[VIDEO] Game Changers DEBUNKED By More Doctors

[boris]

@Ritchie
Never saw Peat concerned about mammalian estrogen since it usually comes with progesterone. Plant estrogens are a different story (beans).
Natural Estrogens

Just to clarify:
RP: "Animal proteins, and fruits, because they contain the lowest levels of toxins, should form the basis of the diet. "
Vegetables, etc.—Who Defines Food?

I don't think people here are anti vegan, but rather anti the current state of veganism. A lot of wackjobs with a holier than thou attitude are giving dangerous advice in this space. Especially on Youtube.

Btw: I don't think you can call yourself vegan when you eat seafood

 

[Ritchie]

@Ritchie
Never saw Peat concerned about mammalian estrogen since it usually comes with progesterone. Plant estrogens are a different story (beans).
Natural Estrogens

Just to clarify:
RP: "Animal proteins, and fruits, because they contain the lowest levels of toxins, should form the basis of the diet. "
Vegetables, etc.—Who Defines Food?

I don't think people here are anti vegan, but rather anti the current state of veganism. A lot of wackjobs with a holier than thou attitude are giving dangerous advice in this space.

Btw: I don't think you can call yourself vegan when you eat seafood

Yeah I guess a lot of people eating a plant based diet are eating high PUFA, low sugar, possibly low carb which would be a disaster. But if done rationally it is great! Haha well i eat some bivalves (oysters and mussels) and that's only once in a while. I guess you could say i'm 90% vegan.
Mammalian estrogen is a massive issue mate, particularly in dairy. You could look into it a bit if you cbf. Or if I get around to it I'll link you some studies.

 

[Jennifer]

Yeah the pescatarians did slightly better than the vegans, but only slightly. The point is this is a long term study showing the benefits and lack of negatives with eating a vegan diet.

And yes to answer your question, I do eat some bivalves (oysters and mussels), but I don't think they are necessary.. You can always supplement with b12, which is the main reason I eat them. I go periods without them too.

Sorry for misunderstanding your point, Ritchie. When Ray's opinion was brought up, I thought the conversation had turned to optimal diets, not whether or not veganism was healthy.

Thanks for answering! :)

I don't think people here are anti vegan, but rather anti the current state of veganism. A lot of wackjobs with a holier than thou attitude are giving dangerous advice in this space.

This. I think plant-based (based mainly on local plants) is great — I still get the majority of my calories from plants. Lots of misinformation being spread when it comes to the environmental and ethical side, though. Even if my body let me go back to veganism, I wouldn't because aside from growing all my food, it's not the kindest option for the environment or animals like I once thought.

 

[Ritchie]

Never saw Peat concerned about mammalian estrogen since it usually comes with progesterone

Whether or not Peat has spoken about mammalian estrogens is beside the point (although I must admit i do find it strange that he hasn't gone into it).. Mammalian estrogens particularly in dairy are a big issue. Much of the dairy is milked from pregnant cows, it's just the way the industry works. They keep them pregnant to maximise milk out put, once they have the baby there is a few months leway then they impregnate them again. The milking doesn't stop. This milk, cheese etc is high in estrogen, and it has been shown to significantly negatively effect human hormones (lowering testosterone, raising estrogen and that's not to mention all he other drama that comes with consuming high amounts of mammalian estrogen. Phytoestrogens are like a 1000th of the strength and can actually have an aromatising effect as they bind to the receptors and prevent the human and mammal estrogens from being active. Hence why there have been studies showing soy intake lowers estrogen and raises testosterone.

I don't think people here are anti vegan, but rather anti the current state of veganism. A lot of wackjobs with a holier than thou attitude are giving dangerous advice in this space. Especially on Youtube.

Yeah but same could be said of a lot of diets: keto, carnivore, low carb blah blah. Who gives a ***t what random people say on youtube lol.

 

[boris]

I think your diet deserves a new name, bivalvarian-vegan ? Personally I think a lacto-ovo-crustaceanarian-bivalvarian-vegetarian diet would be pretty good. Just kidding

On a serious note. The peatier approach to veganism would probably be to eat more potatoes for protein and forget about the legumes (high phosphate, low bioavailability of protein, estrogens).

Yeah but same could be said of a lot of diets: keto, carnivore, low carb blah blah. Who gives a ***t what random people say on youtube lol.

Yes that's right and they don't get cut any slack around here either

 

[tankasnowgod]

Yeah the pescatarians did a tiny bit better in the biomarkers but only a small amount, the vegans came a close second, then the vegetarians then the meat eaters. Everything was controlled for, but it clearly shows what you asked.. That a vegan diet long term is compatible with good health. which was in response to you when you asked...

That's not true. It was a meta analysis of self reported data. That means NOTHING was controlled for. Not an RCT, not a metabolic ward study. Most long term self reported studies that I have seen only collect dietary data once every few years. Oh, and the researchers admit, in the study, that they manipulated the results toward what they think the results should have said. That's what the phrase "adjusted for" means. I find studies like this totally worthless.

 

[A.D.]

 

[Ritchie]

That's not true. It was a meta analysis of self reported data. That means NOTHING was controlled for. Not an RCT, not a metabolic ward study. Most long term self reported studies that I have seen only collect dietary data once every few years. Oh, and the researchers admit, in the study, that they manipulated the results toward what they think the results should have said. That's what the phrase "adjusted for" means. I find studies like this totally worthless.

Ok. I gave you what you asked for, a long term study of a vegan population and the health outcomes, showing not only that they were in great health but there were health benefits to not consuming animal products compared to those that did. Now you're moving the goal posts and setting the standard of evidence you would except unreasonably high. Tell me how you would conduct a metabolic ward study for a long term research on the health parameters of a vegan diet? Which is what you originally asked for... There are plenty of RCT metabolic ward studies on the positive effects of a vegan diet. But that's not what you asked for.

 

[Rafael Lao Wai]

Wait a minute... so you still eat seafood, and you call yourself vegan? LOL

 

[tankasnowgod]

Ok. I gave you what you asked for, a long term study of a vegan population and the health outcomes, showing not only that they were in great health but there were health benefits to not consuming animal products compared to those that did. Now you're moving the goal posts and setting the standard of evidence you would except unreasonably high. Tell me how you would conduct a metabolic ward study for a long term research on the health parameters of a vegan diet? Which is what you originally asked for... There are plenty of RCT metabolic ward studies on the positive effects of a vegan diet. But that's not what you asked for.

My response was directed at your comments about the study. It certainly wasn't "controlled" for in any way, it was a meta analysis of studies that were observational in nature.

I didn't move any goal posts. I simply suggested you post the studies you were referring to. I did not state nor imply that I would accept the conclusions of the researchers on blind faith without looking at the study. Nor did I say they would be immune from criticism. And as for my original quote....

Peat said once that it might be theoretically possible to construct a decent vegan diet around some of his principles when directly asked. You are misconstruing an answer to a question, and he has never recommended such a diet in his writings or newsletters.

As for those "studies" of vegan populations, you should post them.

Hmmm, where did I say "long term study," like you claim? You have now misrepresented Peat's quote, the study you posted, and my own quote. What part of that quote would preclude you from posting "RCT metabolic ward studies" that featured a vegan diet?

If you're truly making your case for veganism (a diet which you don't even follow yourself), why wouldn't you post the RCT studies you talk about?

 

[Kingpinguin]

I recommend listening to the joe rogan experience podcast. The episode where he invited chris kresser to debunk the video. Both Chris and Joe high lights the importance of carbohydrates. Specially in active people as Joe Rogan a former MMA fighter basically says you can’t perform at your top if you’re not getting enough carbs. They also talk about solutions like regenerative farming etc. They don’t seem to be on any specific side of the spectrum. Just promoting eating a wide variety except avoiding PUFA and calling animal fats generally superior to health. Which everyone here agrees to. 3 hours episode very informative. I hate the fact that vegans are trying to use all these cheap arguments. The only true argument they have is how they are hurting animals. But so does farming aswell. Infact farming vegetables, fruits etc on that scale kills more animals than actual killing animal for meat.

 

[Julles]

Meat is good. Even essential to many people long-term.
Some people need higher sugar/carbs, some cannot do that.

