Have you watched ‘The Game Changers’ an extremely compelling documentary on the benefits of a plant-based diet for elite athletes?
Were you left thinking a plant-based diet will catapult your performance to new heights? Are you now questioning whether your omnivorous diet – especially the meat – is damaging your health?
I’m a Registered Nutritionist and was constantly running into people who told me I should watch the film. Many thought it was an amazing educational documentary and changed a lot about what they thought about nutrition.
So I watched the film – and here’s what I think:
First up – I have no problem with someone choosing to be vegan, The Game Changers is a fine example of a point of view film espousing that choice. However, what The Game Changers isn’t, is a scientific examination of the nutritional evidence for and against a diet that is solely plant-based.
On watching this movie, I found myself pretty upset at the nutrition misinformation, its anti-animal food bias and lack of balance.
The Game Changers is great example of what appears to be an educational documentary however it uses many techniques of ‘documentary persuasion’, and borders on a piece of propaganda (Reference). The film is a one-sided argument. It starts out with a definite conclusion in mind, and then sets out to, and only includes evidence that supports that point of view.
I’ve been involved in making a number publicly funded (New Zealand on Air – the funding body for free to air TV in NZ) documentaries, primarily as a researcher, on nutrition and diet-related programmes. I have observed or been involved in every part of documentary production, from inception to the final cut. Perhaps this made it more obvious to me the techniques used in this film (or any programme for that matter) to persuade your thinking.
Here are some questions I think are worth keeping in mind when watching.
The most fundamental; how did this documentary come about and why? Is it an unbiased investigation or is it trying to prove a point of view?
James Wilks, (the film’s protagonist) explains how the documentary came to be in this interview. He damaged ligaments in both his knees and was unable to train. During this time he decided to research nutrition and how it might optimise his recovery and performance.
He came across a study on the Roman Gladiators that he says showed they ate “mainly plants” and had extremely strong bones. Wilks interpreted this as a diet of “exclusively plants” (Interview, 2.05 min) Sounds interesting – so I checked the reference to the Gladiator diet. It seems that the Gladiators ate a diet very high in grains and legumes – carbohydrates – in order to make them fat. They also apparently drank a concoction made from plant ashes which could partly account for the high bone strontium levels mentioned in the film (Reference).
This study apparently “shook him to his core” (source) He says that he thought he was quite knowledgeable about nutrition because he read widely and “got my research from magazines and websites”. When he “discovered” that people do not need animal protein to get amino acids he realised he’d been “fed a lie” and needed to “tell everyone about this”.
James Wilks had an epiphany – that protein can come from plants as well as animals, and he came to the conclusion that animal protein was not necessary for athletes, and in fact, not only was it not necessary, it was in his view, detrimental to health. This became the premise for the whole documentary.
The movie takes the point of view that elite athletes perform better on a plant-based diet, and animal products are damaging and dangerous. James then set out to look for evidence, researchers and anecdotal stories to back up this point of view.
Incidentally, this tendency to look for and favour information that confirms your prior beliefs is called confirmation bias, it is not generally seen as a good thing – especially in science.
The film’s writer Joseph Pace who collaborated with James, says “Our film is about destroying the myth that you need animal protein to be strong and healthy”
An unbiased documentary might instead start from the question “What is the best diet for an athlete for performance, recovery, and health?” And then set about talking to a variety of experts who research and work with athletes.
Who are the researchers and advisors used in the Game Changer movie?
Are they chosen because they are experts in the field or because their point of view is the same as what the movie is promoting?
As far as I can make out: all researchers and science advisors had a prior plant-based, anti-meat agenda.
James Wilks seemingly did not choose a single researcher, producer, executive producer, athlete, scientist or nutritionist that had another point of view – or who had clinically researched this topic from a neutral or unbiased point of view.
The researcher and chief science advisor is David Goldman, MS, RD, CSCS, CPT. As far as I can tell David eats and promotes an exclusively plant-based diet for athletes. His area of expertise is in plant-based diets and endurance athletes’ performance. He is unlikely to question the direction of the documentary or provide any research at odds with the movie’s point of view. (Reference: Interview with David Goldman)
The other science advisor is Dr. Michael Greger (of NutritionFacts.org), a committed vegan, plant-based, anti-meat diet advocate.
The film’s writer is Joseph Pace, animal rights, environmental activist and vegan of 30 years who also “played a pivotal role in helping to launch NutritionFacts.org, the first non-commercial, science-based website to provide free video updates on the latest in nutrition research.” What is not said is that Nutrition Facts is anti-meat. You can hear an interview with Joseph here.
How is the information chosen and presented?
Once the producers and director have decided on the direction of the programme, the researchers then start looking for people to say what they want presented. So if you want to tell viewers that people can be strong without animal protein and that animal protein is dangerous – you look for interviewees who think the same way.
Use experts – but only those who agree with you
These are usually people with authority – e.g. they have a Ph.D. after their name or are a medical doctor. They are chosen because they speak well, with authority and hopefully look good on camera.
All the interviewees as far I can tell have strong vegan / plant-based viewpoints (source):
- Dr. Dean Ornish – Author, “Undo-it!”, leads vegan retreats and sells online programs.
- Dr. Aaron Spitz – Author, “The Penis Book”, plant-based book on penile function.
- Dr. Robert Vogel – Author, “The Pritikin Edge”, plant-based book.
- Dr. Caldwell Esselstyn – Author, “Prevent and Reverse Heart Disease”, “Cookbook”, plant-based lifestyle and cookbook as well as accompanying DVDs.
- Dr. James Loomis – Contributor, “Forks over Knives”, plant-based meal planning service and publication company.
- Dr. Scott Stoll – Vegan Author, “Alive” and “Kristin’s Healthy Kitchen Recipes”.
- Dr. Kim Williams – Vegan Cardiologist
- Dr. Columbus Batiste – Plant-based advocate. Contributor, “Forks over Knives”
An interview with the expert lasts around 2 hours typically. The final quotes from an interview fill perhaps 5 minutes of the programme. With hours of interviews with a range of agreeable experts, it is relatively easy to pick parts of the interview – often just soundbites that express exactly what you need in the programme to be convincing.
A typical documentary is set out to inform and also entertain. So you don’t just want ‘talking heads’, you also want memorable experiments and demonstrations, and you want real-life anecdotes – people proving that you don’t need to eat meat. You’ll also want some scientific papers, as well as graphics that look scientific and persuasive.
Use powerful personal stories and anecdotes
Would you choose a person who has not succeeded in improving their performance on a vegan diet? Of course not! Are there any? Very good question. Given the number of failed vegans (search it) it is highly likely there are many. One of the participants who was interviewed for the film; the free runner, Tim Shieff, went back to eating animal food stating veganism caused “digestion issues, depression, fatigue, brain fog, lack of energy,” and “waking up stiff” in his joints. On eating animal food again he said: “My depression lifted, joints feeling a lot better, energy back in my body.” Article and video of Tim speaking here. Was he included in the movie for balance? No!
Every athlete was chosen as they represented someone who has done well on this way of eating. Does this mean all athletes will do well? No – this was a carefully selected group. Only successful case studies are shown.
Likewise; Choose athletes that represent a large range of sports, so the viewer is left in no doubt that plant-based diets work for everyone – long distance, sprint, cycling, strength, fighting, aesthetics, tennis, football.
Does a plant-based diet help women? Yes! What about cyclists? Runners? Yes – covered.
What about strength sports and fighters? Yes – they have those covered too. Weight lifters? Yes. And a strong man? Yes again. What about aesthetic bodybuilder? Yep – got that covered!
Oversimplify and use inappropriate comparisons
An example – the strong man Patrik Baboumian– quips: “How could one of the strongest men be so powerful eating only plants? No milk, no eggs, no meat? People ask; How could you get as strong as an ox without eating meat? My answer was; Have you ever seen an ox eating meat?”
Patrick’s right – I have never seen an ox eating meat.
But perhaps more to the point, I’ve never seen an ox eating tofu and protein shakes.
And does Patrik eat regular raw plants like an ox and convert that to protein to feed his muscles?
You won’t see this in the movie, but Patrick has 7 meals a day, plus multiple supplements and protein shakes. It’s easy to get the impression from the film that athletes like Patrik are just eating normal unsupplemented plant-based wholefoods.
Below – all 7 of Patrik’s meals
Vegan Body Builder Nimai Delgado also needs a lot of protein to maintain his muscle mass, and like Patrik he gets it from soy products, like tempeh, tofu, tofurkey, as well as added protein shakes and amino acids.
Not all athletes featured in the film are vegan
The impression given in the film is that all the featured athletes avoid animal protein completely – however, this is not the case.
Tennis star, Novak Djokovic is in the film – yet he is not vegan. Djokovic follows a gluten and dairy-free diet (dairy and gluten affect his health). He also cuts out as much sugar as possible, tending to stick to vegetables, beans, white meat, fish, fruit, nuts, seeds, chickpeas, lentils, and healthy oils. (Here’s What Novak Djokovic Eats In A Day)
Arnold Schwarzenegger also says he is not vegan, he says in interviews he eats a lot less red meat than he used to and a lot more plants. Watch Arnold throw a whole egg – shell and all into his smoothie. (Arnold Schwarzenegger Shows His Gym & Fridge)
Unscientific metaphors
James Wilks frequently states “animals are just the middlemen” see the graphic below (gamechangersmovie.com/food/protein/)
The middlemen metaphor implies that instead of eating animals that eat grass, we could just eat grass ourselves. But humans cannot survive if they eat grass like ruminants – we lack the digestive system required to break down cellulose (fibre).
Ruminants digest their food completely differently to humans – they have large rumens full of bacteria and other microbes that digest the indigestible cellulose and convert it to amino acids. The microbes are eventually digested in the true stomach – the abomasum to give protein and nutrients to the cow.
Humans do not have a rumen, though we do have a microbiome, and while it appears we may be able to make some amino acids (source) it is not on the scale that ruminants do, and we must eat more easily digested protein for our needs or we will become protein deficient.
Incorrect information?
Which brings us to another graphic from the programme, which appears to be incorrect when I investigated. This graphic is used to show that the human intestine is far longer than that of a carnivore, which means our diet is more suited to a plant-rich rather than a meat-rich diet.
However, according to all other sources I could find, the length of the human intestine is on average 7.5 metres long which makes it just 5 times our body length (source) (source). Somewhat closer to a carnivore than a herbivore.
The film also ignores the fact the middlemen (animals) convert other nutrients humans can not make efficiently
Depending on your genetic makeup and other physiological and health factors, many humans do not well convert inactive forms of nutrients to active forms. For example:
- Betacarotene (pre-vitamin A) -> Retinol (Active form vitamin A)
- Short-chain fatty acids -> long-chain fatty acids EPA, DHA, and arachidonic acid
- Pyridoxine B6 -> pyridoxal B6 active form
- Vitamin K1 -> Vitamin K2 MK4 (The form of K2 that helps keep calcium out of arteries and put it in bones)
Has the programme used studies that are cherry-picked to back up their argument?
If you look you will find studies to back up almost any point of view in nutrition.
According to the nutritionists who have taken the time to track down the studies used in the film, cherry-picking studies to support the film’s viewpoint appears to be the case. They also said statements made in the film sometimes did not accurately represent the study used. When studies are cherry-picked from a range of choices, any that have results that disagree with the point of view you want to give, or provided contradicting information are not included.
I’ll include this one example: here is a slide shown in the film when discussing how the brain needs glucose for energy.
This research tells us that carbohydrates helped humans develop big brains
A search for other foods that helped humans develop big brains brings up the importance of seafood which contains omega 3 in its active long-chain form, which I mentioned previously is not found in this form in plant food. The human brain requires this nutrient to function properly.
This information is not included in the film.
How has the programme used demonstrations to convince you?
Documentaries often use quirky and unforgettable demonstrations or experiments that people will talk about and not forget- in this case, men’s erectile responses at night, fat in your blood after different meals. Firefighters switching diets and improving their health markers and losing weight. These demonstrations in the film are presented as though they are rigorous scientific experiments. They are far from it, as any scientist will tell you.
Be very critical – the demonstrations and experiments are designed to be persuasive – they are set up and constructed to get a certain outcome. Swapping a whole food plant diet in place of a standard American ultra-processed diet of the poorest quality does not prove that animal products are to blame. What if you designed the same experiment with large amounts of plants and unprocessed protein like wild-caught fish?
Are the scientific-looking graphics presented accurate, or do they distort or misrepresent actual science?
Here is a graphic used in the film showing chemicals contained in plant foods and protein foods:
The programme makers have created a false dichotomy – meat has only bad things and plants have only good things. They have listed 6 potentially harmful (some questionably harmful) chemicals related to animal products and 6 good nutrients related to plant products.
It could have been the other way round – here is an example:
Six good nutrients that animal products have that plants don’t:
Vitamin B12, Retinol (the active form of vitamin A), Long-chain omega 3 fatty acids EPA and DHA, Pyridoxal (the animal and active form of B6), Vitamin K2 MK4, Creatine, choline
Six potentially harmful things that plants have that animal products don’t:
Acrylamide, trypsin/protease inhibitors, oxalates, saponins, agglutinins, goitrogens
Alternatively – they could have listed the good nutrients only found in plants AND the good nutrients only found in animal products. Instead, the programme makers went out of their way to find reasons that animal products are damaging.
What about all those dangerous chemicals listed in animal foods?
Science is really not that definitive on the dangers of all listed, some can be reduced or eliminated with different cooking methods, like eating plants with meat, and using marinades: Look at the overviews of studies by Examine.com on red meat.
More deceptive science – the peanut butter sandwich vs the steak
In the film, James said that a cup of cooked lentils or a peanut butter sandwich has as much protein as 3 eggs or 3 oz of steak. I used the food analysis software cronometer to compare these foods for protein. I found was there is a significant difference between a peanut butter sandwich and steak. You need to add a lot more peanut butter to your sandwich, around 3 tablespoons to match protein with 3 eggs. 
Is there any dissenting viewpoint, or range of scientists presenting anything other than the point of view that animal products are damaging?
NO – there is no balance. This could be compared to a debate where one side defends the point of view – “a plant-based diet is best for athletes, for all peoples’ health as well as the environment, and meat is bad” While the other side of the debate is not heard.
Has the programme answered all your what ‘what if’ questions with seeming logical answers?
One of the tools used is to think of all the possible concerns and questions the audience will have and answer them preemptively with science that appears irrefutable. Here are just a few examples:
- Are you worried that a plant-based diet will make you less of a man? Answered in the penis night-time erection study!
- Is plant protein inferior to animal protein? Answered with a no – however, most scientists would disagree with this – plant protein is poorly absorbed in the gut – this part was conveniently left out.
- Can you get enough protein from plants? Again answered with a positive, again conveniently left out that athletes take amino acid and protein supplements
- Do we need to be worried about deficiencies? No – only B12 and omnivores can also be deficient. Other probable deficiencies of animal food free diet are ignored.
- Will you get weaker on a plant-based diet? Answered- one of the strongest men in the world eats a plant-based diet.
- Worried about the environment? Don’t be, you’ll be helping it. Lots of data on how much land animals and animal food are taking up. (FYI – I agree that many current farming methods, both animals and plants are damaging the environment and human health)
Be critical of how the programme is scripted and constructed to persuade. Look at the language used.
In this film James is exploring and researching a topic and narrating the science. The film is carefully constructed and written to lead you the viewer through a process of discovery along in the journey with the main protagonist. This journey or narrative is a common device used in a persuasive documentary. Be aware that every scene, every line, every shot is carefully chosen to fulfill the movies primary goal “…destroying the myth that you need animal protein to be strong and healthy”
Also, note how they have used the comparison between advertising cigarettes and advertising animal products. Not subtle at all and designed to scare you. This implies to me that red meat is as dangerous as cigarettes.
Does red meat cause cancer? This is an unbiased analysis of the studies. https://examine.com/nutrition/does-red-meat-cause-cancer/
One final thing – how did the movie make you feel?
The final scenes: A team winning their game, the strong man breaking a world record, long-distance runner reaches his destination also breaking a record. Note the music, the cheers and the high that the movie ended on.
Like me, did you have an emotional connection to the outcome of the movie? Did you feel the need to try out a plant-based diet to get this success in your life?
The ending, the emotion – that too is all used strategically.
Only the knowledge I have in nutrition science bought me back to thinking logically about the actual information presented, and seeing how one-sided it was by design.
Here are links to scientific analyses of the studies and the nutrition information presented:
The Game Changers Documentary Scientific Review. Menno Henselmans, MSc
The Game Changers – A scientific analysis. Layne Norton Ph.D.
Watched The Game Changers? Now you MUST Read This. Tim Rees, Registered Nutritionist
The Game Changers – A Scientific Review with full Citations. Meredith Root
An Evidence-based Review of ‘The Game Changers’ written by dietetic student and vegan Zachary Wenger
Reference for background reading on this subject: The persuasive documentary film
(FYI – I love plants as food, and I believe they are an important part of our diet, I subscribe to a varied omnivorous whole food diet rich in plants and protein adequate)
“Are you worried that a plant-based diet will make you less of a man? Answered in the penis night-time erection study!”
This part bothered me, because of the frequent reports of vegan women becoming amenorrheic. Did we hear what these women thought of their men becoming priapic? How does this relationship work? Where is this extra sexual energy really going?
Tim Shieff when he returned to eating animal foods had his first wet dream in years. There is a difference between a few days with lots of plants and their effect on men, vs the effect over the long term.
Brilliant article Julianne – thank you.
Thankyou!
I’m sorry but recovery is much quicker on a plant based diet. I’ve played sports my whole life, i’ve had two children & i love fitness. I have been plant based/vegan nearly three years now and i notice a huge difference in my overall health and well being. And also in my daughters health. I think you are just in denial…
If you read my post – I am not discounting what is presented in the film. I am pointing out that the debate is one-sided. Only people who have been successful using a plant-based diet are presented.
A plant-based diet is working for you and that is great, I’m in no way discounting anyone for whom it helps with health, performance or recovery.
I’ve done quite a lot of documentary research, I know people personally who have switched from high carbohydrate plant-based diets to one higher in animal protein and who have improved their performance, recovery, and health. It would be equally as easy to find people raving about how animal protein increased their strength and performance compared to a vegan diet.
Only a clinical study comparing a diet that had one group eating plant protein and one eating animal protein for athletic performance would answer this question. Both would have to be eating the same amount and types of carbohydrates and fats, and the same amount of net protein, but coming from different sources.
Thanks for writing the article. I found it an interesting read and I have a pro vegan bias. A question that arises for me is, . why would a number of cardiologists advocate plant based/vegan diets if they weren’t good for you? I have been Vegan for over 10 years and enjoy great health. My Iron and B12, which get regularly checked, are always fine. I don’t take supplements. Maybe the science isn’t all in yet? What we don’t know is probably more than what we do know. As a vegan my reasoning for not eating animals is,that it’s ethically wrong. As for” Game Changers”, being biased….so be it.. because the meat industry isn’t? Perhaps ‘Game Changers”, perspective being so one sided is going someway to balancing the argument. I’m not a dietitian and I don’t fully understand the science but, I do know what makes me feel better. in more ways than one. …
It’s a polarising debate, that meat should be included in a diet, no amount of unbiased clinical study is going to sway what is for many,, myself included, a cruel and unnecessary way of eating.
A number of doctors and cardiologists also promote a low carbohydrate, meat inclusive diet. My own view is that unprocessed food should be a priority, and I don’t know any nutritionist or doctor that does not agree with that. Unlike you – I did not do well on a diet that did not include animal foods, I ended up with a lot of fatigue, poor recovery after exercise, inflammation from low omega 3 levels. If someone is doing well on whatever diet they feel right eating, and their markers of health are good – that is great.
I see bias in every dietary ‘tribe’. All we can do is be aware of how our biases are limiting, and give us automatic filters. Dietary science is evolving all the time. I agree we certainly do not know definitively what the best diets for humans are, and what works for one person may not work nearly as well for someone else.
All types of farming have issues, mono-crops use sprays that kill many insects that supply birds with food, harvesting kills or maims hundreds of small mammals like mice. I think our farming practices need a lot of improvement. If we don’t consume animal protein – what will we be growing instead and how will we be growing it? We’ll need a lot of pea and soy for protein substitutes for example. In New Zealand soy is imported, yet animals are grown locally live on land not suitable for crops and are grassfed. So many issues!
This “article” is TERRIBLE.:
First and most striking is you go to great lengths looking for “agenda” in the doctors and experts presented. So it was quite comical when you claim “confirmation bias” , but yourself committed many paragraphs of “ad-hominem”.
Second, you misrepresent the film in many ways. First, you say in “paragraph” 5 that the film claims “isn’t …. a scientific examination of the nutritional evidence for and against a diet that is solely plant-based”. No WAY! lol Did you get the impression it was supposed to be?
Then you further slip to extremes and mis-quote the film when you say in Paragraph 11 that the movie claims that gladiators “ate exclusively plants”.
You are flat out lying here. The study and movie very clearly says at 5:43 that Gladiators were “predominantly vegetarian”, and at 6:40 that they ate “mainly plants”
Then you further expose your own agenda when you reference Tim Rees (basically seems to be a naturopath, and not a doctor of any sorts, who has his own conspiracies against “conventional medicine”) who also claims the film has a “Deliberately cloudy definition of ‘plant based’. “. Uhm, no, it doesn’t. It is you guys again muddying the water.
Plant based means exactly as it sounds, and here is a snippet from Harvard Nutrition “Plant-based or plant-forward eating patterns focus on foods primarily from plants. This includes not only fruits and vegetables, but also nuts, seeds, oils, whole grains, legumes, and beans. It doesn’t mean that you are vegetarian or vegan and never eat meat or dairy. Rather, you are proportionately choosing more of your foods from plant sources”.
I wont even go into how you called the film “basically propaganda” then reference a obscure blog, which does not even mention propaganda, but rather talks about story telling.
And is it even worth talking about Tim Shieff who does not appear to be in the release version of the film. Probably because he is a strange duck apparently, and advocates drinking his own Urine.
Djokovic was also not in the release version of the film, but he DOES eat a primarily plant based
diet.
Eggs 3 eggs, 3 tblspoons peanut butter…. Well, you are comparing 48 grams of peanut butter to roughly 150 grams of eggs…. Soooo, look good on peanut butter, I would say.
And the whole intestinal length thing, you go off topic. They are talking about intestinal length, and you distract us with some cloudy ill referenced crap about body length to intestinal length, which definitely the film did not.
Terrible critique from someone with their own agenda.
Firstly – I did not go out of my way to look for an agenda, I decided to look at who was behind the movie and what their agenda was. It was easy to find their thoughts in the numerous interviews online with the writers, researchers etc.
The film advertised itself at the truth – it is far from it, a one-sided debate is NOT truth, a scientific examination of the truth would give both sides of the science or an unbiased examination of the science.
I quoted from an interview where James Wilks stated the gladiators ate “exclusively plant-based” and referenced that interview. However point taken. I’ll change that.
I never said Tim Rees was a doctor – he is a registered nutritionist – with a degree in nutritional therapy. Likely far more qualified in nutrition than the doctors in the movie.
The film talks about being plant based on one hand – and then the information presented on animal products is entirely negative, as I’ve noted. That is not the motivaton of a group who allows some animal products on a predominantly plant-based diet.
No-where in the movie do they say or alude to the fact that some people featured or shown in some way as being plant based – actually add some animal products to their diet. They give the very strong impression by that omission that every person / athlete shown eats an exclusively plant based, animal foods free diet.
3 eggs vs 48 grams of peanut butter to get the same protein – firstly eggs have a high water content – one egg is 50 grams. Peanut butter has a low water content and high fat content. 3 eggs has 232 calories and 16 grams of fat, the peanut butter sandwich with 3 tablespoons of peanut butter has 470 calories and 27 grams of fat plus 40 grams carbohydrates.
The intestinal length example is certainly not off topic – they are used that graphic to prove we should be eating a lot of plants, unlike a carnivore that has a short intestine – however they appear to have that fact wrong.
We were just in Rome and our tour guide at the colosseum was an archeologist. Gladiators were not the slim, muscular, well built specimens we see in the movies. They were built more like a sumo wrestler – overweight, with lots of extra padding to protect their inner organs during combat. Not a good example of how “healthy” a vegan/vegetarian diet is for you.
Yes – others who have taken the time to look at the research on the Gladiotors diet and their health have said this: “Gladiators, it seems, were fat. Consuming a lot of simple [complex] carbohydrates, such as barley, and legumes, like beans, was designed for survival in the arena. Packing in the carbs also packed on the pounds.”
Don’t I know it!
The author goes on to quote Dr. Grossschmidt, the onsite archaeological expert:
“Gladiators needed subcutaneous fat,” the professor explained. “A fat cushion protects you from cut wounds and shields nerves and blood vessels in a fight.” (reference https://archive.archaeology.org/0811/abstracts/gladiator.html)
James Cameron Producer has invested 140million in a company that creates pea protein. There is a bias! And using Arnold to tell us to go vegan is comical considering the amount of animal he has eaten over the years. What’s next Ted Bundy telling us we need love each other more and care more for each other. Aren’t all the athletes used in this doc retired or on the decline now. I am sure if you ask the best sportsmen and athletes in the halls of fame what there diets are I am pretty sure 99 percent of them eat animal produce.
I knew that about James Cameron, however James Wilks said he gave him free rein on the content of the film. So I did not want to make assumptions about Cameron’s influence.
As for Arnold, he says he is eating far more plants and far less meat for health reasons, I think it’s fine for him to express what he believes in now. We all change as we gather new information.
I have not looked up where these athletes are now. The movie was filmed over 7 years – it is highly likely that athletes especially the older ones are not as competitive now, we can’t necessarily make assumptions about that.
And yes I’m sure most athletes eat animal protein, however, this movie is about showing plant-based athletes can do well too. Anecdotes and not a clinical study though. I would change to an animal free diet if a randomised controlled trial showed it offered an advantage. I have not seen one proving that however.
Can we just appreciate that just like the film this article poses a bias.
Let it be known that I am not here to criticise the scientific research or lack of, of either the movie or this article.
I would like to say that both this article and the movie propose a bias that are both polar.
So for someone to truly make an informed decision on whether they should change to a plant based diet or not, they need to look further than the movie and article like these. Look for the sources that don’t give a bias and just show the raw data. This is the only way an informed decision on a topic that is so polar like can be made.
Unfortunately, people take biased information in the movie at face value. I know because my clients are coming to me worried about animal protein and wonder whether they should cut it out. They often don’t know where to go to get unbiased information about the pros and cons of animal protein versus plant protein.
As a nutritionist – yes I am giving a different picture – one of less biased science. As an omnivore – I’m up front about that – I have a bias, everyone of course does.
If however, I have a client who is vegan, I would make sure they get enough protein in total, make up for amino acids low in vegan sources if possible – like creatine. I would also make sure they added active forms of nutrients missing in vegan diets, EPA/DHA, retinol, pyridoxal, active B12, Vitamin K2 MK4, Vitamin D, choline, etc. Fortunately, there are some good vegan supplements available now that have these nutrients.
Hello, where can I find more info about this?: “The intestinal length example is certainly not off topic – they are used that graphic to prove we should be eating a lot of plants, unlike a carnivore that has a short intestine – however they appear to have that fact wrong.”
I am considering to balance me and my family’s diet to a more plant-based one and lower the volume of animal-products though. I’m not trying to go vegan overnight because I have to see how it work for us in the first place, but I would like to go vegan due to the environmental impact, and as for our health (if that’s the case for us)
Veganism is great, but we have to try step by step and test if that is good to our personal health. And whatever the case is, we should try to take the best of both “dietary approaches” to improve both our health and the enviroment
Thank you for this article.
I looked at a number of references for the length of the human intestine to see what the length is:
https://carta.anthropogeny.org/moca/topics/smalllarge-intestine-length-ratio
“In humans, the small intestine is about 6 meters or 20 feet long and the large intestine is about 1.5 meters or 5 feet long. The gastrointestinal tracts of the Chimpanzee, Orangutan, and adult human and a human fetus were studied and compared by Stevens and Hume in 1995. The chimpanzee intestines showed a longer appendix, a much lower number of loops in the small intestine, and the large intestine had increased haustrations, as compared to humans. It is thought that reduction of the gut is a function of the higher-quality, easier to digest (i.e., less fibrous) diet of humans relative to other apes, and that an evolutionary trend for gut reduction began when early members of the genus Homo began to incorporate a greater amount of animal tissues (marrow fat, brain matter, and muscle) about 2.5 million years ago. Since gut tissue is metabolically expensive, the reduction of the gut may have allowed early members of our genus to devote greater metabolic energy to brain growth and maintenance, thus relaxing a constraint on the evolutionary increase in brain size ( an idea known as the “expensive tissue hypothesis”: Aiello & Wheeler, 1995). It has also been suggested that cooking, which breaks down plants fiber (cellulose and lignin) and connective tissue in meat (collagen) allowed early humans to extract more nutrients from foodstuff with less digestive effort, thus also contributing to an evolutionary reduction in (shortening of) energetically expensive gut tissue.”
https://hypertextbook.com/facts/2001/AnneMarieThomasino.shtml
The small intestine is a long and narrow tube about 6 to 7 meters (20 to 23 feet) long. The large intestine is wide in diameters but shorter than the small intestine. It is only about 1.5 meters (5 feet) long.
This one is particularly accurate as they measured intestines from cadavers and the average length of the entire intestine is 795cm or 8 meters
If we divide that by 1.7 (average human height) = 4.6 x length of human body. The maximum they found was 924, again divide by 170 = 5.4
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12497219
Although preoperative assessment of the length of the intestine may be of interest to avoid postoperative consequences of large intestinal resection, measurements of the intestine are quite rare and results variable in the literature. This anatomical study aimed to assess the length of the different intestinal segments, their variation and their correlation with sex, age, weight and height. Two hundred non-fixed adult cadavers (100 men, 100 women) who willingly gave their bodies for scientific purposes were studied. The post mortem average length of the whole intestine was 795.5+/-129 cm and was significantly longer in men and in young subjects. It was correlated with the subject’s weight but not height. Multivariate analysis demonstrated that the factor showing the strongest correlation with intestinal length was body weight. This latter parameter may be useful in the preoperative assessment of intestinal length.
Yet my personal anecdote is the exact opposite of yours. I spent years as a Vegetarian and then was convinced that it was the remaining animal products that were the problem, so then spent two years as a vegan. My health and energy deteriorated badly on a “well-planned” vegan diet (including the ‘daily dozen’).
I have swung in the opposite direction and have been eating a meat-heavy keto/carnivore diet for two years. My athletic performance, mood and body composition have improved substantially.
So what do we make of, my and your, two opposing anecdotes? I don’t know. But I know what works for me. And I know what doesn’t. But I would never have the arrogance to tell someone else that they are “in denial”.
You bring up a good point – we as humans do not respond the same to all diet: genetics, ancestry, cultural practices, gut microbiome, so many factors determine what suits us best. Despite those differences, a whole food diet will suit the human animal better than an ultraprocessed food diet.
Thanks for this article! Unlike the film, you have a good analysis on both sides. The film did seem to guilt people who ate meat; almost kindly bullying those who did and created a culture of fear for how meat would effect performance. The film is full of confirmation bias and I kept waiting to hear from an Doctor, Nutritionist, Sport coach or athlete who wasn’t Vegan to give us another side to the story.
Thank you. You make some excellent points about the perception left after watching the film. You are right – they distorted information to make it seem as if meat would be detrimental to performance.
Your critique of the film was excellent. The above attack was that of a triggered person who I strongly suspect is committed to a dietary regimen based on a series of decisions which this person cannot bear to have cast into doubt. Nobody gladly endures their cherished beliefs being questioned. The scrutiny to which you subjected this film was concise, fair, informed and compelling. I’m afraid I lack your restrained analytical methodology when it comes to the question of an agenda. My cynical tenancy is to follow the money. When Arnold showed up I could have sworn I heard a ka-ching.
[…] Article: http://paleozonenutrition.com/2019/11/04/the-game-changers-movie-techniques-of-persuasion/ […]
Very nice article Julianne! Thank you for balancing things out!
I would like to share my own point of view. I have also seen recently this documentary and I can say it was brilliant! The stories, the scenes, the scientists, the athletes, its fast pace, everything was amazing. It shocked me, it made me rethink some things and finally take some action! Which is HUGE! I watch and read a lot about nutrition, sports and human performance in general. It is very few times that something makes me feel excited, makes me feel to want to take action and looking forward to a positive change in my life!
Only for that, this documentary is revolutionary and simply excellent!
Now, that I have decided to look my nutrition from a different point of view, I continue to read, to search for additional evidence, science and constantly trying to optimise my nutrition. This is not an easy task. You need a lot of reading, research and testing on yourself. But it is ok, this is the magic of the ongoing path of self improvement.:-)
Many years ago, I read somewhere about the power of intermittent fasting. Years before it becomes almost a mainstream like it is right now. Registered doctors, dieticians as well as nutritionists were swearing on how wrong I was and how right they were based on the science.
As a natural critical thinker, I never take something for granted. I always question science, science other than physics or lab based scientific experiments that you can almost 100% control the parameters of the experiment. These are called the hard sciences. Where all other sciences where you can change completely the outcome, because you slightly change a parameter or because you cannot include all the parameters ( social sciences, for example ) are the so called soft sciences. These sciences are using terms like: tendencies, statistics, correlations and associations. Nutrition is one of them. This is not a bad thing, it is just something that people need to keep in mind whenever they read something.
This is why, I believe, we must become very critical and not just accept opinions from experts like the absolute truth. We should always try to try on ourselves, get opinions from different experts from different fields, do our own research and use our logic for the optimal outcome for us.
Intermittent fasting is the most revolutionary thing I have tried so far, in terms of optimizing my performance! Did I hear the experts back then? NO! I simply did the experiment for myself. The results outstanding! I was able to finally manage my weight, to have amazing energy in the morning and complete all my tasks in less time and with higher efficiency! My blood tests were getting better and better. Now tell me: Why should I “obey” to the experts, all of them registered professionals, accredited with solid university studies, e.t.c., who were claiming how important is breakfast and the side effects that someone could have if he would choose to skip it?
I have not taken breakfast for years and I will never get back to it!
Another story: When one of my twins was 6 months old, he appeared mild eczema symptoms on his skin. We went to the doctor. His scientific advice was to give to my child a cortisone based cream for the symptoms. I asked him if this was caused by food. He said no. My wife was about to buy the cream. I stopped her. Something did not sound good to me. I convinced her to have a consultation meeting with a naturopath. We had a skype meeting and the naturopath told us that this had to do with the food. We had to eliminate milk from his diet and also do some other changes. I will never forget that after introducing avocado in his diet and reduced his milk consumption, the symptoms went away!!! Now tell me: What is your conclusion about this incident? Do we have to be skeptical for any piece of knowledge we get even if it comes from accredited professionals?
Back to the documentary. It is very strong what Arnold Schwarzenegger says and claims. Also the fact that he is a co-producer of the film. He clearly states that he has cut the meat products altogether. Even if he consumes some eggs occasionally, this does not change much. We are not talking about the average person here. We are talking about a person who is the bodybuilding icon of the century!! We all know the correlation between bodybuilders and animal based protein!
Bottom line: I have switched to a vegan lifestyle a few weeks now and I am at the testing phase of it. Which means, I am going to give it a try and see FORMYSELF if this is something that will optimise my performance in life!!! Because at the end of the day, this is the question that I want to answer regarding my life? Is this something that will optimise my performance?
I am 46 years old, I work, I have two 3 year old boys, twins, with a lot of energy. I am also a professional Cretan dance teacher and a 3 Dan black belt in Karate. I teach and dance 10 hours a week and I want to be able to do so for many years yet, so I can teach my own kids.
I want to practice karate with them too. After watching the documentary, I felt very excited and thought that maybe this would be the answer to the quality of the energy supply that my body needs to fulfil my dreams. I also felt very excited that with this new lifestyle I would be able to get ready for my 4th Dan in Karate.
This documentary was so powerful to me, because it linked veganism with optimised athletic performance!! And not only that, it also states that it is a solid way for optimum health. I do not need to do something different for getting optimum health, energy and athletic performance. It is one single package! How powerful is that??
Like Intermittent Fasting, I will try out veganism for optimising my performance in life and I will be monitoring the results. I am expecting the levels of my enthusiasm to drop after a while, however, I am expecting to see some tangible results until then and I count on them for continuing afterwards my efforts. Exactly what has happened with Intermittent Fasting. Now, I am just doing it. It is a life style habit. I do not have to think about it or to put some effort to continue.
Regarding my vegan lifestyle: I can say that I have already seen some increase in my energy. I have started seeing some positive outcomes. However, maybe this is a placebo effect. I will patiently wait and see.
I am contacting my own experiment, taking under consideration only parameters that I can 100% control, my own self and my own lifestyle. And I am looking forward to see what the results of this scientific experiment will be! 🙂
P.S.: I hold a Bachelor in Physics with a specialization in Laser Physics. I hold also a Master Degree in Education as well as Graduate Diploma in Instructional Design.
I’m interested to see how your diet works over time. Yes – the movie was extremely convincing, due to the exceptional production and clever storytelling etc as I went through in detail. My own experience of a high carbohydrate plant-based diet was that I had low energy and poor recovery. It was not until I added a decent amount of protein, including animal protein at every meal that I experienced massively improved recovery, even energy and strength improvements. I attribute my diet now as being an incredibly important factor to being a world class powerlifter, and I’m still getting stronger (I’m currently around number 8 in the world in my class). I too have experimented with lots of different diet patterns and through trial and error and now, currently backed up by nutrition science for strength training, I’ve found a diet that works best for me. So please do your research – look at all the studies not just the cherry-picked ones in the programme. For example – I use the work from performance scientists to make my choices, the ISSN has a number of excellent reviews. Hre are a couple of good articles https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5598028/ and https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2853497/