5-Dec-19
This podcast features a debate between James Wilks, producer of the Netflix documentary “The Game Changers,” and Chris Kresser, a leader in ancestral health and functional medicine, regarding the health benefits of plant-based diets. The conversation gets heated as they discuss the evidence for and against veganism, with both sides making strong claims and challenging each other’s research interpretations. Provocative topics include the ethical considerations of consuming animal products, the role of industry influence in nutritional science, and the potential dangers of a 100% plant-based diet. Underlying themes explore the complexities of interpreting scientific data, the importance of considering the totality of evidence, and the challenges of navigating conflicting nutritional recommendations.
1. The Gladiator Controversy:
The podcast begins with a discussion about the documentary’s claim that gladiators ate a mostly plant-based diet.
Wilks argues that evidence from a single gladiator burial site suggested a predominantly vegetarian diet, but acknowledges that other sites have been discovered since then.
Kresser criticizes the documentary for cherry-picking evidence and not considering the totality of data from other archaeological sites.
The debate highlights the limitations of interpreting historical evidence and the need for a holistic approach to understanding past diets.
2. Evaluating Evidence and Identifying Bias:
The podcast delves into the complexities of evaluating scientific research, emphasizing the need to look at the totality of evidence, not just individual studies.
Wilks stresses the consensus of major health organizations, citing the World Health Organization, the FAO, and the American Heart Association as advocating predominantly plant-based diets.
Kresser argues that these recommendations change over time as scientific understanding evolves and cautions against relying solely on authority figures.
The discussion highlights the importance of identifying bias, particularly industry funding, which can influence the results and conclusions of research studies.
3. The Dairy and Cancer Debate:
The podcast delves into the controversial claim that dairy products cause cancer, a topic addressed in “The Game Changers.”
Wilks presents a meta-analysis of 150 studies, suggesting an inverse association between dairy consumption and cancer.
Kresser criticizes the documentary for misrepresenting the study, claiming that it shows no association for the majority of cancers and that industry-funded research may have skewed the results.
The debate highlights the challenges of interpreting meta-analyses, the importance of considering the limitations of observational studies, and the need for caution when drawing conclusions about causation from correlation.
4. The Meat and Cancer Connection:
The podcast explores the film’s assertion that meat consumption contributes to cancer, particularly through the presence of heme iron.
Wilks cites studies suggesting that heme iron is associated with an increased risk of cardiovascular disease and argues that a healthy diet pattern, including plant foods, can mitigate its negative effects.
Kresser counters that heme iron is not inherently bad, that the association with disease is likely due to confounding factors, and that the film cherry-picks data to support its claims.
The debate emphasizes the importance of context in interpreting research findings and the need to consider the overall dietary pattern, rather than focusing solely on individual food components.
5. The Role of Vitamin B12 in Plant-Based Diets:
The podcast discusses the film’s argument that vitamin B12 deficiency is a significant concern for vegans.
Wilks asserts that even farm animals require vitamin B12 supplements, implying that humans can obtain it only through animal products.
Kresser challenges this claim, presenting evidence that cattle are indeed given vitamin B12 supplements and highlighting that the film’s statement is factually incorrect.
The debate centers around the sources of vitamin B12, the role of soil and water in historical diets, and the necessity of supplementation in vegan diets.
6. The Protein Argument:
The podcast delves into the film’s claim that obtaining sufficient protein quantity and quality from plant-based diets is difficult.
Wilks presents various plant-based food sources that provide comparable protein content to meat, demonstrating that getting enough protein on a vegan diet is feasible.
Kresser argues that while plant-based diets can meet protein needs, the quality and digestibility of animal protein are superior, particularly for athletes.
The discussion focuses on the concept of protein quality, amino acid profiles, and the digestible indispensable amino acid score (DIAAS), a measure of protein digestibility.
7. Dietary Recommendations and Scientific Consensus:
The podcast explores the ongoing debate surrounding dietary recommendations and scientific consensus.
