Gamechangers...
forensicanthropology
Posts: 29 Member
Anybody watched it on Netflix? Thoughts? Im a lifelong vegetarian with egg allergy and I don't like cheese or butter so the only thing keeping me from being plant based is the milk and yogurt. I have just changed to coconut milk and planning on changing to entirely plant based in the next week.
3
Replies
-
Our bodies are designed to be omnivorous not herbivorous6
-
did you watch the film?
0 -
forensicanthropology wrote: »did you watch the film?
As if Netflix entertainment-mentaries don't have an agenda??10 -
find me a platform where there is no agenda. Fortunately, I am intelligent enough to search out the peer reviewed literature myself. I was simply curious if anybody had any other thoughts.
4 -
I avoid netflix documentaries as they get me all excited or worked up about something, hoping theyll hold up to me researching it, and they never do.
I have never seen any research that strongly suggests health benefits of vegetarian over omnivore that isn't easily refuted and is reproducible. I always come away with the idea that a calorie appropriate, varied, nutrient rich diet with enough protein, fiber, and fat is key whether you are vegetarian or omnivore.
I'm sure we discussed this here when it first came out, so if you don't get much interest in this thread you might try searching the forum with the doc title. :drinker:10 -
forensicanthropology wrote: »find me a platform where there is no agenda. Fortunately, I am intelligent enough to search out the peer reviewed literature myself. I was simply curious if anybody had any other thoughts.
Netflix is over the top with its agenda, though. Way too biased and easily refuted.4 -
Truthfully, I've avoided it on purpose, for many reasons. Here are a few:
1. Reviews like these, from qualified dietitians and other nutritional experts (the first one linked is by a vegan, BTW):
https://dieteticallyspeaking.com/an-evidence-based-review-of-the-game-changers/
https://www.biolayne.com/articles/research/the-game-changers-review-a-scientific-analysis/
2. A reputation of Netflix food/diet documentaries generally as being advocacy pieces, not good science, coupled with the science-based reviews saying this was another of the same, plus it having been produced by people with a stake in vegan products companies.
3. Sniff test: Humans evolved as opportunistic omnivores. Why would they thrive best eating in a different way? Big claims require big proof.
4. Serious professional and other elite athletes will do nearly anything to squeeze out a competitive advantage, even a tiny one. Most of them rely on highly skilled, specialized professionals to guide them, utilizing the most recent and best scientific research. If veganism really delivered in the way this suggests, veganism would be broadly adopted by now. It hasn't been. (I've follow some of the nutritional guidance to national team - i.e., Olympic - athletes. Veganism isn't a core principle, not even close. I actually know current/former national team athletes in my sport, BTW - not a vegan among that subset.)
. . . and there's more, but that's enough.
There are many good reasons to become vegan. Athletic excellence is not prime among them. Athletes who are vegan can perform well, but I see no compelling evidence for a vegan advantage. I'm not vegan, but have been vegetarian for 46+ years, so I'm hardly a shill for "big meat".
As a vegetarian, I resent biased advocacy pieces that - frankly - make vegans and vegetarians look like deluded idiots. I don't need to watch every example to have a reasonable expectation that Gamechangers is just one of the recent examples of this type.
If you want to switch to a fully plant-based diet, I think that's great. If you're also an athlete, you can be reassured that with careful attention to nutrition (like understanding essential amino acid requirements for muscle protein synthesis, supplementation requirements, etc.), your athletic performance can continue unimpaired. I'm 100% convinced there's no advantage, athletically. In fact, vegan eating as an athlete (and to a lesser extent just as an average human) requires slightly more attention to good nutrition, vs omnivory. It's not an automatic win for nutrition or health.
(I'm not saying vegetarianism is "better", either. I eat how I eat for personal reasons, but don't consider it universally superior in the abstract.)12 -
paulcaesar67 wrote: »Our bodies are designed to be omnivorous not herbivorous
First, designed by whom?
