Game Changers Movie Discussion Thread. The science does not add up.

[AdamWW]

Comprehensive review/critique by Layne

10k+ words, 60+ references

https://www.biolayne.com/articles/re...ific-analysis/

[broganoff]

Yeah, see my issue is paying the huge price increase how do I know for sure it's grass fed and there's no corners being cut?

Grass fed beef is visibly darker in color and leaner, which also speaks to its nutrient profile.

As for organic certification, whether grass fed or not, there are steep fines for falsifying certification records. Especially since the records that the 3rd party certifiers use is often the same paperwork filed with government agencies, which opens up the producer to criminal penalties as well if they are caught filing false information.

Not to say that there aren't cheaters out there, but they are most likely a small minority.

You are basically admitting you think there's an issue with normal beef so why not go vegan?

Actually, no, that's not what I said. Besides, I don't want to. There are less healthy versions of everything, whether they be plants or animals. Plants may actually carry more toxins than animals because plants do not have the advanced metabolic/digestive systems that animals do.

[Heisman2]

Comprehensive review/critique by Layne

10k+ words, 60+ references

https://www.biolayne.com/articles/re...ific-analysis/

That was well written.

[Mrpb]

Good review by the well respected sports nutrition scientist Asker Jeukendrup.

I watched the documentary 3 times. The second and third time I specifically paid attention to how the arguments were built, what evidence was used and also what evidence was NOT used. It is actually the latter that is the bigger problem and the first sign that we are dealing with pseudoscience.

https://www.mysportscience.com/singl...sensationalism

[Mrpb]

Interesting point by Alan.

[boo99]

Interesting point by Alan.

He nailed it with the entertainment word

[AdamWW]

Layne on Video:

[Jcart159]

This whole JRE podcast with Chris Kresser was great at discussing the points/misinformation brought up in the film, but wanted to share this clip because it brought up some really interesting points:



We often think of vegetables and fruits as the most 'nutrient dense' foods but that's not always the case. Was also news to me on how dense herbs and spices are! I always saw them as flavoring that was void of nutrients.

[Strawng]

This whole JRE podcast with Chris Kresser was great at discussing the points/misinformation brought up in the film, but wanted to share this clip because it brought up some really interesting points:



We often think of vegetables and fruits as the most 'nutrient dense' foods but that's not always the case. Was also news to me on how dense herbs and spices are! I always saw them as flavoring that was void of nutrients.

There was so much bullchit in that episode and Kresser is a broscience god. They try to even make the argument that eating vegetables and fruit kills more animals than eating meat. Don't get me wrong, he had some valid points, but Kresser is almost* as unscientific as this garbage documentary.

[AdamWW]

This whole JRE podcast with Chris Kresser was great at discussing the points/misinformation brought up in the film, but wanted to share this clip because it brought up some really interesting points:



We often think of vegetables and fruits as the most 'nutrient dense' foods but that's not always the case. Was also news to me on how dense herbs and spices are! I always saw them as flavoring that was void of nutrients.

Kresser is.... sadly... kind of a zealot, and I would never rely on him for advice on nutrition.

[Jcart159]

Kresser is.... sadly... kind of a zealot, and I would never rely on him for advice on nutrition.

This was the first I have heard of him. I haven't seen the entire thing but he just seemed to have a point in favor of meat for every point brought up by vegans.

Something like 7.5 billion animals dying each year due to agricultural farming lol. Just funny points for me to use against vegans who are getting argumentative.

[Strawng]

Something like 7.5 billion animals dying each year due to agricultural farming lol. Just funny points for me to use against vegans who are getting argumentative.

That was probably one of his dumbest arguments. Rogan even points out most of that agriculture is to feed livestock, and a lot of thins in our lives require animals to die. It's about "mitigating" animal deaths, not completely eliminating them. By eating meat, you almost definitely contribute to more animal deaths because the rest of the agricultural processes are truly unavoidable at. So if I do a good thing but can't do it completely perfect it's no longer good? Also, the "animals" that die during harvesting are mostly bugs and worms, which most vegans believe do have lesser value. Cows, pigs, etc. have a more developed nervous system. This is just like his argument that plants might be conscious, so we're all murderers, so we should all just eat meat.

[Jcart159]

Ya that point made me giggle a bit but I think it highlights an important point in that we need to evaluate entire supply chain when comparing environmental impact.

It's the same marketing Toyota uses to sell the Prius which takes many years to break even on it's environmental impact when taking the cost of the lithium ion batteries into consideration.

[broganoff]

There is some truth to Kresser's statement regarding deaths to animals in vegetable/grain/fruit production. 7.5 billion would not surprise me. Vertebrate (non-insect animal) pests are arguably bigger problems than insects on a broad scale, and certainly are the biggest problem for many producers. This especially includes in season production losses for fruits and veggies, whereas with grains there are probably greater economic losses in storage. You are basically providing a food source for any animal that can jump, dig or fly their way in.

That said, 7.5 billion is not more than total animals killed for eating. A quick google search for chicken estimates 50 billion/year worldwide, and 300 M cows. Not to mention fish, pigs, goats, etc, especially in the developing world.

IMO the best points he made were in discussing athletes who went vegan and failed. I'm not a fan of extrapolating anecdotes of elite athletes to broader populations, but as long as we are going to play that game, he did provide some solid examples.

[Strawng]

A quick google search for chicken estimates 50 billion/year worldwide, and 300 M cows. Not to mention fish, pigs, goats, etc, especially in the developing world.

IMO the best points he made were in discussing athletes who went vegan and failed. I'm not a fan of extrapolating anecdotes of elite athletes to broader populations, but as long as we are going to play that game, he did provide some solid examples.

Holy chit I had no idea the numbers were that big. Reps on spread. Also yea he shutdown the athlete examples from the doc and the absolutely fuking ridiculous gladiator argument quite effectively.

[broganoff]

Holy chit I had no idea the numbers were that big. Reps on spread. Also yea he shutdown the athlete examples from the doc and the absolutely fuking ridiculous gladiator argument quite effectively.

Haha for sure. In fairness, I'm not sure how you could go about estimating the number of animals killed in defense of fruits and veggies. Even if you were to poll farmers and extrapolate out, I don't think any of them could tell you how many gophers and ground squirrels they killed last year. At least not accurately lol. Probably similar to asking them the size of the last fish they caught. That said, a lot of animals do have to die to provide year round fresh fruit and vegetables.

As for chicken, yeah, 50B is no joke. Even if everyone on the planet ate the same, that is still less than 8 chickens/year/person. A bucket of 50 chicken wings requires that at least 12.5 chickens be killed, assuming 2 drummets and 2 wings per chicken. Think about how many people put down one of those regularly.

It's a cruel world we live in, although if chicken didn't want to be eaten, then they should try not tasting so good. Personal responsibility.

Overall, I like Kresser's approach. I agree that a varied, whole food based diet with moderate animal protein consumption is probably the most optimal diet for most people. I've only heard him on Rogan, so this is not an endorsement of his practice and content as a whole.

[Mrpb]

When Kresser makes claims you can be sure there are some errors in there. He's a chiropractor preaching a Paleo approach in disguise.

I'm not surprised Joe believes he's a nutrition expert. Joe's got the worst radar for these things.

[TheShadowMan]

Layne on Video:

Great watch, real informative. I especially liked how he mentioned the protein quality of vegan sources in comparison to animal ones, and the mention of meat being higher in essential amino acids. Also the mention of how the people supporting Game changers have products of their own that create conflicts of interest. Solid all around.

[broganoff]

When Kresser makes claims you can be sure there are some errors in there. He's a chiropractor preaching a Paleo approach in disguise.

I'm not surprised Joe believes he's a nutrition expert. Joe's got the worst radar for these things.

Agreed and agreed. You can still pick up on Paleo dogma in his statements, regardless of how sound they are (or not). What I found false was when he said that legumes have low nutrient density, and being towards the bottom of the nutrient density scale about grains. However if you look at the amount of protein, fiber, and other vitamins/nutrients per 100 calories of beans or lentils, they actually stack up very well. Especially considering how satiating they are.

Also, when he said that starchy vegetables were sub optimal, but sweet potatoes were good. What is it with Paleo and sweet potatoes? Lol.

IMO I still think he did a pretty good job of breaking down the flaws in the documentary, even if they were mostly low hanging fruit. He should have fact checked himself on the issue of animals killed for food- that definitely hurts his credibility.

[AdamWW]

Apparently Garth Davis (a vegan MD) is going to debate Layne on the content of the Game Changers... should be an interesting event.

[broganoff]

Anybody listen to the follow up debate on Rogan with Chris Kressler and James Wilks? I had a long drive today so I was excited to have a 4 hour episode to help kill the time, but it ended up being pretty painful to listen to. Kressler got caught with his pants down on some of the stuff he said in the last episode that wasn't quite fully vetted, which led to Wilks ground-and-pounding him on those weak points. Not to say that everything Wilks said was correct, as there was certainly some intellectually dishonest debate tactics and statements at play, but he was certainly prepared. It was rough, and I'd be surprised if Kressler ever went on that show again. Lol

[Mrpb]

Only listened to the first hour so far but this Wilks guy is making a really bad impression. In fact I agree with Kresser on most of what he's saying.

In general I'm wondering though why three admitted non nutrition experts are ranting 4 hours on nutrition. Wth.

Broganoff are you saying Wilks gets better further on?

Edit:
Wilks is scoring points on b12 in the second hour. He got smashed on dairy in the first hour and does not seem to realise it.

I'll watch the rest too. This is pretty entertaining.

For everyone: I recommend watching instead of listening only. You do want to see the slides, the facial expressions and body language. The faces Wilks makes are funny.

[AdamWW]

Only listened to the first hour so far but this Wilks guy is making a really bad impression. In fact I agree with Kresser on most of what he's saying.

In general I'm wondering though why three admitted non nutrition experts are ranting 4 hours on nutrition. Wth.

Broganoff are you saying Wilks gets better further on?

Edit:
Wilks is scoring points on b12 in the second hour. He got smashed on dairy in the first hour and does not seem to realise it.

I'll watch the rest too. This is pretty entertaining.

For everyone: I recommend watching instead of listening only. You do want to see the slides, the facial expressions and body language. The faces Wilks makes are funny.

I watched the whole thing. Wilks definitely beat Kresser into the ground, at least in a technical sense. By that I mean, some of the corrections made by wilks were more centered on making sure he defended the exact wording of claims in the film vs refuting what Kresser felt the film implied.

Overall tho, yeah, Kresser just had nothin.

[Mrpb]

Painful to watch though. It's basically the blind leading the blind. How Rogan keeps going on about 'yeah but if it was grass fed everything would be different'.

Wilks is probably the most science based of the three but he's still missing the plot on many occasions.

And Kresser not knowing how to read a basic forest plot. Wut?

Best quote by Wilks: 'I don't even know why we are. We should get some real nutrition experts to talk about this.'

[AdamWW]

Painful to watch though. It's basically the blind leading the blind. How Rogan keeps going on about 'yeah but if it was grass fed everything would be different'.

Wilks is probably the most science based of the three but he's still missing the plot on many occasions.

And Kresser not knowing how to read a basic forest plot. Wut?

Best quote by Wilks: 'I don't even know why we are. We should get some real nutrition experts to talk about this.'

Agreed

I have a lot of respect for wilks on this because he clearly has no formal education on reading studies but bested Kresser easily despite his having masters degrees.

Wilks carries his own and clearly dedicated a lot of time to research and at least learn the materials. Kresser just say there taking hit after hit... he has nowhere to go.

[Mrpb]

Agreed

I have a lot of respect for wilks on this because he clearly has no formal education on reading studies but bested Kresser easily despite his having masters degrees.

Wilks carries his own and clearly dedicated a lot of time to research and at least learn the materials. Kresser just say there taking hit after hit... he has nowhere to go.

Wilks has definitely done a lot of reading. Enough to make Kresser look like a fool.

Master degree? You mean in acupuncture?

[AdamWW]

Wilks has definitely done a lot of reading. Enough to make Kresser look like a fool.

Master degree? You mean in acupuncture?

Exactly ;o)

[broganoff]

Agreed

I have a lot of respect for wilks on this because he clearly has no formal education on reading studies but bested Kresser easily despite his having masters degrees.

Wilks carries his own and clearly dedicated a lot of time to research and at least learn the materials. Kresser just say there taking hit after hit... he has nowhere to go.

Also agreed. I thought Kresser held his own in the first hour on the issue of dairy, while Wilks played semantic games (kinda like what you see on online forums lol) to try to catch him in a gotcha. I felt pretty good about how the debate was going at that point.

Then it went to the B12 issue, and Kresser never really recovered. It definitely took the wind out of his sails. Wilks also continued that momentum through the protein issue, where Kresser got caught with his pants down again. It was sad. Kresser could've at least checked his math on the peanut butter sandwich before stating that in the first Rogan episode.

BTW is there truth to what Wilks was saying in regards to protein bioavailability in animal versus plant proteins? Is it a non-issue as long as basic thresholds, like what are here in the stickies, are met?

Another thing that drove me nuts was Wilks pointing out the conflict of interest with industry funded studies, while that entire documentary is funded by a vegan fanatic who is investing $140 million into a vegan supplement company. I couldn't believe that Kresser never called him on it.

Dude got steamrolled, bad. Although it doesn't surprise me in the world of "paleo" and other supposed "ancestral health experts" that make the rounds in the podcast circuit. Most of these people have no real credentials, and use their own experiences with health, whether that be difficulty losing weight or auto-immune issues, and extrapolate out with their dogma. Kresser is no exception.

[AdamWW]

Also agreed. I thought Kresser held his own in the first hour on the issue of dairy, while Wilks played semantic games (kinda like what you see on online forums lol) to try to catch him in a gotcha. I felt pretty good about how the debate was going at that point.

Then it went to the B12 issue, and Kresser never really recovered. It definitely took the wind out of his sails. Wilks also continued that momentum through the protein issue, where Kresser got caught with his pants down again. It was sad. Kresser could've at least checked his math on the peanut butter sandwich before stating that in the first Rogan episode.

BTW is there truth to what Wilks was saying in regards to protein bioavailability in animal versus plant proteins? Is it a non-issue as long as basic thresholds, like what are here in the stickies, are met?

Another thing that drove me nuts was Wilks pointing out the conflict of interest with industry funded studies, while that entire documentary is funded by a vegan fanatic who is investing $140 million into a vegan supplement company. I couldn't believe that Kresser never called him on it.

Dude got steamrolled, bad. Although it doesn't surprise me in the world of "paleo" and other supposed "ancestral health experts" that make the rounds in the podcast circuit. Most of these people have no real credentials, and use their own experiences with health, whether that be difficulty losing weight or auto-immune issues, and extrapolate out with their dogma. Kresser is no exception.

In regards to industry funding, I think what Wilks was trying to get at was that, given we cannot avoid industry funded studies from coming out, we should defer to the highest level of credible authorities on the subjects instead. And because it seems the organizations in charge of deciding dietary recommendations for, say, reducing red and processed meats, are pretty much in consensus on a number of topics, we should probably listen to studies (even some industry funded ones) IF those governing bodies agree with it.

Wilks did on many occasions remind Joe and Chris that he himself is not an expert and is merely restating what the actual experts say, which is a fair point. Wilks claims he put in 1000 hours of reading in order to prepare himself originally to speak on the film, which is only 6-months of a regular 9-5 jobs' time-worth... imagine how many hours total the cumulative expert knowledge has put into generating their conclusions.

Industry funded or not, there are organizations who aren't lobbied by corporations who agree with some of the conclusions in the studies Wilks relied on... we can't really say that for any of the studies Kresser likes to use.

Overall I think what Wilks was trying to hit at - despite often going a bit angrily into the weeds - is that neither he NOR Kresser should be telling people what to eat, but rather we should rely on scientific consensus. He did also state that he cannot prove that 100% removing meat from someone diet is better than having small amounts of it... etc... so wasn't necessarily approaching it from a fully-Vegan or abolitionist standpoint.

[Mrpb]

Couple of things James Wilks gets wrong about protein:

- A store bought 30-35 gram slice whole wheat bread usually has about 4 gram protein (data: Nutritiondata, Cronometer).

- 2 slices of bread with 40 gram peanut butter 411 kcal has 18.5 gram protein, of which 0.9 gram leucine! This would never maximise MPS. Heck, it's questionable if 2 of those sandwiches would maximise MPS.

- For comparison: 100 gram chicken breast has 120 kcal, 22.5 gram protein and 1.9 gram leucine.

- The 1.6 gram per kg number from the Morton review is based on a study population of which the large majority were meat and dairy eaters. It's likely that vegans will need a bit more protein.

- the 20 to 25 gram quality protein to maximise MPS recommendation is based on ±21 year olds that only trained the quads (!). Maximising MPS after a full body workout takes ±40 gram quality protein.

- protein researcher Luc Van Loon recommends ±3 gram leucine per meal for vegans and vegetarians that want to maximise MPS. To get that from lentils you'd need to eat 166 gram (raw weight), ±600 kcal.

Also agreed. I thought Kresser held his own in the first hour on the issue of dairy, while Wilks played semantic games (kinda like what you see on online forums lol) to try to catch him in a gotcha.

That whole discussion reminded me so much of some the discussions here.

BTW is there truth to what Wilks was saying in regards to protein bioavailability in animal versus plant proteins? Is it a non-issue as long as basic thresholds, like what are here in the stickies, are met?

There's an element of truth in it. It's probably not that important as long as you get enough leucine. If you take beans for example, they're tough to digest, have a lot of fiber and anti nutrients. This will likely mean AAs appear in the blood stream slower, resulting in a lower leucine peak. To compensate for these issues it's been recommended to have ±3 gram leucine in vegan meals if you want to maximise MPS.

But how well vegan whole food meals really stimulate MPS is unknown because it's never been looked at in published studies. So in reality we don't know how many grams of leucine is really necessary.