Wilks emphasizes the consensus of major health organizations, highlighting their recommendations for predominantly plant-based diets and the potential health benefits of veganism.
Kresser acknowledges that scientific consensus is evolving but argues that current evidence does not support the need for a 100% plant-based diet for everyone.
The discussion highlights the complexities of navigating conflicting recommendations, the need for individualized approaches to nutrition, and the challenges of interpreting conflicting scientific evidence.
8. The Role of Industry Influence in Nutrition Research:
The podcast delves into the influence of industry funding on nutrition research.
Wilks argues that industry-funded studies are more likely to produce results favorable to the sponsor, highlighting the potential for bias in the scientific literature.
Kresser acknowledges that industry influence is a concern, but emphasizes that it is a problem across the board, affecting research on both plant-based and animal-based foods.
The debate underscores the importance of considering the sources of research funding and recognizing potential conflicts of interest when evaluating scientific studies.
9. Endothelial Function and Animal Protein:
The podcast tackles the film’s assertion that animal protein impairs endothelial function, which is the ability of blood vessels to dilate and allow blood flow.
Wilks cites studies suggesting that high-fat meals, particularly those containing dairy and animal products, can negatively affect endothelial function.
Kresser presents evidence that animal proteins, especially milk and egg proteins, can actually improve endothelial function, highlighting the need to consider the context and overall dietary pattern.
The debate emphasizes the importance of understanding the complex interplay of dietary factors and their effects on cardiovascular health, and the challenges of drawing definitive conclusions from isolated research findings.
10. Closing Arguments:
The podcast concludes with both Wilks and Kresser reiterating their arguments and highlighting the key points of their respective positions.
Wilks emphasizes that he has successfully challenged Kresser’s rebuttals of the film, showcasing evidence that supports the claims made in “The Game Changers.”
Kresser maintains that the film’s claims are not supported by the totality of scientific evidence and emphasizes the importance of considering the complexities of nutrition and the need for individualized approaches.
The debate ultimately leaves the audience to evaluate the evidence presented and form their own conclusions about the health benefits of plant-based diets.
5 Memorable Quotes:
“So, Chris, do you think you should be fine? Okay. would you disagree that industry funded research has a 4 to 8 times increased risk compared to non industry funded research in find inclusions in that favor.” – Joe Rogan challenges Chris Kresser on his perspective regarding industry-funded research and its potential bias.
“It’s not a choice between a standard American diet and crappy processed food diet that contains meat or a vegan diet. Correct. It’s there is a possibility of a plant based diet, a diet that has a lot of plants that also contains animal products, and that compares comparing that with a 100% plant based diet, that is the operative question.” – Chris Kresser articulates the central question of the debate, emphasizing the need to consider a spectrum of dietary options rather than a strict dichotomy.
“You can’t just say any study. Right? Because I I Chris can bring a study here. — dietary proteins improve endothelial function under fasting conditions. but not in the postprandial state with no effects on markers of low grade inflammation.” – James Wilks highlights the importance of context in interpreting research findings, pointing out that isolated studies may not accurately reflect the overall picture.
“You honestly don’t think that that statement. Instead of just putting the 71% sure, no evidence, 13% So that would be the fairest, the most, you know, honest, ex like, summary of that statement. I would say that if you wanted to say it the most accurately, yes. That’s the best way to say. That’s the 21% showed no evidence. 13% showed decreased risk, but I don’t have a problem with saying 84% showed no evidence or a decreased risk. It’s true because we’re talking about something causing cancer. That’s the relevant point.” – James Wilks emphasizes the importance of considering the specific research question and the relevant data when summarizing scientific findings.
“And, Chris, I am showing that you picked a study from 2016, which have a very small sample size. There was 9 out of 10 comparisons right there. That was — That was the only — — study that — No. I’m not saying that you’re on study, but that — — study. I am saying that when you came to B Twelve, all of the statements that I made in the film were true and you said that they were passively false and you were wrong.” – James Wilks challenges Chris Kresser on his interpretation of a specific research study regarding vitamin B12 deficiency.