And omnivore is, biologically, an individual that has the ability to survive on both plant and animal matter. Being an omnivore physiologically means that we have the ability to *choose* to thrive on a plant-based diet. Animal products aren't obligatory to us.8 -
cmriverside wrote: »forensicanthropology wrote: »find me a platform where there is no agenda. Fortunately, I am intelligent enough to search out the peer reviewed literature myself. I was simply curious if anybody had any other thoughts.
Netflix is over the top with its agenda, though. Way too biased and easily refuted.
I am not defending the film, but Netflix is simply *showing* it. It had nothing to do with the production of the film. This is like blaming Netflix for the content of "Ancient Aliens" or one of several anti-sugar/Paleo films they've shown over the years.7 -
https://youtu.be/R6Ju_HdWB0Y - All you really need to know.... 4 -
Interesting movie. Entertaining. Just full of cherry picked studies and misinformation. I would watch forks over knives if I wanted a little more accurate info. FON is still propaganda, but a little more accurate.5
-
janejellyroll wrote: »paulcaesar67 wrote: »Our bodies are designed to be omnivorous not herbivorous
First, designed by whom?
And omnivore is, biologically, an individual that has the ability to survive on both plant and animal matter. Being an omnivore physiologically means that we have the ability to *choose* to thrive on a plant-based diet. Animal products aren't obligatory to us.
If a diet requires fortification and/or supplementation, then i wouldn't call that thriving. And more often than not, b12 and iron become big concerns on plant based diets. Given the benefits of lean animal proteins and fish (plus the improved amino acids profiles, which are favorable to athletic performance, there is a reason pro athletes follow less restrictive approaches to nutrition. And yes, i feel this way about thr opposite end of the spectrum with ketogenic diets as well.
If we take an anthropological standpoint from this conversation, they would consume whatever was in abundance during the season. Maybe you can correct me, but where any ancient societies plant based?5 -
OP, it comes down to beliefs and goals? My goals are around body composition and aesthetics. And while i cut with ketogenic, i tend to focus more of lean proteins, seafood and fibrous foods. It makes me feel and perform better in the gym. Once i am done cutting i will come off keto (likely) and move towards a more flexible diet and increase plant consumption. But overall, i don't see value in going completely plant or meat based. There are tons of benefits from both. So why not maximize your results.1
-
janejellyroll wrote: »paulcaesar67 wrote: »Our bodies are designed to be omnivorous not herbivorous
First, designed by whom?
And omnivore is, biologically, an individual that has the ability to survive on both plant and animal matter. Being an omnivore physiologically means that we have the ability to *choose* to thrive on a plant-based diet. Animal products aren't obligatory to us.
If a diet requires fortification and/or supplementation, then i wouldn't call that thriving. And more often than not, b12 and iron become big concerns on plant based diets. Given the benefits of lean animal proteins and fish (plus the improved amino acids profiles, which are favorable to athletic performance, there is a reason pro athletes follow less restrictive approaches to nutrition. And yes, i feel this way about thr opposite end of the spectrum with ketogenic diets as well.
If we take an anthropological standpoint from this conversation, they would consume whatever was in abundance during the season. Maybe you can correct me, but where any ancient societies plant based?
I agree. Our ancient ancestors would have eaten whatever the hell they could get. Protein, unlike what the paleo folks will tell you, was a hard commodity to come by. When meat was available, they ate it. In fact there is documentation of the Hadza eating 5lbs of meat at a sitting after a kill. They actually attack the organs and hind quarters first. High in fat and minerals.5 -
janejellyroll wrote: »paulcaesar67 wrote: »Our bodies are designed to be omnivorous not herbivorous
First, designed by whom?
And omnivore is, biologically, an individual that has the ability to survive on both plant and animal matter. Being an omnivore physiologically means that we have the ability to *choose* to thrive on a plant-based diet. Animal products aren't obligatory to us.
If a diet requires fortification and/or supplementation, then i wouldn't call that thriving. And more often than not, b12 and iron become big concerns on plant based diets. Given the benefits of lean animal proteins and fish (plus the improved amino acids profiles, which are favorable to athletic performance, there is a reason pro athletes follow less restrictive approaches to nutrition. And yes, i feel this way about thr opposite end of the spectrum with ketogenic diets as well.
If we take an anthropological standpoint from this conversation, they would consume whatever was in abundance during the season. Maybe you can correct me, but where any ancient societies plant based?
I'm probably just being pedantic (as is so often the case), but that seems to me to be an odd way to look at "thriving". "Thriving" seems to me to be about the state of the organism, not how it reached that state.
I think you probably know by now that I don't consider fully plant-based eating (or my own vegetarian eating style) to be optimal from an ease or perhaps even performance standpoint (because it is a little more fiddly in practice to get good nutrition, even though I think it's possible, as perhaps you don't). The reasons to be vegetarian, fully-plant-based, or vegan lie in other realms, IMO.
Maybe I'm incorrect, but I've had the impression that you do or have used some supplements at times. If that's true, have you considered yourself not to be "thriving" at those times?
I'm inclined to agree with Jane that one - as a modern-times person in many parts of the world - can "thrive" on a fully plant-based diet, i.e., be about as healthy and high performing as their genetics and personal effort allow them to be. But it would require a bit more attention and intention to do that with a fully plant-based (or vegetarian) diet, vs. "thriving" as an ominvore. Just my opinion, of course.6 -
janejellyroll wrote: »paulcaesar67 wrote: »Our bodies are designed to be omnivorous not herbivorous
First, designed by whom?
And omnivore is, biologically, an individual that has the ability to survive on both plant and animal matter. Being an omnivore physiologically means that we have the ability to *choose* to thrive on a plant-based diet. Animal products aren't obligatory to us.
If a diet requires fortification and/or supplementation, then i wouldn't call that thriving. And more often than not, b12 and iron become big concerns on plant based diets. Given the benefits of lean animal proteins and fish (plus the improved amino acids profiles, which are favorable to athletic performance, there is a reason pro athletes follow less restrictive approaches to nutrition. And yes, i feel this way about thr opposite end of the spectrum with ketogenic diets as well.
If we take an anthropological standpoint from this conversation, they would consume whatever was in abundance during the season. Maybe you can correct me, but where any ancient societies plant based?
I'm probably just being pedantic (as is so often the case), but that seems to me to be an odd way to look at "thriving". "Thriving" seems to me to be about the state of the organism, not how it reached that state.
I think you probably know by now that I don't consider fully plant-based eating (or my own vegetarian eating style) to be optimal from an ease or perhaps even performance standpoint (because it is a little more fiddly in practice to get good nutrition, even though I think it's possible, as perhaps you don't). The reasons to be vegetarian, fully-plant-based, or vegan lie in other realms, IMO.
Maybe I'm incorrect, but I've had the impression that you do or have used some supplements at times. If that's true, have you considered yourself not to be "thriving" at those times?
I'm inclined to agree with Jane that one - as a modern-times person in many parts of the world - can "thrive" on a fully plant-based diet, i.e., be about as healthy and high performing as their genetics and personal effort allow them to be. But it would require a bit more attention and intention to do that with a fully plant-based (or vegetarian) diet, vs. "thriving" as an ominvore. Just my opinion, of course.
First, yes, there are periods where i have had to supplement. The ketogenic, in my opinion, is equally suboptimal in many standards. It impairs performance and if carefully not managed, you can get electrolyte deficiencies. That did happen to me for a small period (like a few days).
My supplementation is for performance enhancement and the additional 1%. I used to supplement with creatine but that screwed up my stomach. Currently i use protein powder and L-Citrulline; i was running a pre-workout but ran out.
We could probably argue endlessly, but a complete diet, to me, provides all nutrients. A diet that has higher than normal deficiencies (as a population) doesn't suggest to me that you can thrive on the diet alone. Therefore, a diet requiring supplementation or fortification tells me its not complete and is suboptimal compared to other diets. So the question begs, can you perform better on a different diet. People often think what they are doing is thriving but if they switched to a different diet, they might find out they weren't. Interestingly, i read an article awhile after this movie came out and a lot of the athletes that went plant based switched back from impacted performance. This also happened when keto got popular.
