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

[broganoff]

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.

Good post, and I mostly agree. Although when pressed by Kresser on whether meat/dairy should be removed altogether, even if combined in small quantities with a whole food diet with a variety of plants, he still advocated for removing all meat/dairy. He couldn't really make a strong point that meat was bad in that context.

IMO this was made worse, in the context of the debate, by Rogan making a false dichotomy between McDonalds and Grass fed beef or wild game, which he does in every diet related episode. Realistically, most meat eaters, even those with very balanced and plant rich diets, are not springing for grass fed beef or hunting wild game all the time.

[broganoff]

Couple of things James Wilks gets wrong about protein:

- A store bought 35 gram slice whole wheat bread usually has 4 to 4.4 gram protein (data: Nutritiondata, Cronometer). Slices are often smaller than 35 gram.

- 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.

Agreed, and had Kresser done his homework he could've easily shot that down, as you just did. Problem is he was stuck talking only protein, and not actual leucine. He also showed ignorance of nutritional value for foods like legumes in the previous episode, where he lumped them in with grains as being of low nutritional value, where a simple google search shows they actually pack a pretty good bang for caloric buck. For me that was a red flag that Kresser didn't quite have his facts straight.

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

LOL for sure, but trust me, most forums are far worse. The mods here keep a pretty good clamp on those sorts of posters.

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.

Agreed.

[Mrpb]

IMO this was made worse, in the context of the debate, by Rogan making a false dichotomy between McDonalds and Grass fed beef or wild game, which he does in every diet related episode.

Yeah he did a lot in this episode. He seems completely unaware that there's barely any evidence to back up the idea that grass fed beef is healthier that the 100% beef from McDonalds.

[AdamWW]

Yeah he did a lot in this episode. He seems completely unaware that there's barely any evidence to back up the idea that grass fed beef is healthier that the 100% beef from McDonalds.

Don’t forget the fountain of youth: elk

[broganoff]

Yeah he did a lot in this episode. He seems completely unaware that there's barely any evidence to back up the idea that grass fed beef is healthier that the 100% beef from McDonalds.

IMO it's not so much the beef itself with McDonalds, it's what typically accompanies it. Which, in fairness, is typically the context of those comments. Although there is a wide spectrum between fast food beef and wild game or grass fed beef, and very few people exclusively eat the latter. Which makes those comments dumb, even if there is some degree of truth to it.

Grass fed beef/dairy is great from a sustainability standpoint, although I have a tough time finding any real data to support it being all that much healthier. The omega 3 content is always cited, yet is still relatively low. The only thing I can think of is if the treatment of the animals somehow translates into a healthier meat? Such as less stress hormones being present in the meat itself? Or the beef itself being less inflammatory?

Just like aliens, I want to believe.

[AdamWW]

Grass fed beef/dairy is great from a sustainability standpoint

How so?

I've seen many explanations that suggest it's not better...

https://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt...es-the-science

[broganoff]

How so?

I've seen many explanations that suggest it's not better...

https://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt...es-the-science

Good article that certainly outlines a lot of the reasons I would cite, although there could be some differences in carbon emissions and overall efficiency that favor grain-finished being more sustainable overall. Especially when you factor in distribution.

However, at least a 100% grass fed cow can be produced on land that is unsuitable for all other agricultural uses, while a grain finished cow will require feed that is grown elsewhere to finish its life cycle. One of the main criticisms against meat production is that the land that cows occupy, and the land required to grow their feed, could be used to grow plants for human consumption. In that sense, given that there is a lot of land that cannot grow plants but can support livestock, then a good argument can be made in favor of 100% grass fed cattle that only occupies that type of land.

[stillbored]

Listened to both podcasts and watched the documentary, I have an abundance of questions but these stick out the most:

- is the claims about soy in the film correct? Does soy really create a type of estrogen blocker reducing estrogen and not increasing it?

- what does the foggy blood inhibit when it comes to performance?

[AdamWW]

Listened to both podcasts and watched the documentary, I have an abundance of questions but these stick out the most:

- is the claims about soy in the film correct? Does soy really create a type of estrogen blocker reducing estrogen and not increasing it?

- what does the foggy blood inhibit when it comes to performance?

Regarding 'foggy blood', it was intended to reflect the effects of certain things on endothelial function.

"Healthy endothelium not only arbitrates endothelium-dependent vasodilation, but also actively suppresses thrombosis, vascular inflammation, and hypertrophy."

So in essence, they're trying to say that certain foods have a negative impact on circulation... thus less blood would be delivered to your muscles/tissues when you exercise. At least, that is my impression.

[stillbored]

Regarding 'foggy blood', it was intended to reflect the effects of certain things on endothelial function.

"Healthy endothelium not only arbitrates endothelium-dependent vasodilation, but also actively suppresses thrombosis, vascular inflammation, and hypertrophy."

So in essence, they're trying to say that certain foods have a negative impact on circulation... thus less blood would be delivered to your muscles/tissues when you exercise. At least, that is my impression.

Is there studies proving that this will impact performance? That meat itself negatively impacts performance for the ~6 hours they say it stays in your blood?

His “improved” performance with the ropes seems like bs to me. How could switching to a vegan diet increase oxygen to the muscles so much that he increases his time 10 fold?

[AdamWW]

Is there studies proving that this will impact performance? That meat itself negatively impacts performance for the ~6 hours they say it stays in your blood?

His “improved” performance with the ropes seems like bs to me. How could switching to a vegan diet increase oxygen to the muscles so much that he increases his time 10 fold?

Are you asking if there are studies showing better circulation = better performance?

I mean... thats kind of obvious isn't it? Impaired blood flow means less oxygen and less nutrients getting to active tissues.... so...

I have no idea concerning studies that would be able to prove anything... which is one of the issues with the film altogether.

There's a difference between measuring the effects of nutrients in vitro vs. real-world outcomes. The test tube can show cloudy blood, but an acute response to a meal might not have any effect on your long term progress.... it's more of an extrapolation they're trying to make, which can be problematic.

I would try to view it more from the lens of vegan diets not HARMING your performance if properly planned and assuming you're able to get all the require nutrients in... as opposed to pointing at any and all animal products as hurting you.

[Mrpb]

Layne Norton:

· December 30, 2019 ·

I finished writing up my analysis of the The Game Changers debate on the Joe Rogan podcast between Chris Kresser and James 'Lightning' Wilks & James did a great job...⁣
⁣
...at deflecting the core of the claims of the film & instead focusing on destroying Kresser’s credibility as an expert. To be fair, I don’t think Kresser is an expert & don’t agree with much of what he says but I will say this for him, he kept his cool & never personally attacked Wilks⁣
⁣
Wilks & whomever prepped him did an outstanding job of picking out holes in Kresser’s criticisms & tearing them apart in order to destroy his credibility so that those criticisms he made that were valid did not seem valid to the audience. James really got the kill shot in on Kresser when he asked if he could read a Forest plot (a plot that displays the results in the form of confidence intervals of multiple studies asking the same/similar question, typically along with an overall summary effect compiled from the results of said studies). Chris did not know how to read a Forest plot so this became James’ whipping stick for the rest of the debate. ANYTIME Chris brought up a valid point that James couldn’t defend he countered with “we can’t trust you, you can’t even read a Forest plot” of some variation of that statement. This is a political debate move, not based on the rules of logic. Just because someone is wrong about one thing does not dismiss their points about another. This is a sort of slippery slope fallacy⁣
⁣
Speaking of logical fallacies, there were a metric ton of them. Ad hominems, false dichotomies, appeals to authority, appeal to conspiracy, red herrings, strawman, etc. If I took a sip of beer for every time a logical fallacy was used, I would have died from alcohol poisoning. That said, Chris did a very poor job defending his points. Sadly, the debate changed none of the hard liners minds (not that any debate ever would) & the people in the middle were left more confused than ever⁣
⁣
This is why I just finished my 10,000+ word summary fact checking the debate. I even interviewed multiple experts whose papers were cited in the debate & their comments are ESPECIALLY interesting. Article drops this week. Get ready for round 2

[boo99]

Layne Norton:

If I took a sip of beer for every time a logical fallacy was used, I would have died from alcohol poisoning.

^^^^ LOL, Layne sums it all up well

Thank you for posting and Happy 2020!

[AdamWW]

^^^^ LOL, Layne sums it all up well

Thank you for posting and Happy 2020!

Yeah I think what Kresser should have done (had he known how the debate would be handled in terms of attitude from James) was try to right the course of the conversation away from his personal abilities to understand the science and back to the insinuations that the movie made.

Even though James was correct on the technical aspects of Kresser's statements, it still didn't address how the movie absolutely suggests that everyone should stop eating animal products.

You can't make 1000 statements that are pro-vegan and then claim that 'no no no, we never said you had to stop eating meat altogether' as though you didn't just spend millions of dollars propping up that lifestyle...

In fact, the movie didn't even summarize itself to say that it's a REDUCTION of the average consumption of animal products - particularly processed and high saturated fat products - that is supported by the science... it focuses wholly on people who went 100% vegan. Where's the middle-ground? Why didn't see discuss that?

[Rhino76]

Hello, Just curious if there are any documentaries you would recommend watching?

[Mrpb]

Hello, Just curious if there are any documentaries you would recommend watching?

The only one I can recommend is 'Clean Eating, the dirty truth' by the BBC.

https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x6ldomg