing this amazing nutrient-dense bioavailable food source, you're actually improving the soil and helping to reverse this really dramatic, threatening problem that we're facing of soil erosion.
Seaweed could help make cows burp less methane and cut their carbon foot hoofprint.
LOL. Diet supplemented with red algae could lessen the huge amounts of greenhouse gases emitted by cows and sheep if we could just figure out how to grow enough.
You have to wonder what kind of energy is being used.
So back to this.
So this life cycle analysis at White Oak Pastures showed that this holistically managed beef actually removes carbon from the atmosphere.
Now this was the same company that performed a life cycle analysis for Impossible Burger.
On their fake meat.
And what they found in that analysis was that the fake meat was less of a greenhouse gas emitter than feedlot beef, but it was still actually an emitter.
Whereas the holistically managed beef was taking carbon out of the atmosphere.
It was the same company.
So, you know, if we're going to give them credit for the analysis they did for Impossible Burger, we have to give them credit for the analysis that they did for White Oak Pastures.
The other thing with Impossible Burger, so the primary ingredient is called soy leg hemoglobin, or SLH. So this is a bioengineered protein additive that adds meat-like taste and color.
It does not meet the basic FDA generally recognized as SAFE, the GRAS designation, because it's not a food or even a food ingredient.
And there's a document that you can get.
I think it came with the Freedom of Information Act.
It's online.
I have the reference in my show notes.
And in the discussion in this document with the FDA, Impossible Foods admitted that up to a quarter of its heme ingredient was composed of 46 unexpected additional proteins.
Some of which are unidentified and none of which were assessed for safety in the dossier.
Impossible Burger put the product on the market despite admitting to the FDA privately that they haven't done adequate safety testing.
And according to these documents, quote, FDA believes that the arguments presented individually and collectively do not establish the safety of SLH, soy leg hemoglobin, for consumption, nor do they point to a general recognition of safety.
It was the same company that did it for Impossible Burger, and then they turned around and did it for White Oak Pastures, and they found Impossible Burger is still emitting carbon, whereas White Oak Pastures is taking it out.
Yeah, and there was an article criticizing fake meat by this woman, Dana Pearls, who's part of an environmental organization called Friends of the Earth, and she says, quote,"...instead of investing in risky new food technologies that are potential problems masquerading as solutions,
shouldn't we be investing in proven, beneficial, regenerative agriculture and transparent organic food that consumers are actually demanding?" The only issue that they would have with this is yes, but now you're talking about killing animals, and we're absolutely morally and ethically opposed to killing animals.
Yeah, I mean, we go back now to this 2018 paper that I mentioned earlier that examined the impact of plant agriculture on animal deaths and found 35 to 250 mouse deaths per acre.
And up to 7.3 billion animals killed every year from plant agriculture.
If you count birds killed by pesticides, fish dust from fertilizer runoff, plus reptiles and amphibians, poisonings from eating toxic insects from the pesticides.
Are fish and insects less significant life forms than mammals?
Are small mammals like root rodents less valuable than larger ones like cows?
Is it better to kill many small animals for foods like grains and legumes which aren't very nutrient dense and don't meet our nutritional needs than fewer large animals that are super nutrient dense?
I mean, I'm not claiming to answer these questions, but I think they're questions that haven't been adequately raised and addressed in this ethical argument.
You could make an ethical argument that killing an animal explicitly to eat it is ethically different than animals being killed as a sort of side effect of plant agriculture.
I'm not saying that that's a valid argument, but I've heard that argument.
I don't think it's a valid argument, because once you're aware of it, you're doing it the same.
It's like the argument that I've had with people when they say that I don't kill animals, but I eat meat, therefore it's better than what you do, because I hunt.
And I say, no, you're killing an animal with your credit card.
I think that's very important, though, that you listed those numbers, that data, because that's irrefutable and it's one of those arguments that comes up that they just want to bury their head in the sand about.
If you're buying agriculture, unless you have your own organic farm where you are 100% aware of every single aspect from seed to plucking and cooking, if you're not, if you're buying from large-scale agriculture, you're a part of the death machine.
And you're also part of the environmental destruction machine because these huge industrial scale monocropping operations are incredibly harmful for the environment.
And if you, again, you think of pea protein, that's an incredibly processed food.
First of all, just growing peas at the scale you're going to need to have the world's largest pea protein company.
And then all of the processing that needs to happen from taking a pea to an isolated protein powder, which involves fossil fuels and all kinds of industrial processes, that is not an environmentally friendly process.