ETA: i openly acknowledge that I follow a suboptimal diet for satiety. It keeps my binges under control and allows for calorie control. I know i will go back to being a flexible dieter after i lose the fat.3 -
janejellyroll wrote: »paulcaesar67 wrote: »Our bodies are designed to be omnivorous not herbivorous
First, designed by whom?
Designed by God.1 -
janejellyroll wrote: »paulcaesar67 wrote: »Our bodies are designed to be omnivorous not herbivorous
First, designed by whom?
Designed by God.
Careful sir. There are folks here of all beliefs or none at all.5 -
I agree with kimny72 who wrote ‘ I always come away with the idea that a calorie appropriate, varied, nutrient rich diet with enough protein, fiber, and fat is key whether you are vegetarian or omnivore.’
Read the China study by Thomas colins PHD, eat to live by dr Jeremy Sherman or in defence of food by Michael polson
Michael polson sums it up well .... eat food, not too much, mostly plants.
Canada’s new food guide is also interesting and was revised a couple of years ago without food industry or marketing boards ‘at the table’.
At the end of the day you have to do what is right for you.
I’ve watched gamechangers. Found it to be very biased and one sided. One part that stands out is they took people who were eating nutritionally unbalanced diets and put them on plant based only and they became healthier. Let’s face it, if those people, who were not eating fruits or vegetables or whole grains at all, replaced half of their unhealthy diet with these new healthy choices and kept the other half of unhealthy, then they would likely also have become healthier.
Even though I’ve read and keep reading different studies and points of view, I continue to eat in an omnivore way. Why? Habit? Convenience? My husband does the shopping and cooking ? — that last reason is likely the most significant in my life. We are all different and have different circumstances and make different conclusions based on the information available.
Do what is right for you.
Take care3 -
There are plenty of societies that have been strictly vegetarian for years. There are also plenty of societies that almost exclusively eat meat or fish. Humans have, as a species, adapted to a variety of diets and thrived. What we tend to forget is that those individual populations with diets at one or the other end of the spectrum have adapted over time and have different gut flora and/or sensivities than those of us who come from populations that have been have had more catholic* diets through the centuries. Thus, I don't find it surprising that someone moving from one type of diet to another might need supplementation to be healthy on that diet.
*note the lower case c3 -
janejellyroll wrote: »paulcaesar67 wrote: »Our bodies are designed to be omnivorous not herbivorous
First, designed by whom?
And omnivore is, biologically, an individual that has the ability to survive on both plant and animal matter. Being an omnivore physiologically means that we have the ability to *choose* to thrive on a plant-based diet. Animal products aren't obligatory to us.
If a diet requires fortification and/or supplementation, then i wouldn't call that thriving. And more often than not, b12 and iron become big concerns on plant based diets. Given the benefits of lean animal proteins and fish (plus the improved amino acids profiles, which are favorable to athletic performance, there is a reason pro athletes follow less restrictive approaches to nutrition. And yes, i feel this way about thr opposite end of the spectrum with ketogenic diets as well.
If we take an anthropological standpoint from this conversation, they would consume whatever was in abundance during the season. Maybe you can correct me, but where any ancient societies plant based?
Why do we have to eat how ancient societies ate? We don't limit our actions to what was possible to them in most areas of our lives.
There were ancient societies that got a lot of calories from plants (just as some people do today), but I'm not aware of any that limited their diets to exclusively plants. But when we're looking at how we can thrive in today's environment, why would we rule out minimal supplementation? Keep in mind that many non-vegans also supplement and also meet their dietary needs through widespread fortification.5 -
janejellyroll wrote: »paulcaesar67 wrote: »Our bodies are designed to be omnivorous not herbivorous
First, designed by whom?
Designed by God.
