Netflix Documentary "What the Health" by Kip Andersen
Replies
-
cmriverside wrote: »I find that Netflix food documentaries are nearly always either selling a product or selling irrational fear. They're all pretty bad.
I really liked "Cooked" (a lot). That series spoke to me and was beautifully produced. "Chef's Table" is also interesting, offering a glimpse into restaurants that are mostly pay "experiences" for wealthy folks and the bizarre, introverted processes of these artist chefs (but still a beautiful show).
Having said that, I did like "Fed up" when I first saw it -- but was disappointed to find how intentionally skewed it was, lacking in scientific backup, and how poorly they treated interviewees.2 -
There is no integrity in this documentary, it even said Milk was institutionalized racism, all they did was try push all the emotional outrage buttons they could find. They didn't share science to educate people.
the only takeaway for me was that processed meats are classed as a group 1 carcinogen, which everyone already knew already. What are some other group 1 carcinogens?
Beer and wine, Paint, Areca nuts, Air pollution and finally - Sunlight
6 -
There is no integrity in this documentary, it even said Milk was institutionalized racism, all they did was try push all the emotional outrage buttons they could find. They didn't share science to educate people.
the only takeaway for me was that processed meats are classed as a group 1 carcinogen, which everyone already knew already. What are some other group 1 carcinogens?
Beer and wine, Paint, Areca nuts, Air pollution and finally - Sunlight
Dammit, I was all set to move to a paint-free apartment, hermetically sealed with an air filtration system, and create a UV body suit with a filtering mask to wear outside, but if I have to give up beer and wine it's a moot point anyway.8 -
There is no integrity in this documentary, it even said Milk was institutionalized racism, all they did was try push all the emotional outrage buttons they could find. They didn't share science to educate people.
the only takeaway for me was that processed meats are classed as a group 1 carcinogen, which everyone already knew already. What are some other group 1 carcinogens?
Beer and wine, Paint, Areca nuts, Air pollution and finally - Sunlight
Dammit, I was all set to move to a paint-free apartment, hermetically sealed with an air filtration system, and create a UV body suit with a filtering mask to wear outside, but if I have to give up beer and wine it's a moot point anyway.
I think the new UA sleep wear would counter the effects of the beer and wine. Maybe pick some of those up on your way over to your new place. You're golden!4 -
I mean I know a lot of people hate on vegans but at the end of the day you are hating on someone for something they will ultimately expel from their body into the toilet. So you are just taking crap. No one is telling you to go vegan, be vegan or do anything with yourself. Everything is your choice.3
-
fatvegan88 wrote: »I mean I know a lot of people hate on vegans but at the end of the day you are hating on someone for something they will ultimately expel from their body into the toilet. So you are just taking crap. No one is telling you to go vegan, be vegan or do anything with yourself. Everything is your choice.
Wait, what? On the previous page you wrote "sure some loser SJW vegans go around telling everyone to be vegan because they have subpar sad lives" and now you're stating that nobody is telling anyone to go vegan?2 -
I haven't watched the documentary, but isn't the whole point that it advocates veganism based on health claims (i.e., tells people they SHOULD be vegan or will be unhealthy)?
That's why people are disagreeing/discussing/arguing/disputing whatever you think is hating on.
I don't care if people ARE vegans, I think it's great if they like it, even. I do find some arguments for it annoying, mostly if I think they are misleading or inaccurate.1 -
janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »TravisJHunt wrote: »rainbowbow wrote: »cmriverside wrote: »My "save the animals" argument has always been:
How many animals and trees die in order to plant vast food crops over huge areas of land? Never mind the pesticides which mess up the ecosystem in general, but how about all the ground dwelling creatures that are killed by modern farm machines and lack of habitat? I don't think anyones' hands are clean. If we eat, other things die to make that happen. We were given dominion over the animals of the earth. It's not a pretty story - but then humans are pretty awful in general.
I just want to point out that it's actually significantly better for the environment to consume crops than to consume animals. Especially beef which also releases a significant amount of methane in our atmosphere.
I know you want to have a world-view that opposes that, but it just makes sense that growing animals is less efficient than growing crops. You have to have land for animals to live on, you have to feed and water animals food and water... we could be eating.
I think it's important (not from an ethical view point but from a logical one) to atleast reduce red-meat consumption as far as the environment is concerned along with doing everything we can to fight for legislation that falls in line with renewable energy, less fossil fuel based transportation, less waste and fresh water in agriculture and industrial sectors, less fracking or polluting of fresh water sources, recycling when possible, reducing our ac/heating when not necessary, and reducing the purchasing of certain items (like plastic water bottles) which are disposable.
We weren't given dominion over the planet, and at some point we're more than likely going to have to reap some serious consequences for our actions.
Actually no, this is one of the biggest myths for Vegan argument. One major error even with the whole Vegan is better for the environment is that most studies that have compared have compared this to the effect of the amount of food produced by size. So the cost to the environment to make one bushel of beef, vs one bushel of broccoli. Problem here is that you are going to get a lot calories and energy from one bushel of beef vs one bushel of broccoli. Once these studies looked at for example, the amount of harm to the environment if you compare at the actual diet level (the amount of food needed to be consumed equally) it was often found that it would be worse if we all switched to Vegan for the environment. You need a lot more food to satisfy calorie needs for a Vegan diet than many other diets.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/vegetarian-diet-bad-for-environment-meat-study-lettuce-three-times-worse-emissions-bacon-a6773671.html
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/next/earth/going-vegan-isnt-actually-th/
http://time.com/money/4154705/vegetarian-meat-bad-for-environment/
http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2013-08/why-vegan-diets-suck
http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/06/health/vegetarian-diet-conversation/index.html
Just a few links.
But animals don't grow on nothing. It takes crops to create the meat, so you'd need to consider the total calories consumed per pound of beef to be accurate.
The issue here is that it depends. A ruminant animal can eat things that humans can't. So if you aren't overgrazing and feeding native plants they can have very little impact. If it's a big feed lot operation it can have a very different impact.
Regardless of what we might wish for the future, most ruminant animals used for food in the US are part of feedlot operations for at least a portion of their lives. It has to be taken into account when we're evaluating the current impact on the environment. I've seen hypothetical examples based on the assumption that could change and those are interesting conversations, but not quite what we're discussing here.
I'm not sure how it isn't what we're discussing. Environmental impacts. Depending on where you live you might be able to buy from operations that aren't feed lot style. I can where I live, it's not everywhere, but for some parts of the US, grass fed meat from small farms is an option.0 -
janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »TravisJHunt wrote: »rainbowbow wrote: »cmriverside wrote: »My "save the animals" argument has always been:
How many animals and trees die in order to plant vast food crops over huge areas of land? Never mind the pesticides which mess up the ecosystem in general, but how about all the ground dwelling creatures that are killed by modern farm machines and lack of habitat? I don't think anyones' hands are clean. If we eat, other things die to make that happen. We were given dominion over the animals of the earth. It's not a pretty story - but then humans are pretty awful in general.
I just want to point out that it's actually significantly better for the environment to consume crops than to consume animals. Especially beef which also releases a significant amount of methane in our atmosphere.
I know you want to have a world-view that opposes that, but it just makes sense that growing animals is less efficient than growing crops. You have to have land for animals to live on, you have to feed and water animals food and water... we could be eating.
I think it's important (not from an ethical view point but from a logical one) to atleast reduce red-meat consumption as far as the environment is concerned along with doing everything we can to fight for legislation that falls in line with renewable energy, less fossil fuel based transportation, less waste and fresh water in agriculture and industrial sectors, less fracking or polluting of fresh water sources, recycling when possible, reducing our ac/heating when not necessary, and reducing the purchasing of certain items (like plastic water bottles) which are disposable.
We weren't given dominion over the planet, and at some point we're more than likely going to have to reap some serious consequences for our actions.
Actually no, this is one of the biggest myths for Vegan argument. One major error even with the whole Vegan is better for the environment is that most studies that have compared have compared this to the effect of the amount of food produced by size. So the cost to the environment to make one bushel of beef, vs one bushel of broccoli. Problem here is that you are going to get a lot calories and energy from one bushel of beef vs one bushel of broccoli. Once these studies looked at for example, the amount of harm to the environment if you compare at the actual diet level (the amount of food needed to be consumed equally) it was often found that it would be worse if we all switched to Vegan for the environment. You need a lot more food to satisfy calorie needs for a Vegan diet than many other diets.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/vegetarian-diet-bad-for-environment-meat-study-lettuce-three-times-worse-emissions-bacon-a6773671.html
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/next/earth/going-vegan-isnt-actually-th/
http://time.com/money/4154705/vegetarian-meat-bad-for-environment/
http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2013-08/why-vegan-diets-suck
http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/06/health/vegetarian-diet-conversation/index.html
Just a few links.
But animals don't grow on nothing. It takes crops to create the meat, so you'd need to consider the total calories consumed per pound of beef to be accurate.
The issue here is that it depends. A ruminant animal can eat things that humans can't. So if you aren't overgrazing and feeding native plants they can have very little impact. If it's a big feed lot operation it can have a very different impact.
Regardless of what we might wish for the future, most ruminant animals used for food in the US are part of feedlot operations for at least a portion of their lives. It has to be taken into account when we're evaluating the current impact on the environment. I've seen hypothetical examples based on the assumption that could change and those are interesting conversations, but not quite what we're discussing here.
I'm not sure how it isn't what we're discussing. Environmental impacts. Depending on where you live you might be able to buy from operations that aren't feed lot style. I can where I live, it's not everywhere, but for some parts of the US, grass fed meat from small farms is an option.
Individuals can choose to purchase from small farms (assuming such a source is available to them), but I'm thinking of the larger, population-level impact and that makes it absolutely relevant that most ruminants killed for meat in the US are run through feedlot operations.
It's like discussing the environmental impact of cars but basing your calculations on the assumption that everyone is driving an electric. They might someday and you can use the projected change as a basis for an argument that more people should . . . but they aren't right now.
There's the theoretical impact if people would change their purchasing habits. That's one conversation.
There's the actual impact of today's behaviors. That's another -- that's what I meant.0 -
janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »TravisJHunt wrote: »rainbowbow wrote: »cmriverside wrote: »My "save the animals" argument has always been:
How many animals and trees die in order to plant vast food crops over huge areas of land? Never mind the pesticides which mess up the ecosystem in general, but how about all the ground dwelling creatures that are killed by modern farm machines and lack of habitat? I don't think anyones' hands are clean. If we eat, other things die to make that happen. We were given dominion over the animals of the earth. It's not a pretty story - but then humans are pretty awful in general.
I just want to point out that it's actually significantly better for the environment to consume crops than to consume animals. Especially beef which also releases a significant amount of methane in our atmosphere.
I know you want to have a world-view that opposes that, but it just makes sense that growing animals is less efficient than growing crops. You have to have land for animals to live on, you have to feed and water animals food and water... we could be eating.
I think it's important (not from an ethical view point but from a logical one) to atleast reduce red-meat consumption as far as the environment is concerned along with doing everything we can to fight for legislation that falls in line with renewable energy, less fossil fuel based transportation, less waste and fresh water in agriculture and industrial sectors, less fracking or polluting of fresh water sources, recycling when possible, reducing our ac/heating when not necessary, and reducing the purchasing of certain items (like plastic water bottles) which are disposable.
We weren't given dominion over the planet, and at some point we're more than likely going to have to reap some serious consequences for our actions.
Actually no, this is one of the biggest myths for Vegan argument. One major error even with the whole Vegan is better for the environment is that most studies that have compared have compared this to the effect of the amount of food produced by size. So the cost to the environment to make one bushel of beef, vs one bushel of broccoli. Problem here is that you are going to get a lot calories and energy from one bushel of beef vs one bushel of broccoli. Once these studies looked at for example, the amount of harm to the environment if you compare at the actual diet level (the amount of food needed to be consumed equally) it was often found that it would be worse if we all switched to Vegan for the environment. You need a lot more food to satisfy calorie needs for a Vegan diet than many other diets.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/vegetarian-diet-bad-for-environment-meat-study-lettuce-three-times-worse-emissions-bacon-a6773671.html
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/next/earth/going-vegan-isnt-actually-th/
http://time.com/money/4154705/vegetarian-meat-bad-for-environment/
http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2013-08/why-vegan-diets-suck
http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/06/health/vegetarian-diet-conversation/index.html
Just a few links.
But animals don't grow on nothing. It takes crops to create the meat, so you'd need to consider the total calories consumed per pound of beef to be accurate.
The issue here is that it depends. A ruminant animal can eat things that humans can't. So if you aren't overgrazing and feeding native plants they can have very little impact. If it's a big feed lot operation it can have a very different impact.
Regardless of what we might wish for the future, most ruminant animals used for food in the US are part of feedlot operations for at least a portion of their lives. It has to be taken into account when we're evaluating the current impact on the environment. I've seen hypothetical examples based on the assumption that could change and those are interesting conversations, but not quite what we're discussing here.
I'm not sure how it isn't what we're discussing. Environmental impacts. Depending on where you live you might be able to buy from operations that aren't feed lot style. I can where I live, it's not everywhere, but for some parts of the US, grass fed meat from small farms is an option.
Individuals can choose to purchase from small farms (assuming such a source is available to them), but I'm thinking of the larger, population-level impact and that makes it absolutely relevant that most ruminants killed for meat in the US are run through feedlot operations.
It's like discussing the environmental impact of cars but basing your calculations on the assumption that everyone is driving an electric. They might someday and you can use the projected change as a basis for an argument that more people should . . . but they aren't right now.
There's the theoretical impact if people would change their purchasing habits. That's one conversation.
There's the actual impact of today's behaviors. That's another -- that's what I meant.
But it's all about a individual choices. If you educate people they can choose. You can't just say "veganism is better for the environment" as a blanket statement because it's not true.
It's not even close to the car comparison if you are stating the choice people need to make to make it true.