So, you know, is that better for the planet than having cows that are, you know, being raised on land that couldn't be used for growing plants or other crop production and rotating the animals in a way that restores grasslands and improves the health being raised on land that couldn't be used for growing plants or other crop production and rotating the animals in a way That, again, like Dana Pearls was saying, makes a lot more sense.
It's a proven system than like scaling up industry to make more powders.
I think it's so significant that you're talking about these regenerative farms because that really is the only way you ever get the nutrients back into the soil.
There was a book that I read many years ago called Dead Doctors Don't Lie where Dr. Joel Wallach talked about the mineral depletion of our soil and that this is something that they've known forever that's like a slow degrading of the nutrient density in the soil.
Well, you know, it's like you said, when a new study comes out with the meat, then you get the whole group of people pointing to all that epidemiology again saying, look, this study says meat has a higher risk of cancer.
Then we have to do the whole thing again.
Healthy user bias, food frequency questionnaire, context is everything.
I think they're actually acknowledging that those aren't super defensible positions at this point.
And so they switched over now to the new kids on the block, which are TMAO, new 5GC, and heme iron.
So there was a guy who said, let's see...
Dr. Scott Stoll, that's slide 18, Jamie.
So he says, in animal products, you're getting protein packaged with inflammatory molecules like new 5GC, endotoxins, and heme iron.
When we consume animal products, it also changes the microbiome, bacteria that live in our gut, and the bacterial species that have been shown to promote inflammation, overgrow, and begin to produce inflammatory mediators like TMAO. So I'll briefly address each of those.
But before I do that, I want to just say a word about mechanisms versus outcomes.
So nutrition research can focus on outcomes, which is like number of heart attacks or number of deaths that happen in a population over a given period of time, or it can focus on mechanisms, what caused those outcomes, right?
So if you use the example of red meat, early, you know, they saw in these big observational studies that people who ate more red meat We know that that was because of healthy user bias.
It wasn't, you know, accurate finding, whatever.
But so then they start going trying to figure out what are the mechanisms.
And so initially, the mechanism was saturated cholesterol, then it was saturated fat.
Now those are not as defensible.
So they're moving on to these new mechanisms.
Well, research on mechanisms is not very convincing if the outcome isn't there.
So you had that large paper that was just published, the five papers in the annals, that showed basically no evidence that red meat is correlated with any disease.
So why are we even bothering looking for all these mechanisms that explain why red meat causes disease when we've got this exhaustive study that says that it doesn't?
They don't look like people that have autoimmune disease and are dying early.
All right.
So that's new 5GC. Then we have heme iron.
So this is the form of iron that's in beef and other animal products.
So it is true that heme iron forms these compounds called N-nitroso compounds and toxic aldehydes that are implicated in colon cancer.
But again, context is everything.
So slide 22, Jamie.
Studies have found that chlorophyll-rich foods, like plants, basically, if you eat them along with iron-rich foods, that cancels out any potential harmful effect of heme iron.
There was another thing that they talked about earlier that I just remembered while you were talking.
They were talking about fuel and the difference between carbohydrates for fuel and protein, that protein does not provide you with fuel for muscles, which is not true.
There's something that happens when your body eats protein that it can break it down to glycogen.
So that was a huge omission or oversimplification.
I think you said this before and I agree with you.
For people who are doing explosive types of activity like MMA or CrossFit or basketball or something like that, they're going to typically do better with carbohydrate, a substantial portion of carbohydrate in their diet.
Whereas, we're seeing a pattern now of endurance athletes or endurance activities.
A lot of those people can thrive on a very low-carb diet.
Well, also, hasn't it been shown, I think, Lane Norton, BioLane, was talking about this in his debunking of the Game Changers.
It's actually been shown that glycogen absorption, or they get more recovery, that's what it was, from carbohydrates mixed with protein than even carbohydrates alone or protein alone.
So there's one more slide I want to show on the heme iron thing, which is 23 and 24. So this is the largest meta-analysis of heme iron studies.
And again, for people not familiar with the term meta-analysis, it's where you look at a bunch of different studies that have been done and you analyze them together.
It's considered to be a very high-quality form of evidence.
So they looked at all significant studies through 2015, and they found a significant association So what does that tell us?
Go to the next slide, please, Jamie.
Well, if you eat heme iron in the context of a super crappy standard American diet, it's associated with cancer and a problem.
But if you eat heme iron in a European diet, which is less crappy than the US, it's not.
So TMAO, this is a molecule that's generated from choline, betaine, and carnitine in the gut by a microbial metabolism.
And some previous studies showed that taking carnitine supplements and taking choline supplements does increase your blood levels of TMAO. In omnivores, they went up by like 37 micromoles per liter and in vegetarians, 27. And that was used to argue that vegetarianism was healthier because they didn't see as big of an increase in TMAO in response to this carnitine and choline challenge.
The problem is that research has not shown that eating whole foods rather than taking supplements increases TMAO significantly, especially eating meat and eggs.
There was a study in 2014 showed you needed to eat four eggs in order to raise TMAO at all, and the max rise was only 3 to 6 micromoles per liter compared to 27 or 37, which I said from supplements in some, and 10 to 15 in others.
And then slide 25, Jamie, this 1999 study tested the effect of 46 different foods on the urinary excretion of TMAO in six different subjects.
And eggs and red meat, as you can see, are barely even registering on the scale there.
Whereas 19 of 21 types of seafood raised TMAO, and halibut raised TMAO 53 times more than eggs did.
The other thing is that back in the original paper by Dr. Stan Hazen about TMAO from 2013, this is slide 26, Jamie, he said the high correlation between urine and plasma levels of TMAO argues for effective urinary clearance of TMAO. So what that suggests is that even if we eat TMAO, our body clears it out pretty quickly in the diet.
So if TMAO is high, it's probably because of other factors.
And studies have found at least three.
One is insulin resistance increases TMAO levels via an enzyme in the liver.
Well, we know that about one in three Americans probably have some form of insulin resistance.
You know, 70% are overweight, 40% are obese.
So it's possible that just being an insulin-resistant, overweight American increases your TMAO. It's got nothing to do with meat.
Gut microbiota, like disrupted gut microbiome, and studies have also shown that SIBO, bacterial overgrowth in the intestine, can increase TMAO levels.
A ton of people are dealing with that, we know.
And then kidney disease, which of course happens in people who have diabetes.
Now 100 million Americans have either pre-diabetes or diabetes, can also increase TMAO. So you've got all of these factors that just have to do with, again, crappy lifestyle, being overweight, being insulin resistant, nothing to do with meat.
Last point.
So there was a whole section in the movie about the meat ruining your gut microbiota.
And I think we're referencing two very low-carb diet studies that did show a decrease in key species of protective bacteria and also in butyrate production.
So this is also one of my questions about carnivore or super low-carb diet for a long period of time.
But again, context is everything.
That's not necessarily the effects of meat.
That's the effects of not eating plant foods.
And there was a good study, slide 27, Jamie, that really established this.
So it was a 2019 study in PLOS One, so it's free, full-text access.
You can go look it up.
Gut microbiome response to a modern Paleolithic diet in a Western lifestyle context.
So they took, I think they were Italians, and they had one group that was on a, they put a group of them on what's called modern Paleo diet, you know, so obviously we can't recreate the Paleo diet,
but just what we all talk about when we say Paleo, And they found, quote, an unexpectedly high degree of biodiversity in modern paleo diet subjects, which well approximates that of traditional populations like the Inuit, Hadza, Matzis, and Peru.
So they found that eating a paleo diet made your gut microbiota look like a hunter-gatherer microbiota.
It's just from there, where they went with the solution is not where I go.
They go to plant-based vegan diet.
I go to regenerative, holistically managed livestock, you know...
Shifting the food production to smaller scale or at least shifting the method of plant production so it's less industrialized and doing things that actually can improve soil quality and sequester carbon from the atmosphere rather than scaling up more industry and more technology.
Well, I hope this acts as a guide for people that are confused by this, and I hope people recommend this, because this is probably as thorough a breakdown as anybody's ever done on that documentary.
And I just wish people would stop doing this.
I really wish they would just follow the actual science, even if it's inconvenient to their dogma.
And it's a real problem when people don't.
It really is, because it's confusing for folks, and there's a lot of people who suffer health consequences because of that confusion.
I think actually vegans and people who are recommending what we're talking about now have a lot in common.
You know, we want better methods of food production.
We care about the environment.
We care about animals and animal welfare.
We just reach different conclusions about, you know, from looking at those problems.
And we probably have more in common with the average American or person in the world who's just not even thinking about it at all, is eating processed and refined crap and doesn't care.
The difference is these people, like the people that made this documentary and like Joel, they want to ignore evidence that flies in the face of what they're trying to promote.
And they do it with really frustrating and deceptive methods.
And that's what I thought when I watched this film.
It was hard for me to watch the whole thing.
I'd watched little clips of it before and I kind of had gotten a review of it and knew what it was all about.
But watching the whole thing, like sitting there going, what the fuck, man?