I need sugar and carbs, can't do too much starch. And need meat and eggs.

Everyone is different, and Peats ideas are usefull to many. Not for everyone.

 

[yerrag]

Meat is good. Even essential to many people long-term.
Some people need higher sugar/carbs, some cannot do that.

I need sugar and carbs, can't do too much starch. And need meat and eggs.

Everyone is different, and Peats ideas are usefull to many. Not for everyone.

We're all unique but not that different in many aspects. We have different contexts, but we understand them from one common physiology.

 

[Ritchie]

You have now misrepresented Peat's quote, the study you posted, and my own quote

Haha ok, I'll entertain this with a response. You specifically asked me to post a study of vegan populations, see your quote...

As for those "studies" of vegan populations, you should post them.

Which was in reference to me saying the following..

Plus there isn't a bad track record. There are examples of vegan populations that have been studied and done very well. We certainly do know that the typical omnivorous diet doesn't have a good track record with all the disease and cancer we are seeing in the modern era, that isn't coming from a vegan diet.

Now at this stage I have to ask you, do you know what a population study is? Because that's exactly what I gave you here...
Beyond meatless, the health effects of vegan diets: findings from the Adventist cohorts. - PubMed - NCBI
Vegetarian Dietary Patterns and Mortality in Adventist Health Study 2
Vegetarian diets in the Adventist Health Study 2: a review of initial published findings
And as far as population studies go, this one was of a very high order looking at a very unique population that could be separated out into those that consumed meat, dairy, fish, vegetarian and vegan. Controlled for extraneous variables like smoking, and then looked at the long term health outcomes and parameters. If you see your quote, you didn't ask for a randomised control trial or a metabolic ward study. If you specifically tell me what it is you would like to see, in terms of the findings of studies on vegan diets, I will happily oblige by posting the studies. Or conversely studies showing the negative health outcomes from consuming animal products.. But please, be specific....
And this is all in the context of your original quote...

Criticism of an extreme diet with a very poor track record in humans isn't ignorant, it is well informed

That is a study isolating the long term effects and track record of a vegan diet, and it isn't poor. There are also the other blue zones like the okinawans, which was reported from numerous sources to be about 98% plant based (high amounts of legumes, potatoes and tubers, rice, fruits and leafy greens) with a tiny amount of animal products (which consisted mainly of shellfish). However I'm not interested in delving into that debate as i'm sure you will have the same objections you raised to the adventist study times ten for retrospective cohorts..
So out of curiosity, can you post some studies that back up this claim that the criticism of a vegan diet is well informed? Show me the research that suggests it can't be optimal for long term health or health outcomes, that you are basing your claim here on...

As far as Peat, I never misrepresented him, as I stated originally he absolutely has said numerous times in email responses, and on radio interviews, that a well planned vegan diet IS compatible with good health.. See below. Read what Westside said and asked, if following a vegan diet like this could people be healthy.. And Peat's response: YES. Note that Westside was asking from a third person perspective and not specifically saying that he was vegan, and asking for Ray's opinion as to whether being vegan is compatible with good health. Ray didn't say: well no they would need some liver, or need some gelatinous cuts of meat, or need some dairy to be healthy. He said yes, in response to the specific question of if he thinks someone can be healthy eating a vegan diet. There are other examples of this as well, from the radio talk show Peat appears on.

"Ray,
If someone was a dedicated vegan and they ate no animal products at all, it seems to me that the lack of casein from milk and the lack of glycine from oxtail soup/other animal glycine sources, would be the only real concern due to potential liver problems because of the lack thereof. But given your recent comments on the high protein quality of mushrooms and the high quality protein of potato, do you think if a vegan got most of their calories from quality fruits, some fruit juice, potatoes with coconut oil, mushrooms, and well cooked green leaves for calcium that as long as they have good blood tests for liver function/liver enzymes and thyroid function that they could be healthy?"

Ray Peat responds:

Tue, Dec 15, 2015 at 3:05 PM
Re: Casein and glycine deficiency

"Yes, I think those goods can provide enough protein in a good balance of amino acids."

And here is Charlie confirming the validity of that post and the email...

Can confirm.

#RayPeatVegan

As far as this last thing you said..

If you're truly making your case for veganism (a diet which you don't even follow yourself)

I eat bivalves (oysters or mussels) once a fortnight or so. Apart from that, I eat a completely vegan diet day to day, no meat, no dairy, no poultry, no eggs, no fish. It is of my opinion based on the extensive research literature, the logical implications of Peat's health paradigm perspective, and my own experiences that eliminating all those while eating a well planned plant based diet is best for health, and all my biomarker parameters can attest to it. Including my feeling of health, strength and wellbeing.
But you do you man. Just don't rule it out as an option if you're not feeling great or your health is sub par.

 

[charlie]

And here is Charlie confirming the validity of that post and the email...

Yeh and I soon realized going vegan was a complete and total mistake.

 

[Ritchie]

Yeh and I soon realized going vegan was a complete and total mistake.

Fair enough, each to their own. From memory you were eating a pretty much complete fruitarian diet?

 

[gaze]

@Ritchie

You are arguing that a plant based diet can be done in a peat perspective. That’s totally cool.

but,

The vegan agenda (which you claim is simply bad sentiment) is trying to make an argument that it HAS to be done. The main purpose of these documentaries is to push 1. a monetary agenda by those who own plant based products and 2. a moral agenda. both of these have very real consequences as meat and milk, which are extremely helpful for good health for the average joe(although with precaution and work can be achieved without) become demonized so the guy who knows nothing about nutrition now thinks some of the healthiest food is unhealthy, it becomes taxed more by the government, put less emphasis on providing it to children, and so on. So although yes it’s possible to be healthy without animal products, that doesn’t make these documentaries any less propagandistic which has horrible effects on the greater population because most people benefit from the inclusion of quality animal products in their diet.

 

[Kingpinguin]

Making milk, fat etc specially saturated fat less available for children imo is gonna **** up the human race. Children need those nutrients. That fat. Without them they’ll become malnourished and microdeficient. James Wilks from the documentary actually admitted that the average vegan its like a shitty vegan. And he also says to make vegan diets possible you will need to supplement some nutrients smartly. Its a hard thing to do to meat all requirements on a vegan diet and its not suitable for children. They end up sick, low hormone, undeveloped with smaller brain size and more nutrient deficiencies. If we would make a switch to eat only plant based I’m pretty sure 100 years from now it all will take a turn for the worse.

 

[Ritchie]

 

[tankasnowgod]

Making milk, fat etc specially saturated fat less available for children imo is gonna **** up the human race. Children need those nutrients. That fat. Without them they’ll become malnourished and microdeficient. James Wilks from the documentary actually admitted that the average vegan its like a shitty vegan. And he also says to make vegan diets possible you will need to supplement some nutrients smartly. Its a hard thing to do to meat all requirements on a vegan diet and its not suitable for children. They end up sick, low hormone, undeveloped with smaller brain size and more nutrient deficiencies. If we would make a switch to eat only plant based I’m pretty sure 100 years from now it all will take a turn for the worse.

Good points, but really, it already has. I don't think it's gonna take a "turn" for the worse, it's more like the destination of the path we are already on. Health has declined quite a bit over the past hundred years, and two of the biggest systemic problems (increasing PUFA oils and iron fortification) come from foods considered vegan. That's one of the biggest reasons I think veganism is silly- it does nothing to address the actual problems in the food supply, instead demonizing foods that are both delicious and nutritious. And veganism usually makes the PUFA intake problem worse, eliminating dairy and beef fat, and replacing them with soy, corn, and canola oil. Coconut Oil could obviously be a improvement, but many vegan promoters demonize it for being "too saturated."

I also don't get the whole vegan thing here. Why not vegetarian? Peat's principles could work great with a vegetarian diet, focusing on things like eggs, dairy, and potato protein, even adding in oysters and other seafoods. So yeah, it might be possible to design a better vegan diet that can work for a time. It could even work as a longer term intervention diet, like Kemper's Rice Diet. But vegetarian and omnivorous diets can also be well designed, and the well designed vegetarian and omnivorous diets are always going to be superior to even the well designed vegan one in the long run, and it's not even gonna be close.