(And on the car thing, I have neighbors with three drivers- they are heading into town and then home constantly. We are several miles per town. I was just thinking this morning that they are so wasteful and hard on the environment when I saw the son head out for one of his 5 or so trips a day. We aren't going to do anything to change the minds of people like that in most cases. )1 -
janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »TravisJHunt wrote: »rainbowbow wrote: »cmriverside wrote: »My "save the animals" argument has always been:
How many animals and trees die in order to plant vast food crops over huge areas of land? Never mind the pesticides which mess up the ecosystem in general, but how about all the ground dwelling creatures that are killed by modern farm machines and lack of habitat? I don't think anyones' hands are clean. If we eat, other things die to make that happen. We were given dominion over the animals of the earth. It's not a pretty story - but then humans are pretty awful in general.
I just want to point out that it's actually significantly better for the environment to consume crops than to consume animals. Especially beef which also releases a significant amount of methane in our atmosphere.
I know you want to have a world-view that opposes that, but it just makes sense that growing animals is less efficient than growing crops. You have to have land for animals to live on, you have to feed and water animals food and water... we could be eating.
I think it's important (not from an ethical view point but from a logical one) to atleast reduce red-meat consumption as far as the environment is concerned along with doing everything we can to fight for legislation that falls in line with renewable energy, less fossil fuel based transportation, less waste and fresh water in agriculture and industrial sectors, less fracking or polluting of fresh water sources, recycling when possible, reducing our ac/heating when not necessary, and reducing the purchasing of certain items (like plastic water bottles) which are disposable.
We weren't given dominion over the planet, and at some point we're more than likely going to have to reap some serious consequences for our actions.
Actually no, this is one of the biggest myths for Vegan argument. One major error even with the whole Vegan is better for the environment is that most studies that have compared have compared this to the effect of the amount of food produced by size. So the cost to the environment to make one bushel of beef, vs one bushel of broccoli. Problem here is that you are going to get a lot calories and energy from one bushel of beef vs one bushel of broccoli. Once these studies looked at for example, the amount of harm to the environment if you compare at the actual diet level (the amount of food needed to be consumed equally) it was often found that it would be worse if we all switched to Vegan for the environment. You need a lot more food to satisfy calorie needs for a Vegan diet than many other diets.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/vegetarian-diet-bad-for-environment-meat-study-lettuce-three-times-worse-emissions-bacon-a6773671.html
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/next/earth/going-vegan-isnt-actually-th/
http://time.com/money/4154705/vegetarian-meat-bad-for-environment/
http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2013-08/why-vegan-diets-suck
http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/06/health/vegetarian-diet-conversation/index.html
Just a few links.
But animals don't grow on nothing. It takes crops to create the meat, so you'd need to consider the total calories consumed per pound of beef to be accurate.
The issue here is that it depends. A ruminant animal can eat things that humans can't. So if you aren't overgrazing and feeding native plants they can have very little impact. If it's a big feed lot operation it can have a very different impact.
Regardless of what we might wish for the future, most ruminant animals used for food in the US are part of feedlot operations for at least a portion of their lives. It has to be taken into account when we're evaluating the current impact on the environment. I've seen hypothetical examples based on the assumption that could change and those are interesting conversations, but not quite what we're discussing here.
I'm not sure how it isn't what we're discussing. Environmental impacts. Depending on where you live you might be able to buy from operations that aren't feed lot style. I can where I live, it's not everywhere, but for some parts of the US, grass fed meat from small farms is an option.
Individuals can choose to purchase from small farms (assuming such a source is available to them), but I'm thinking of the larger, population-level impact and that makes it absolutely relevant that most ruminants killed for meat in the US are run through feedlot operations.
It's like discussing the environmental impact of cars but basing your calculations on the assumption that everyone is driving an electric. They might someday and you can use the projected change as a basis for an argument that more people should . . . but they aren't right now.
There's the theoretical impact if people would change their purchasing habits. That's one conversation.
There's the actual impact of today's behaviors. That's another -- that's what I meant.
But it's all about a individual choices. If you educate people they can choose. You can't just say "veganism is better for the environment" as a blanket statement because it's not true.
It's not even close to the car comparison if you are stating the choice people need to make to make it true.
(And on the car thing, I have neighbors with three drivers- they are heading into town and then home constantly. We are several miles per town. I was just thinking this morning that they are so wasteful and hard on the environment when I saw the son head out for one of his 5 or so trips a day. We aren't going to do anything to change the minds of people like that in most cases. )
I don't have a problem with attempting to educate people on the impacts of their choices. I'm simply saying that if we're talking about the impact of animal agriculture, we should address it in terms of its actual impacts. If the case someone wants to make is that eliminating or reducing feedlot operations (while continuing to use animals for food) would ameliorate that impact, I understand that. But to say the impact "depends" based on a theoretical choice that people aren't making doesn't seem completely straight up to me.
It's having an actual impact now. There are different possible solutions, including what you have proposed.
0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.3K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 424 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions