What The Health: bing.com/videos/search?view... - Healthy Eating
What The Health
What the health is very informative and very worrying. I watched it about 18 months ago. Probably should watch it again. 🙂Ali
I've tried to watch a few times, but have to say I'm sorry that I've never made it to the end.
As I understand it, it's so factually incorrect, even vegans have condemned it!
Afaik rather the opposite is true. Everything is fact checked at whatthehealthfilm.com/facts, so to discount the film you have to be saying published peer reviewed research is rubbish.
I think this article explains the problems quite well:
vegan.com/posts/vegan-dieti...
Thanks for that. It's a very good response to a film that I have never seen or heard of. Going by what is said it this article I won't be wasting my time to watch it.
I am interested in what others who have read this article make of it.
It's a well written argument, although I know the author received a lot of backlash, along the lines of "Corrupt vegans that aren’t even vegan in the first place is my guess."...
I genuinely tried a few times to watch it, but find it hard to listen to documentaries that approach things by pretending they're ignorant.
Yes I agree, it is a very well written argument. And one that should to be applauded by all..personally I found it relaxing.
I also tried a few times to watch this video. A few minutes into it was enough for me.
Conclusion..the makers of the video are corrupt vegans who aren't really vegans in the first place is my guess.
Thanks for the link. A quick perusal reports that this webpage is quoting research ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/201... funded by the Adkins research foundation, which makes me wonder what is going on here. Also this same research is published by the American Heart Association, the exact same organisation that the What the health film takes aim at because of its ties to dairy & meat etc. That's not to say everything either the Adkins foundation supports or the AMA is bad, but at the very least it raises a flag that needs checking.
If I undertand it the article properly it goes on to imply vegans needing more protien than an omnivore. Which does seem contrary to the research that shows vegans have better protein levels than omnivores. Her assertion seems to be based on the need for legumes in a vegan's diet. When have I ever advocated that a good vegan diet should exclude legumes? There are right and wrong ways to do any diet. Some people have eaten far too many carrots regularly and suffered the consequences. I remember some TV show that had someone who just ate crisps, "meal" after "meal" and looked an otherwise healthy person.
For sure What the Health was aimed at making an impact, as per its role as a film. This article's main swipe is at this approach of this film / documentary rather than any detailed rebuttal of the facts behind the film.
I think you need to read the article in full. One quote from it:
"I wish What the Health had stuck to these kinds of observations and supported them with an informed discussion of the evidence. Instead, it cherry-picked the research, misinterpreted and over-stated the data, highlighted dubious stories of miraculous healing, and focused on faulty observations about nutrition science"
This pro vegan dietician links to information on the benefits of a vegan diet, but importantly, she explains how "what the health" has distorted and misinterpreted the information, and explains what it really means.
I'm editing to add her explanation why vegan's may need more protein: Vegans may need a little extra protein because proteins in whole plant foods don’t seem to be as well-digested as those from animal foods. It’s a small difference, though. Based on the current RDAs, a 140 pound omnivore would need about 54 grams of protein while a vegan would require 60 grams.
One area I spend my time on is looking at differences between various plant doctors, where they disagree. And there are strong differences. For example some vegan doctors (including ardent animal rights activists) that I have the highest respect for at the sharp end of talking to patients with real and urgent needs (cancer, bypass operations etc) may advocate some meat/fish on the grounds that if they argue for a total abstinence from meat the patient will simply switch off. Whereas some plant doctors are very hard lined and advocate none. I recently referred to this in a post about the ongoing debate about whether nuts are good for you and whether the research supporting this is good.
But I don't care what you call yourself, if you are arguing that a balanced and varied vegan diet with minimal processed foods is somehow going to need extra protein then I have to question on what basis that claim is made. To be fair the Vegan RD says that one needs sufficient calories, and that is exactly right. And needs change slightly in later life, and that is exactly right. But the headline that somehow vegans following a healthy lifestyle are somehow protien deficient is just unsustainable.
Good healthy debate is really important. Seeing the spate of high-profile vegan youtubers who have returned to eating meat is really interesting since many if not all of these simply and clearly did not eat sensible, balanced and varied vegan diets. Trying to understand nuances of perspective can lead to real insights. And I thank you very much for the link to this article which I will study further.
We may have cross-posted, as I edited my last to add her explanation for why protein needs may be higher: "Vegans may need a little extra protein because proteins in whole plant foods don’t seem to be as well-digested as those from animal foods. It’s a small difference, though. Based on the current RDAs, a 140 pound omnivore would need about 54 grams of protein while a vegan would require 60 grams."
It seems sensible to me, and she does clarify that actual protein deficiencies are not a concern, simply that a lot of people might not eat as much protein as they should to function optimally.
My one biggest gripe with documentaries such as what the health, are that they scare people into going vegan, but without the nutritional education that should accompany it. I think it's storing up for quite a few health issues (as with your ex-vegan youtubers), which will ultimately damage the whole cause. As an example, a colleague was compelled to go ovo vegetarian after watching a number of vegan documentaries, but she's been developing a lot of problems, and it turned out she had developed a B12 deficiency. Now, ok, she should have done some research herself, but realistically, the documentaries all told her that a vegan diet was completely sufficient in everything, and she didn't feel a need to not believe them.
Do the "experts" not understand the basics?
I have not read the article, but it is not about the quantity of protein, but the quality - specifically the inclusion of adequate quantities of "Limiting (or essential) Amino Acids" like lysine, which our bodies cannot create.
Cooper27 wrote: "My one biggest gripe with documentaries such as what the health, are that they scare people into going vegan, but without the nutritional education that should accompany it. I think it's storing up for quite a few health issues (as with your ex-vegan youtubers), which will ultimately damage the whole cause. As an example, a colleague was compelled to go ovo vegetarian after watching a number of vegan documentaries, but she's been developing a lot of problems, and it turned out she had developed a B12 deficiency. Now, ok, she should have done some research herself, but realistically, the documentaries all told her that a vegan diet was completely sufficient in everything, and she didn't feel a need to not believe them."
1. B12: All, absolutely all B12 comes from bacteria, none of it comes directly from animals. Animals are fed B12 supplements and that is why animals are a good source of B12. So much better for humans to get B12 supplements. These days B12 deficiency is an omnivore problem more than a vegan problem. Anyone who does not check their B12 input is risking reducing their longevity.
2. Anyone who goes vegetarian after watching vegan documentaries should watch them again. The health advantages of going vegan are so much better than vegetarian. For example one of the highest sources of saturated fat is cheese. From an ethical perspective (the true definition of veganism) to eat an egg assumes that a male chick will be shredded whilst alive and that that chicken lives a miserable life of servitude producing eggs that it does not want to produce before it dies in the process.
3. With every new message on veganism there is someone who is going to be upset by it. Some messages will be sensationalist, some will be very factual. But whatever their message because they are coming from a position of a non-societal norm they will attract criticism. Whatever the fact that dairy and meat lobbies are so incredibly well funded, globally and small dent that can be made into that gargantuan roller-coaster cannot be a bad thing.
Finally there is a risk that people adopting ethically vegan dietary lifestyles will not get the message around the health benefits. On such a website such as this one which is populated by people who generally already have health issues I take the stance that health advantages is the more important aspect to focus on.
Many people who are omnivores find it very difficult to conceive of ever going vegan. They think it is "too extreme" or "not for them." There are powerful posters even on this forum advocating more meat as being safe. In my opinion that needs to be challenged because it is simply not supported by the overwhelming amount of good science.
Just picking out this point:
Many people who are omnivores find it very difficult to conceive of ever going vegan
VS
Anyone who goes vegetarian after watching vegan documentaries should watch them again
The vegetarian move is often the first step people take towards going vegan, as they know they're likely to fail by going the whole 9 yards straight away. If you wish them to make the final leap, it's better to encourage them, than to criticise.
In the general run of things I totally agree. Small steps are almost always the best. However there are some instances when the step by step approach does not work. I think, in general, on these forums people have, almost by definition, messed up guts and in these cases a step by step approaches can actually be counter productive.
Yes, if someone chooses a step by step approach that is their choice. But I know, in my own case, had I done a step by step approach I would still have been in the same quagmire of arthritis. Only a seismic change yielded a good solution. Fortunately, and perversely, my state of health was so bad that I was close to suicide, and so I would do anything.
The approach I followed for my recovery, the Paddison program is a very hard protocol to follow, for a number of reasons. It describes itself as the fastest approach to healing for someone with arthritis. I would add the most comprehensive healing solution as well. Quite a number of people try to go it alone just reading the instruction book and therein lie many pitfalls, not least being continued motivation through some dark days during recovery. Of those dark days I have had my fair share!
But besides being a healing process what marks it it is it is an educational process. No-one succeeds on the Paddison program without learning about their body, what works, why it works and vice-versa what does not work and why it does not work. That is a fabulous experience.
When I came out of the process I had been so focused in on my arthritis I had absolutely no idea that the same techniques had wider application. There are around 200 core research papers that together provide the scientific platform of why the Paddison program approach makes sense. Since I came out I have become awakened to the almost infinitely wider research that surrounds those core papers. And so I hope that some people might try some of the ideas I share. How much of a seismic change they may need to make depends on their current health - and mental - challenges.
“So factually incorrect that even vegans have condemned it”
Who are these vegans that have condemned it? Corrupt vegans that aren’t even vegan in the first place is my guess.
Kip Andersen, the star of the show and vegan obviously does not condemn it. There are doctors in that video who have turned vegan and they don’t condemn it.
I know a couple of vegans who don’t condemn it either.
Actually, the vegans I mentioned run a vegan bakery and I first heard about the What The Health documentary from them.
Not arguing with you here, I just want to know how you could have said what you said.
For one thing, you don’t know all the vegans out there and neither do I.
For all we know there could be millions of vegans out there that support What The Health and only a small portion of vegans you know of condemn the video.
I know several people that became vegan After watching what the health.
And I would think after some people watch the documentary ‘Earthlings’ even more people would become vegan.
That documentary really shows you how cruel and pretty much insane the human race can be.
I do eat meat so I am contributing to killing animals for no apparent reason but if everyone on the face of the earth went vegan then there would be no demand for meat.
But other than farming and eating meat we use animals for entertainment via zoos and circuses, we kill animals for hunting as a “sport”, we kill animals to make ourselves look attractive via fasion and so on.
I didn't say all vegans condemn it. I do know some who think it's one of the most important documentaries ever made. But there are many who also say it misrepresents information in such a way as to do more harm than good for the cause. Especially because following its release, so many media outlets were able to debunk a lot of the information, to the point many disregarded the whole thing.
It's not anything to do with being a corrupt vegan, but instead comes from those who believe there is a strong enough argument for veganism, without a need to distort information.
I did try to look at this video. But within the first minute or so it made claims eating beef was the cause of people getting diabetes
Does anyone on here have any specific information about beef consumption coursing diabetes.
You might be interested in this article. harvardmagazine.com/2012/01... and indeed this one sciencedaily.com/releases/2...
Thanks will look at them tonight.
This just more on a slice of bacon and sausage kind of stuff.
How these guys have worked out the different percentages on the increased risk on all the illnesses in the world by the amount of grams per red meat, sausage, bacon, and so on with dairy..... is unbelievable.
When I say unbelievable, I mean unbelievable, scaremongering seems to be perfectly acceptable in the animal rights movement. Something that I find distasteful.
Giving children dairy is lining them up for type one diabetes was also mentioned in this video. Or was it? Am not wasting another 3 minutes of my time to check.
I think I the article that Cooper put on, is spot on.
Maybe these people who choose to make these videos should take it on board for there next video.
Not what you're looking for?
You may also like...
What are your thoughts? part 2
What do you have for breakfast ?
Saturday Lunch/Brunch by the Pool😋❤️🌺
Tree in the Backyard 