Many of us don't believe that God designed us and even some who don't wouldn't agree that God designed us to require animal products. This is the type of argument that will be very convincing to those who already agree with you on fundamentals, but doesn't do that much for anyone else.6 -
janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »paulcaesar67 wrote: »Our bodies are designed to be omnivorous not herbivorous
First, designed by whom?
And omnivore is, biologically, an individual that has the ability to survive on both plant and animal matter. Being an omnivore physiologically means that we have the ability to *choose* to thrive on a plant-based diet. Animal products aren't obligatory to us.
If a diet requires fortification and/or supplementation, then i wouldn't call that thriving. And more often than not, b12 and iron become big concerns on plant based diets. Given the benefits of lean animal proteins and fish (plus the improved amino acids profiles, which are favorable to athletic performance, there is a reason pro athletes follow less restrictive approaches to nutrition. And yes, i feel this way about thr opposite end of the spectrum with ketogenic diets as well.
If we take an anthropological standpoint from this conversation, they would consume whatever was in abundance during the season. Maybe you can correct me, but where any ancient societies plant based?
Why do we have to eat how ancient societies ate? We don't limit our actions to what was possible to them in most areas of our lives.
There were ancient societies that got a lot of calories from plants (just as some people do today), but I'm not aware of any that limited their diets to exclusively plants. But when we're looking at how we can thrive in today's environment, why would we rule out minimal supplementation? Keep in mind that many non-vegans also supplement and also meet their dietary needs through widespread fortification.
Never said we had to limit ourselves to foods based on our anthropological ancestry. Not once. If you choose to eat that way, then its a valid choice. Our bodies are designed, to eat both meat and plants. And different societies at different ratios of plants vs meats.
If a person requires (key word) supplementation/fortification to thrive or be optimal, then i would make an arrangement that there are better diets. Again, it's a pedantic argument.
Overall, a person needs a find a diet that is optimal for themselves. And there is no one diet that works for most. Going plant based is no healthier than a diet that has both plants and meat. For me and my goals, as an athlete, a plant based diet will not be sufficient for my needs. No documentary will change that.2 -
HeidiCooksSupper wrote: »There are plenty of societies that have been strictly vegetarian for years. There are also plenty of societies that almost exclusively eat meat or fish. Humans have, as a species, adapted to a variety of diets and thrived. What we tend to forget is that those individual populations with diets at one or the other end of the spectrum have adapted over time and have different gut flora and/or sensivities than those of us who come from populations that have been have had more catholic* diets through the centuries. Thus, I don't find it surprising that someone moving from one type of diet to another might need supplementation to be healthy on that diet.
*note the lower case c
Your point about adaptation is very material, but I think limited in applicability in this context. To my knowledge, the very best evidence is that fully plant-based diets require supplementation for best odds of long-term good health. I think Psu is correct about that, but disagree with the idea that "needs supplements" = "not thriving", when said supplements are readily available to a person, and they're using them.
Some potential deficiencies can be mitigated through food choice (iron, calcium . . . ), but B12 is . . . hard. Maybe impossible. Perhaps others know of specific, long-term successful *fully* plant-based societies. I don't, but I've never made a study of the question. If there are some, the B12 case is strong enough that I'd be looking to see whether they consume something quite unusual that makes up for the deficiency.
Maybe we'll learn, someday, that some specialized gut microbiota do the trick. (I gather that bacteria play a role in the manufacture of vegan-friendly supplements). But that's not all that helpful for modern-society fully plant-based eaters: Needed bugs of specific types don't appear through magic, though changes in diet do foster certain changes over a period of time, as I understand it . . . but there needs to be a source for those specific microbes in the first place. Even if there's an explanation in microbiology for historical fully-plant-based societies that thrived (heh), I'd put zero dollars on the idea that taking any available broad-type probiotic supplement would accomplish anything on the B12 front. (OTOH, I've never bought a lottery ticket, either. 😉)
1 -
Continuing the pedantry:janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »paulcaesar67 wrote: »Our bodies are designed to be omnivorous not herbivorous
First, designed by whom?
And omnivore is, biologically, an individual that has the ability to survive on both plant and animal matter. Being an omnivore physiologically means that we have the ability to *choose* to thrive on a plant-based diet. Animal products aren't obligatory to us.
If a diet requires fortification and/or supplementation, then i wouldn't call that thriving. And more often than not, b12 and iron become big concerns on plant based diets. Given the benefits of lean animal proteins and fish (plus the improved amino acids profiles, which are favorable to athletic performance, there is a reason pro athletes follow less restrictive approaches to nutrition. And yes, i feel this way about thr opposite end of the spectrum with ketogenic diets as well.
If we take an anthropological standpoint from this conversation, they would consume whatever was in abundance during the season. Maybe you can correct me, but where any ancient societies plant based?
Why do we have to eat how ancient societies ate? We don't limit our actions to what was possible to them in most areas of our lives.
There were ancient societies that got a lot of calories from plants (just as some people do today), but I'm not aware of any that limited their diets to exclusively plants. But when we're looking at how we can thrive in today's environment, why would we rule out minimal supplementation? Keep in mind that many non-vegans also supplement and also meet their dietary needs through widespread fortification.
Never said we had to limit ourselves to foods based on our anthropological ancestry. Not once. If you choose to eat that way, then its a valid choice. Our bodies are designed, to eat both meat and plants. And different societies at different ratios of plants vs meats.
If a person requires (key word) supplementation/fortification to thrive or be optimal, then i would make an arrangement that there are better diets. Again, it's a pedantic argument.
If you'd phrased it that way in the first place, I probably wouldn't have quibbled. Your PP essentially suggested that supplementing (when required) means the organism doesn't thrive. Thriving is the outcome, not the path to get there.
I agree that a chosen dietary pattern that requires supplementation in order for a person to thrive can be considered suboptimal from a purely technical nutritional standpoint. People choose their eating styles for a variety of reasons, only some of which are about nutrition. I personally think it's silly when people make choices that *ignore* nutritional needs, or don't meet sensible minimums somehow, but it's still their choice, of course. Making choices for other than nutritional reasons, in ways that still allow for good nutrition, seems perfectly rational to me. (Talking about either veganism, or your choices in pursuit of performance, here.)
I think we mostly agree - thought so when I posted - but as an ol' liberal arts major, sometimes I get picky about the implications of word choice. Apologies for that . . . but I still think thriving is a state of the organism, not a feature of the food choices. Vegans can thrive. Less nutritionally optimal? Sure, I'll buy that (though I would've chosen different words myself).
Of course, just being omnivorous doesn't guarantee optimality, either. 😉 You didn't say that, and I'm quite certain you don't believe it, either. 😆
FWIW, over and over here, I encourage people to reconsider a planned move to vegetarianism (my pattern) if they're doing it "for health" or "for weight loss". It has no magic in those realms. There are reasons for the choice, but they're elsewhere.
Overall, a person needs a find a diet that is optimal for themselves. And there is no one diet that works for most. Going plant based is no healthier than a diet that has both plants and meat. For me and my goals, as an athlete, a plant based diet will not be sufficient for my needs. No documentary will change that.
I agree, of course.1 -
janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »paulcaesar67 wrote: »Our bodies are designed to be omnivorous not herbivorous
First, designed by whom?
And omnivore is, biologically, an individual that has the ability to survive on both plant and animal matter. Being an omnivore physiologically means that we have the ability to *choose* to thrive on a plant-based diet. Animal products aren't obligatory to us.
If a diet requires fortification and/or supplementation, then i wouldn't call that thriving. And more often than not, b12 and iron become big concerns on plant based diets. Given the benefits of lean animal proteins and fish (plus the improved amino acids profiles, which are favorable to athletic performance, there is a reason pro athletes follow less restrictive approaches to nutrition. And yes, i feel this way about thr opposite end of the spectrum with ketogenic diets as well.
If we take an anthropological standpoint from this conversation, they would consume whatever was in abundance during the season. Maybe you can correct me, but where any ancient societies plant based?
Why do we have to eat how ancient societies ate? We don't limit our actions to what was possible to them in most areas of our lives.
There were ancient societies that got a lot of calories from plants (just as some people do today), but I'm not aware of any that limited their diets to exclusively plants. But when we're looking at how we can thrive in today's environment, why would we rule out minimal supplementation? Keep in mind that many non-vegans also supplement and also meet their dietary needs through widespread fortification.
Never said we had to limit ourselves to foods based on our anthropological ancestry. Not once. If you choose to eat that way, then its a valid choice. Our bodies are designed, to eat both meat and plants. And different societies at different ratios of plants vs meats.
If a person requires (key word) supplementation/fortification to thrive or be optimal, then i would make an arrangement that there are better diets. Again, it's a pedantic argument.
Overall, a person needs a find a diet that is optimal for themselves. And there is no one diet that works for most. Going plant based is no healthier than a diet that has both plants and meat. For me and my goals, as an athlete, a plant based diet will not be sufficient for my needs. No documentary will change that.
I don't think I'm arguing that veganism/plant-based is necessarily the BEST diet, assuming we could even agree on what measures made a diet the "best" (generally for a wider discussion, not necessarily that you and I couldn't agree). My point was that our very nature as omnivores means that -- at least in present conditions -- we (meaning at least some individuals of the species) can thrive without consuming animal products.
I would never argue that going plant-based is healthier than a diet including plants and meat because I have not seen evidence to convince me it's true.
I am not trying to persuade you to accept the claims of this documentary. I don't accept them myself. I was responding to the comment above, in this discussion, that we were "designed" to be omnivores as if that REQUIRES us to include animal products in our diet. You have made your own call based on your observations of your body and performance, which I am not second guessing. Here is my call: I do not require animal products in my diet and there are many other vegans/plant-based eaters who have made the same observation, which is backed up by long-term studies of vegan populations and their health outcomes.
Observing that some individuals do very well on a vegan diet is NOT me arguing that every individual would have the same outcome. I can't know that and obviously studying groups of vegans who have been practicing the diet long-term is going to skew your group to people who tend to feel good and perform well on a vegan diet. I realize the limitations of what these studies can prove -- they aren't going to prove that the person who tried veganism for six months and quit because they didn't feel good would have done great if they'd only tried different foods or stuck with it. We can't eliminate the possibility that some people will have an easier time thriving on a vegan diet than others (or even that some people CAN'T thrive as vegans). But the point remains that if we REQUIRED animal products, as a species, to thrive, we wouldn't see the results we see.
Clearly at least a portion of the human population doesn't require animal products, which is why I push back against statements that eating them is required for any human to have good health.2 -
janejellyroll wrote: »paulcaesar67 wrote: »Our bodies are designed to be omnivorous not herbivorous
First, designed by whom?
Designed by God.
Disclaimer: I’m a life long atheist.
Oh, my mistake, I thought it was the Garden of Eden - not the Livestock Farm of Eden! 😂0 -
cmriverside wrote: »forensicanthropology wrote: »find me a platform where there is no agenda. Fortunately, I am intelligent enough to search out the peer reviewed literature myself. I was simply curious if anybody had any other thoughts.
Netflix is over the top with its agenda, though. Way too biased and easily refuted.
Netflix doesn't have an agenda other than getting and retaining subs. they do tend to pick "documentaries" with obvious agendas because they get people to debate on the internet1 -
I just like when documentaries/articles/whatever about veganism reference world-class athletes with extremely muscular physiques who follow the lifestyle, but don't mention that they built those physiques before they adopted the lifestyle.2
-
extra_medium wrote: »I just like when documentaries/articles/whatever about veganism reference world-class athletes with extremely muscular physiques who follow the lifestyle, but don't mention that they built those physiques before they adopted the lifestyle.
That's a big thing with Keto, too.2
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K 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
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions