Netflix Documentary "What the Health" by Kip Andersen

24

Replies

  • Posts: 35 Member
    I watched 'What the Health' last night. A lot of what they're saying makes sense about processed foods, and additives and sick animals that people eat (doesn't sound great). What I don't really get is their alternative plan. Simply stating to eat veggies and plants didn't educate me so I know what to eat and how to do it. I would like their to be a more in depth analysis on food they are promoting, and maybe meal plans for health advocates to try. If it isn't impossible or leave me starving I'd be willing to try it. Not sure how I feel accept, very guilty. I was vegetarian for 2 years a long time ago, just because I love animals. I felt weak and tired all the time so I stopped when my hair started falling out (but that's just me!). We need solutions presented along with the problems and less catchy answers like "eat plants!"
  • Posts: 3,213 Member
    It seems that the study linked below forms the basis of Greger's statement/theory. From the abstract of this study:

    "The ingestion of fatty meals is associated with a transient, low-grade systemic inflammatory response in human subjects, involving the activation of circulating monocytes and the secretion of pro-inflammatory cytokines. However, it is not yet clear how different foodstuffs may promote inflammatory signalling...In conclusion, apparently unspoiled foodstuffs can contain large quantities of stimulants of TLR2 and TLR4, both of which may regulate their capacity to stimulate inflammatory signalling."

    https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/british-journal-of-nutrition/article/capacity-of-foodstuffs-to-induce-innate-immune-activation-of-human-monocytes-in-vitro-is-dependent-on-food-content-of-stimulants-of-tolllike-receptors-2-and-4/D718D5E9F16F2F9E4075D32373C874BA

    My take on it at this point in time is in line with Rainbowbow's post. He (my husband) is probably sensitive to sat fats. The theory that the presence of food borne bacteria exacerbates the inflammatory response is just a theory. If so, chicken breast, which is relatively low in sat fats but, imo, has more opportunity to carry bacteria (campylobacter I'm looking at you), should elevate his blood pressure as much as beef does.
  • Posts: 14,464 Member
    I live on the prairies. The most stable ecosystem is the one that was here before the ranches and the farms. This means mixed grasslands with huge roaming herds of buffalo, large predators and massive flocks of passenger pigeons obscuring the sun.

    A vegan prairie is not healthy prairie. It's a few monoculture cereal crops. Not terribly sustainable.
  • Posts: 2,343 Member
    Ooooh another Netflix food documentary! Yay lol
  • Posts: 15,532 Member
    Motorsheen wrote: »

    vegan zombies? ( we're safe from them, right? )


    .... driving hybrids and electric cars?


    That would depend: Do you have a real brain, or an imitation brain (perhaps TVP)?

    You obviously have never seen a vegan zombie drive a stick shift!
  • Posts: 801 Member
    chokhas wrote: »
    most people in my family are vegetarian and do not eat egg yet they'still have all high blood'pressure cholesterol etc. so I would be careful to believe those claims that vegetarian or vegan will not have any such health issues.

    I'm currently experimenting with a plant based diet and yeah, my most recent blood work was actually a bit worse than previously done ones, when I was eating meat 1-2 times a day. Still pretty similar and things like age need to be factored in, but I was expecting to see a significant difference with the dietary changes and was really surprised when I got my latest results in.
  • Posts: 34,458 Member
    It seems that the study linked below forms the basis of Greger's statement/theory. From the abstract of this study:

    "The ingestion of fatty meals is associated with a transient, low-grade systemic inflammatory response in human subjects, involving the activation of circulating monocytes and the secretion of pro-inflammatory cytokines. However, it is not yet clear how different foodstuffs may promote inflammatory signalling...In conclusion, apparently unspoiled foodstuffs can contain large quantities of stimulants of TLR2 and TLR4, both of which may regulate their capacity to stimulate inflammatory signalling."

    https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/british-journal-of-nutrition/article/capacity-of-foodstuffs-to-induce-innate-immune-activation-of-human-monocytes-in-vitro-is-dependent-on-food-content-of-stimulants-of-tolllike-receptors-2-and-4/D718D5E9F16F2F9E4075D32373C874BA

    My take on it at this point in time is in line with Rainbowbow's post. He (my husband) is probably sensitive to sat fats. The theory that the presence of food borne bacteria exacerbates the inflammatory response is just a theory. If so, chicken breast, which is relatively low in sat fats but, imo, has more opportunity to carry bacteria (campylobacter I'm looking at you), should elevate his blood pressure as much as beef does.

    "Jack Sprat could eat no fat, his wife could eat no lean..."
  • Posts: 11,118 Member
    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.

    Well, technically, a crap ton more resources are used to grow plants to feed the animals that then become our food than if you were just growing plants for human consumption. It's far more efficient to feed massive human populations with a plant-based diet. Human populations exploded back when agriculture (especially grain crops) was developed. Not making a judgment on health, just pointing out that plant crops are absolutely NOT more damaging than meat "crops." It takes massive amounts of plant crops to produce meat. (I eat meat myself, btw.)
  • Posts: 34,458 Member
    jenilla1 wrote: »

    Well, technically, a crap ton more resources are used to grow plants to feed the animals that then become our food than if you were just growing plants for human consumption. It's far more efficient to feed massive human populations with a plant-based diet. Human populations exploded back when agriculture (especially grain crops) was developed. Not making a judgment on health, just pointing out that plant crops are absolutely NOT more damaging than meat "crops." It takes massive amounts of plant crops to produce meat. (I eat meat myself, btw.)

    I didn't say that. I didn't make a value judgement that one was better than the other. I just said, "I don't think anyones' hands are clean." Because they aren't. If the argument (that was made earlier) is on ethical save-the-animals grounds, no one has grounds. If we eat, stuff dies.
  • Posts: 7,490 Member

    I didn't say that. I didn't make a value judgement that one was better than the other. I just said, "I don't think anyones' hands are clean." Because they aren't. If the argument (that was made earlier) is on ethical save-the-animals grounds, no one has grounds. If we eat, stuff dies.

    I guess. But that's like saying if we can't be 100% perfect we shouldn't even try. :neutral:
  • Posts: 3,213 Member

    dead meat bacteria toxins... can we shove any more buzzwords in there?

    The phrase "dead meat" is ridiculous. Unless of course, he actually felt it was necessary to distinguish from the zombie inspired practice of eating live flesh.
  • Posts: 578 Member
    My brother suggested that my mom and I watch this. I really tried (because I love and respect my brother), but immediately felt like I'd stumbled into a Vegan's Google search - where Google has already filtered out the results it knows the Vegan doesn't want to see. I turned it off after the 3rd time he was astonished that a call center employee or security guard couldn't answer questions about the website information.
  • Posts: 396 Member
    edited July 2017
    I saw it, plus a few other documentaries about veganism and plant based diet. On some message boards when people comment about people who choose to eat meat and dairy, there is like this intense hate and doom and gloom from the people who believe in the message from What the Health and such like that. however, in the past 3 weeks, I tried to go plant based, but I don't know what it was but I was plateauing. I had been eating two egg whites and Greek yogurt, and have less calories (since calories is THE way to lose weight); and also coffee creamer (which has the dreaded HFC in it but ONLY 1 calorie, vs the vegan way which packs on MORE calories. if I eat an oatmeal/nut/a little creamer it packs on 643 calories. So I have decided to go back to my way of dieting and even if it means I'm putting the awful "poison" in my body. I do not believe the miniscule amount of HFC in my coffee creamer and my eggs are gonna kill me. But it is hurting my weight loss progress to follow the veganism. So I watch it for interest but I have to make up my own mind.
  • Posts: 801 Member
    edited July 2017
    Wtn_Gurl wrote: »
    I saw it, plus a few other documentaries about veganism and plant based diet. On some message boards when people comment about people who choose to eat meat and dairy, there is like this intense hate and doom and gloom from the people who believe in the message from What the Health and such like that. however, in the past 3 weeks, I tried to go plant based, but I don't know what it was but I was plateauing. I had been eating two egg whites and Greek yogurt, and have less calories (since calories is THE way to lose weight); and also coffee creamer (which has the dreaded HFC in it but ONLY 1 calorie, vs the vegan way which packs on MORE calories. if I eat an oatmeal/nut/a little creamer it packs on 643 calories. So I have decided to go back to my way of dieting and even if it means I'm putting the awful "poison" in my body. I do not believe the miniscule amount of HFC in my coffee creamer and my eggs are gonna kill me. But it is hurting my weight loss progress to follow the veganism. So I watch it for interest but I have to make up my own mind.

    I eat a mostly plant based diet right now and my go-breakfast is under 200 calories, (2 slices of toasted, sprouted whole grains bread with a small amount of raw honey instead of butter), so it really just depends on what foods you chose to eat. You can chose to eat as few or as many calories on a plant based/vegan diet, the same as with any other way of eating.
  • Posts: 396 Member
    edited July 2017

    Still wrong.

    I have a question - re sugar (regular white table sugar). I know its BAD bad bad bad, but if I eat one Teaspoon a day, it has only 4 calories, will it really hurt me? if that's all I eat in one day this 1 tsp of regular sugar. I mean that's not ALL I eat, but its like one item i'd like to enjoy. Some things just taste better with sugar. of course, that's about all the indulgences I would eat. otherwise I eat pretty balanced home made food that I make.

  • Posts: 30,886 Member
    Wtn_Gurl wrote: »

    I have a question - re sugar (regular white table sugar). I know its BAD bad bad bad, but if I eat one Teaspoon a day, it has only 4 calories, will it really hurt me? if that's all I eat in one day this 1 tsp of regular sugar. I mean that's not ALL I eat, but its like one item i'd like to enjoy. Some things just taste better with sugar. of course, that's about all the indulgences I would eat. otherwise I eat pretty balanced home made food that I make.

    I think this is right. Sugar is sugar. Sugar in nutrient-dense foods of course comes in a more nutrient dense package, on average, but the idea that all added sugar is bad is as silly as the idea that all sugar is bad. I give examples of adding a bit of sugar to a rhubarb sauce and it having overall as many nutrients (and more fiber and less calories) than an apple, or same with a bit of sugar added to oats or the like. I almost never add sugar to things because I tend not to find it makes it taste better for me (unless it's something dessert like I'm having as a treat, of course), but if it does make oats taste better to add a tsp of sugar or even coffee, I can't see why that would be terrible when 18 g in a banana is fine. It's dosage and context.

    I think the "no more than 5% of calories from added sugar" is a good general rule (although I tend to have less on most days, more on the occasional day, personally).
  • Posts: 30,886 Member

    I eat a mostly plant based diet right now and my go-breakfast is under 200 calories, (2 slices of toasted, sprouted whole grains bread with a small amount of raw honey instead of butter), so it really just depends on what foods you chose to eat. You can chose to eat as few or as many calories on a plant based/vegan diet, the same as with any other way of eating.

    Yeah, I've done 100% plant based for periods of time, and my breakfast is always the same calories, since I just like having a substantial breakfast (of about 350-400 calories), no matter how I'm eating.
  • Posts: 25,763 Member

    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.
  • Posts: 533 Member
    edited July 2017

    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.

    Actually be fully accurate you need to compare a whole whack of things, most of which as one study noted I read said that its not as simple to say either is good or bad. For example some foods or animals are meant to survive better in certain climates. So for example living in Canada where we get frozen grounds for 1/2 the year, surviving on a Vegan only diet means I need to have most of food shipped in during the winter months, where meats and dairy are available year round easily. The cost of bringing in for example beans for somewhere near the equator is huge, in terms of fossil fuels used, etc. So again, the argument one is better over the other blindly is incorrect. I've got nothing against Vegan diet, just don't say its better for the environment on the whole because that statement is false. Unless I eat grain which can be stored for the animals, but I'm not sure eating dried stored grain is a diet anyone would want to eat.
  • Posts: 25,763 Member

    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.

    Also, doesn't this assume that all vegans would be choosing broccoli to replace beef? It would be more accurate to compare a more calorie-dense vegan food. Vegetables like broccoli aren't a major calorie source for most vegans, it would be more accurate to compare to a food like a cereal grain or a bean. By comparing a higher calorie food to a lower calorie one, you're virtually guaranteeing that veganism looks like it will require more land to feed people. The reality is that many vegans eat broccoli the way non-vegans do, alongside more calorie-dense foods.
  • Posts: 533 Member

    Also, doesn't this assume that all vegans would be choosing broccoli to replace beef? It would be more accurate to compare a more calorie-dense vegan food. Vegetables like broccoli aren't a major calorie source for most vegans, it would be more accurate to compare to a food like a cereal grain or a bean. By comparing a higher calorie food to a lower calorie one, you're virtually guaranteeing that veganism looks like it will require more land to feed people. The reality is that many vegans eat broccoli the way non-vegans do, alongside more calorie-dense foods.

    It was a simple example, sorry you must either be a troll or a Vegan. The point was simply as almost every study that has been done has shown if not cheery picked for answers, that switching our diet to Vegan across the world is not going to have the humongous savings to the environment that Vegan's like to argue. There are both good meats and good plant based products. To blindly say one is better than the other is ignorant.
  • Posts: 16,011 Member

    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.

    I guess I'll start by saying I'm not a troll and I eat all the meat :neutral:

    Link 1: Uses specific vegetable crops (especially lettuce) to make the comparison, not the kind of nutrient dense plants that would be most comparable to meat.
    Link 2: Actually concludes that while vegan wouldn't be the best environmentally, a vegetarian diet including dairy would be.
    Link 3: Is again about specific, low cal/low nutrient veggies and not a fair comparison.
    Link 4: Says right at the bottom "Copied from Authority Nutrition" which is not a source I would put any faith in, as evidenced by the click-bait title.
    Link 5: Is just a CNN article, and I read it to say that we can't really tell what would be most sustainable, because people's choices are hard to predict. But a point they touched on that I thought was salient was that the sustainability of a 100% vegan/vegetarian world diet would depend greatly on whether everyone would eat locally and in season, as there are environmental impacts to growing and shipping out of season/foreign produce.

    I think it's a fascinating argument as to what WOE is the most sustainable, but certainly not cut and dry. Based on my own research over the years, I believe a plant based world diet with small amounts of fish, eggs, dairy and meat would be the most sustainable, as there are geographic areas where growing crops is difficult but small animal farming would be possible. But this is just my opinion and I'm sure there are issues and effects I haven't considered.

    And if you eat nuts, seeds, avocados, and rice it is super easy to stuff a lot of vegan calories into a small amount of food.
This discussion has been closed.