UKH

The game changers move popped up on Netflix for me yesterday, threw it on as I had nothing better to do and by the end of it was feeling quite blown away by the quality of content and the general message it tries to convey.

I know there are quite a few people on UKC who are vegan or vegetarians, plus I'm sure some way more sciencey types who can shed a critical eye on things. 

I essentially got the overwhelming impression that switching to an essentially plant based diet is a really smart thing to do, but can anyone who has seen the film and has some thoughts deconstruct it a little for me? Are there any sweeping generalisations or obvious flaws that are worth pointing out?

Thanks! 

In reply to GarethSL:

I'll caveat by saying up front I haven't seen it - but bear with me.

It was discussed at length in a fairly academic way on a triathlon forum (nutrition is v v big in triathlon as it is so vital in long distance racing). The gist I took away was the James Cameron is pushing his pet idea and whilst not incorrect itself, it cherry picks the science it wants to present to support the concept. (i.e you can find reasonable evidence on both sides of the debate)

In reply to GarethSL:

In my view is was flawed.

The meat part is almost irrelevant, rather, eat healthily and you’ll feel better and performance will be enhanced.

In reply to GarethSL:

I saw it, maybe plant protein is better for sports performance but they didn't mention that oily fish is good for the brain or that eggs have nutrients not found veggies.

It's not a bad thing to cut down on red meat imo but I think fish is very healthy indeed, the Japanese eat a lot of it and they live a very long time on average.

In reply to GarethSL:

As a vegetarian, I really enjoyed watching it. Certainly gave me pause for thought about becoming totally plant based. Have already reduced my diary as a consequence of watching.

Thought their description of animals merely serving as the ‘middle men’ for protein was quite a refreshing message too.

As an aside, I love the source of this negative review; pretty sure it’s not at all biased... https://www.beefmagazine.com/beef/why-schwarzenegger-s-game-changers-docume...

In reply to axor:

I'm not sure that oily fish is very healthy anymore. Many ocean species are hyperaccumulators of mercury, and apparently farmed salmon aren't much better.
I partciularly liked this bit: https://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/make-smart-seafood-choices-minimize-mer...

Not surprisingly, the more fish people ate, the higher the levels of mercury in their blood. Those who consumed swordfish, shark, and other high-mercury fish were the most likely to have blood levels of mercury above 5.8 μg/L. But some who ate only salmon or tuna also had high mercury levels. Having a blood mercury level of 5.8 μg/L isn’t necessarily harmful for an adult, explains Dr. Emily Oken, ... who has studied women’s fish consumption during pregnancy. “It’s very complicated to tease out the harmful effects of mercury because the primary source is from fish, and fish has nutrients that are beneficial to the brain and the heart, the same organs that mercury may harm,” she says.

I don't see why you need to brave the risk of mercury (which bioaccumulates in humans) to get omega-3 when you can get it safely from nuts and seeds. Omega-3 seems to be the only reason to eat seafood, so if you can get it safely another way...
If we had not polluted the oceans, well that would be a different story.

What are these nutrients found in eggs but not vegetables?

In reply to axor:

Actually that's not true - the longest lived people are in Okinawa, and their diet is mostly vegetables than the rest of Japan: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Okinawa_diet
They eat more soy and legumes than fish. It's quite clear their health and longevity can be attributed to vegetables.

The dietary intake of Okinawans compared to other Japanese circa 1950 shows that Okinawans consumed: fewer total calories (1785 vs. 2068), less polyunsaturated fat (4.8% of calories vs. 8%), less rice (154g vs. 328g), significantly less wheat, barley and other grains (38g vs. 153g), less sugars (3g vs. 8g), more legumes (71g vs. 55g), significantly less fish (15g vs. 62g), significantly less meat and poultry (3g vs. 11g), less eggs (1g vs. 7g), less dairy (<1g vs. 8g), much more sweet potatoes (849g vs. 66g), less other potatoes (2g vs. 47g), less fruit (<1g vs. 44g), and no pickled vegetables (0g vs. 42g).

In reply to GarethSL:

I'd bet that Reformed Veg*n will be THE biggest food movement in the next 10 years.

Veg*ns do eat meat - it's just their own muscle mass, unless they eat lots of highly processed plant protein. Is pea protein even complete and readily bioavailable?

