Netflix Documentary "What the Health" by Kip Andersen

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.

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.)

cmriverside wrote: »

jenilla1 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.

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.

I guess. But that's like saying if we can't be 100% perfect we shouldn't even try.

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.

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.

Wtn_Gurl wrote: »

stevencloser wrote: »

macro4luv2 wrote: »

PaulaWallaDingDong wrote: »

macro4luv2 wrote: »

This documentary was as full of crap as processed food, I think most of the experts were actors. Diets are individual. I was done when they said sugar wasn't bad for you.....

Is sugar bad for you? You must have been watching the other netflix documentaries as well.

I'll clear that up... Processed sugar is bad for you. I do watch other netflix docs. and some are better than others...... lol

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.

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).

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.