I'm not sure how healthy or sustainable such highly processed food is.

Veg*nism is an experiment with your own health. Not everyone will thrive on it.

In reply to SenzuBean:

Fish provide a better quality of O3 than nuts and seeds (DHA and EPA rather than ALA). ALA is inefficiently concerted into the other two in your body. Some studies show increase risk of cancer of diets high in ALA which is not seen in diets high in DHA and EPA. 

In reply to Arms Cliff:

Do you have some references for increased cancer risk?

As far as I'm aware, science has been updated that we didn't calculated ALA->DHA conversion ratios properly, and there is no measured shortage in animals fed only ALA: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0163782715000223
This is a recent, high quality review of multiple studies - not a single study.

In reply to SenzuBean:

Mercury is indeed a problem in the ocean, if you are worried about consuming too from fish you can eat fish such as sardines which dont live long enough to a accumulate it in their systems. Or you can eat farmed salmon etc.

B12 is the best example of a vitamin your body needs that can not be obtained from plants but is present in eggs. There are others but it is enough to know that eggs are very healthy as part of a balanced diet.

In reply to axor:

B12 is added to chicken food... It's only produced by algae, and bacteria and animals only have it because it's added to their food, or they eat algae/bacteria (or other animals that did).

In reply to SenzuBean:

Thanks for the article! Here’s a cancer meta analysis which I have not read properly https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/15051847/  obviously all studies on diet and nutrition have so many confounding factors it’s hard to draw decent conclusions. 
 

personally I’ll be sticking with fish and seeds  

In reply to SenzuBean:

I will look into the Okinawans study thanks for the info. Although, I dont think it's a  coincidence that the Japanese have one of the highest consumption of fish and eggs per person and are also among the longest lived.

In reply to Arms Cliff:

I'd like to see more of that study - but scihub didn't have it it seems (or crashed). I do know that large meta-studies with vegans show no increased risk of cancer (sometimes lower risk), so I can only guess that the study you linked is probably based on a 'Western' diet, and that adding fish to that improved it until I can read it.

In reply to GarethSL:

I watched it..great documentary but would suggest anyone who's watched it has a read of this to see the other side of the argument....

https://tacticmethod.com/the-game-changers-scientific-review-and-references...

......ill be sticking with some meat, loads of veg and carbs based on whats going on exercise wise...basically standard nutrition

Wow, thanks for all the input so far! I was unsure if this belonged in the culture bunker or the training forum and honestly expected it to slip off quietly into the depths of the UKC servers!

Really interesting to see the counter arguments and also the links above. I'm completely ignorant to the facts around nutrition and whilst I've perused threads about it before it's never really sunk in.

Myself, I'm no foodie and I honestly have never been that fussed by diet. I did experiment with keto (well very low carb - as much as I could push myself to) over the summer and whilst I will admit to having enjoyed the weight loss, the cramps just weren't worth it.

Regardless, I'm learning a lot - keep it coming!  

In reply to GarethSL:

This is all very interesting but..

https://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/health/it-wasnt-worth-it-says-103-year-...

i’m dying young with the ability to accurately measure a baths temperature with just my little finger.    

cheers

Toby

In reply to SenzuBean:

A few years ago I was on a particular health kick and decided to eat a tin of tuna every day for lunch for the protein (yes I am aware it was a silly thing to do). After a few months I was waking up with cramped hands. My fingers were hard to straighten and the joints were getting sore. 

My mates Korean wife told me I probably had mild early onset mercury poisoning. I did some research into my symptoms and she was 100% spot on. I dropped the fish and overtime the symptoms stopped. 

Fast forward to a couple of months ago, a colleague really into the the gym was doing the same. He mentioned problems with his hands and I told him to do some research and he immediately stopped eating all the tuna. 

In reply to axor:

A GP once said to me "most people that get run over, are wearing shoes. That doesn't mean shoes are the problem."......

In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:

Eek!!

I used to get through a tin a week but stopped some time ago. Not likely to start again after reading that.

In reply to DubyaJamesDubya:

But a tin a week is will be a safe dose! 

In reply to Shani:

This is probably very simplistic. I'm no expert but I think protein from a single plant source is usually deficient in one or more "essential" amino acids (notable exceptions soya and quinoa which presumably can be described as complete in this respect). Proteins are generally broken down in the gut into their constituent amino acids, and rebuilt in the body into different proteins, eg for muscle, tendons. We can make most amino acids from other amino acids but cannot make the few "essential" amino acids and these must be present in our food. Peas are probably deficient in at least two amino acids and thus for us to build protein need to be mixed with other plant sources containing the missing essential amino acids.

Eating flesh means we can break it down and rebuild it into our own meat (muscle etc), while milk is a total food for young mammals and I assume provides all the essential amino acids.

In reply to ScottTalbot:

He's very very wrong.   Shoes facilitate leaving the house and that puts you in harm's way

In reply to SenzuBean:

Actually it is true. The data collected in Okinawa in the decade after WWII gives a false picture of the Okinawan traditional diet, one that the vegan movement still places as a pillar of its argument on meat and longevity to this day. The Okinawans ate lots of pork and had a large pig population which was decimated during the war years. In 1949/50 they could not eat their normal diet because pork was so scarce. Their longevity was developed under a diet of lots of pork and not under the diet measured in 1950.

If a negative relationship between meat and longevity existed, we should expect to see it in other sets of population data. And yet, at a country level, Hong Kong enjoys the best longevity in the world in some recent years. It also has the highest per capita meat consumption in the world (depending on what data you trust). Spain, which also does well in terms of longevity also shares a similar relationship of very high meat intake.

It is a risky strategy getting your nutrition advice from Netflix documentaries. Especially when they are pea protein isolate advertisements.

In reply to ScottTalbot:

That's a silly analogy that doesn't fit this subject but I'll play along..

If there was more chance statistically of getting run over with shoes on then the best advice would be to cross the road without shoes.

In reply to Dan Arkle:

Mercury is one of the nastiest substances we encounter. Assuming that eating fish with mercury in it is safe because it isn't causing numbness of the fingers seems a bit complacent.

In reply to axor:

Fish yes, eggs no.

In reply to Dave MacLeod:

Do you have some sources for your claims they ate a lot of pig? I can find this study which details the pre-war diet in the late 1800s to 1919, and does not agree that they ate a lot of pig (roughly once a month only): http://apjcn.nhri.org.tw/server/APJCN/10/2/159.pdf
In my google searches, I did find a lot of unsubstantiated claims to the otherwise, but a lack of studies to back up those claims. In my opinion, these are propaganda pieces.

I don't necessarily think it has to show up, because existing diets are so poor to begin with. As mentioned above with the omega-3 and mercury - people are so deficient in omega-3 that even mild mercury toxicity can't counter the positive benefits of overcoming such a large deficit. Something like 50% of the Western world is deficient in magnesium for example ( https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5786912/ ) - so a poor diet with added magnesium will look great by comparison.
In other words, the standard diet of vast swathes of the planet are so poor that it only takes addition of the limiting nutrient to see a large improvement. In Spain's case for example, they eat very little red meat, and eat a lot of vegetables and tree-based products. I haven't looked into Hong Kong.

I must admit I didn't watch it or gain my knowledge from there at all.

In reply to GarethSL:

Haven't seen it yet but I was shocked by 2 of my friends that have: 1 has gone veggie and the other is going veggie Mon-Friday. The one that eats meat at the weekend is REALLY into BBQ'ing!

Keep meaning to get around to watching it. I'm not strictly veggie myself but just try to eat veggie whenever possible.

In reply to DubyaJamesDubya:

Eggs too yes, Japan times survey says:-

"The average Japanese person eats around 320 eggs (tamago) per year, according to the International Egg Commission, placing it in the Top 3 worldwide. (In comparison, the average American eats around 250 eggs per year.)"

In reply to axor:

But isn't that similar to other asian diets and it's the fish that is the different element?

In reply to DubyaJamesDubya:

Ah yes I see what you mean. Both contributry factors. I was just giving a couple of examples of the healthy foods they eat a lot of that is not vegan. I didn't just want to say fish because thats only one part of their healthy diet, but yes perhaps fish has more of a positive influence on health than eggs. 

BTW, Obviously there are other reasons that the Japanese live longer other than diet but I didn't mention those as this thread is about food.

In reply to SenzuBean:

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/026010609200800312?journalCode...

"Unexpectedly, we did not find any vegetarians among the centenarians."
"Eating meat was not stigmatised, & consumption of pork and goat was historically high. It was exceptional among Japanese food consumption"

"High intakes of milk and fats and oils had favorable effects"

There is an Okinawan Government document, referred to in the article below, which I have seen in a film but would need a bit of help searching for in Japanese. It details the size of the pig population before the war and its repopulation following the pigs from the sea campaign in 1948.

https://www.hawaiipublicradio.org/post/remembering-pigs-sea#stream/0
 

I would agree! But I would add that the entire case for veganism is built on nutritional epidemiology of this type. Even it gives conflicting results with respect to meat and health because of the confounders you mention. And yet the vegan movement relies on it anyway, when it points in the direction of less meat giving better health outcomes.

That was aimed at the thread in general, not in response to your comments.

In reply to Dave MacLeod:>
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/026010609200800312?journalCode...

In Caloric Restriction, the Traditional Okinawan Diet, and Healthy Aging: The Diet of the World's Longest-Lived People and Its Potential Impact on ... - Wilcox et al,
 

we see a direct criticism of the study you linked above:

"There are several weaknesses with these previous reports. One, to our knowledge no population-based dietary information has been reported in a peer reviewed journal on Okinawan adults before the 1972 National Nutrition Survey. Since the Japanese lifestyle underwent radical changes from the 1950s,18

including changes in food choices, caloric intake, and energy expenditure, it is unlikely that the 1972 Japan National Nutrition Survey reflects the traditional CR diet that may be implicated in Okinawan longevity. .... Three, since
the Okinawan mortality advantage has all but disappeared except in older cohorts (aged 65-plus)"

The Okinawan Centenarian Study, which began in 1975, examined over 1000 centenarians, and used population sampling (to avoid bias - e.g. eating meat is often correlated with wealth and better access to healthcare) is a more recent and ongoing measurement study, and here's one of the papers. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20234038
In this study, we see:

"The phenotypic characteristics of the Okinawan population in the 1950s to 1960s offers insight into how the Okinawans achieved a very long lifespan and a high centenarian prevalence, despite the highest birth rate in Japan(Willcox BJ et al, 2007). Until the mid 20th century, when today’s centenarians were middle-aged, Okinawans consumed a traditional, lean plant food heavy diet and resembled a naturally calorically restricted population (Willcox BJ et al. 2007;Willcox DC et al.,2009; 2014; Willcox BJ and Willcox DC, 2014). The typical middle-aged Okinawan was lean (BMI~21), physically active, worked in farming, fishing, or food production and had minimal cardiovascular disease, diabetes, or other age-related diseases"

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18924533
This 2003 study is also quite clear in pointing the finger at increasing amounts of meat and lesser amounts of vegetables as the reason for why Okinawan men now have below average (for Japan) life expectancy at birth.

I don't deny that Okinawa had a large amount of pigs after the war or highly revered them, but from the linked studies it's clear that the traditional diet began to change rapidly after WW2, and likely for the worse. I have also been unable to find a direct reference on how many pigs they exported, but there is a lot of references for the fact that they exported most of their fishing catch (to mainland Japan).

I would say that the case for veganism is built primarily on ethics, and then these kind of population studies are only used as evidence that this choice causes no harm to the vegan. There has been a trend lately to sell veganism as only a healthy diet (such as this film). As for me, as long as I'm approximately as healthy as before while eating a vegan diet - that's good enough for me.

Anyway I have to say this will be my last post on this topic for the time being - moving abroad and other things to read. It's been a pleasure discussing.

In reply to SenzuBean:

I think the mix the two get mixed up and cloud the issue:

Veganism is healthier than an omnivorous diet: I believe the jury is still out on this on and it's very hard to prove/disprove. The evidence at the moment seems to point at it not being healtier.

Veganism is better for the environment: I think this is a given nowadays. Though the studies for optimum land use for food production does show that animals can and should play a part, the western desire for quantities of meat and the impact on the environment seem unsustainable. Significantly lower meat consumption, with that meat being higher quality and less intensively farmed on land less suitable for arable crops seems to be the way forward.

In reply to GarethSL:

Just watching it, certainly convincing.....but so was "the magic pill" which is about keto.

  

In reply to galpinos:

Seems daft for anyone to suggest that a vegan diet is always healthier. Its accepted that it can be very unhealthy if care is not taken to avoid nutrient deficiences. Similarly care needs to be taken with an omniverous diet to avoid excess fat etc. Both diets can be healthy. 

If animals "can and should play a part" then perhaps by definition we should avoid the term veganism in this context and just use something like "ecologically sustainable diet".

In reply to GarethSL:

The general consensus from experts in the subject is that it's bullshit.

Less flippantly, Rebecca Dent linked this response on her Twitter feed.

https://medium.com/@timrees/watched-the-game-changers-now-you-must-watch-th...

In reply to planetmarshall:

Interesting link!

Vegan, Vegetarian, ketogenic, paleo, intermittent fasting, etc etc.

The take away for me is that they all work to varying degrees, therefore as is usual with life, balance is the answer.

In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:

Interesting however I have to say I have eaten a tin of tuna (with cottage cheese) every day at work for the best part of 30 years with no adverse effects. I have also been climbing for 29 years

In reply to Duncan Bourne:

Fair enough, my experience (and many years later) my colleagues are only anecdotal. My friends wife who suspected my symptoms were from excessive tuna eating got her knowledge from Japanese food (a lot of fish) and the problems found there. 

Loads online about it, but I suspect you are eating better quality tuna, or your symptoms of mercury poisoning are different

https://www.livestrong.com/article/371519-danger-in-eating-too-much-canned-...

https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/mercury-in-tuna#frequency

In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:

So skipjack tuna, which is Tesco’s cheapest, is lower in mercury it seems. John West meanwhile reckon 4 tins a week is fine (well they would I guess)

In reply to marsbar:

"So skipjack tuna, which is Tesco’s cheapest, is lower in mercury it seems."

Probably because half the tin is actually dolphin 

In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:

It’s line caught. Probably half the tin is water though

In reply to GarethSL:

Great documentary I thought. The arguments for vegetarian/vegan seem to me to be:

Healthier, cheaper, better for the environment, and better for the animals. I can now add, it’s good for your little fella to that list! That’s clearly why the Mrs encouraged me to go veggie!

I liked Arnie’s comments at the end, when he mused as to what people would say if they are told they can’t eat meat, ‘F*ck you’ was his thought, before counselling incremental change and moderation. 

It seems to me that the move towards mass acceptance of plant based diets will be a defining feature of the next 20 years.  Animals are the middle men!

In reply to Steve Wetton:

One thing that the documentary left nobody in any doubt of.....

Don't try and mug James Wilks at knife point

In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:

I did read that curiously tinned tuna has less mercury than fresh tuna.

Interesting stuff though. I may well cut down on the tuna

In reply to planetmarshall:

Hi, thanks for the link. I was interested to read some criticism as I haven't seen the movie yet but intend to watch it soon. I had to stop reading the article though, as it seemed very heavily biased, even as a critique. The author complained of cherry-picking anecdotal evidence, and lack of balance, though these were both clearly evident in his own article.

For example, in the section on 'The Anecdotes' the author suggests he will not discuss the vegan athletes and their anecdotal evidence. However, he does go on to say:

'My understanding is that many of them are no longer vegan or no longer competing. Make of that what you will.'

This seems to me worse than anecdotal evidence, and more like gossip designed to strengthen his argument, which is ironic giving the point he is trying to make.

The author also takes an extract from a dated scientific source used in the film, and highlights some potential risks associated with a plant based diet that the source suggests warrants further investigation. Given these risk have not actually been identified but simply suggested for further research, then surely this a good example of 'cherry-picking of the highest order'. A criticism the author levels against the Game Changers.

Given Cameron's affiliations then I strongly suspect that the game Changers is guilty of bias and cherry-picking selected evidence. I would be very interested to see a balanced critique, to provide some perspective. Unfortunately I found the hypocrisy evident in this article to irritating and could not take it seriously.

In reply to GarethSL:

Layne Norton with an Alan Aragon approved take-down:

https://www.biolayne.com/articles/research/the-game-changers-review-a-scien...

And another AA endorsed review:

https://dieteticallyspeaking.com/an-evidence-based-review-of-the-game-chang...

In reply to GarethSL:

youtube.com/watch?v=grtMHppLL34&

In reply to GarethSL:

Just to resurrect this with another link but here is some further discussion on the topic:

youtube.com/watch?v=Dq4Apc2Xk7Q&