3

The website attached to the film "The Game Changers" says:

The preponderance of scientific evidence suggests that a standard animal-based diet — where foods like meat, eggs and dairy are at the center of most meals — decreases overall health, increases the risk of numerous diseases, and reduces our lifespans. Conversely, the more plants you eat, the healthier you tend to be, decreasing your risk of many major diseases while increasing the quality and length of our lives.

The Game Changers: FAQs: Why does there seem to be so much controversy about what a healthy diet is?, 8 Dec 2019

Is this claim true? I.e. that there is wide (my interpretation of "preponderance") scientific evidence that animal diets are less healthy? And have they identified the animal components of such diets as the culprits?

Animal foods — including processed, red, and white meat, as well as fish, dairy, and eggs — contain (or help create) a wide range of pro-inflammatory constituents, including polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons and heterocyclic amines, each of which “contribute to inflammation, oxidation, and carcinogenesis” [28]

How Cancer Works, 9 dec 2019

For the quote they cite:

(28) Hever J, Cronise RJ. Plant-based nutrition for healthcare professionals: implementing diet as a primary modality in the prevention and treatment of chronic disease. J Geriatr Cardiol. 2017 May;14(5):355-68.

Is this claim true? And are such compounds a) unique to animal foods and b) ubiquitous in animal foods?

oyvind
  • 139
  • 3
  • 2
    So they don't claim it is, but they imply it? In what way? Would someone have to watch that movie to refute the (non-)claim? – pipe Dec 08 '19 at 11:53
  • 2
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_dose_makes_the_poison – A E Dec 08 '19 at 15:36
  • 1
    Maybe a reference can be found at https://gamechangersmovie.com/the-film/ to enable the question to be re-opened. But it is up to oyvind to find a concrete claim to ask about. – GEdgar Dec 08 '19 at 18:51
  • 1
    @oyvind I've taken the liberty of editing your question to include a specific claim from the film's website, and nominating it for re-opening - hope that's ok with you, feel free to change it back if not. – A E Dec 08 '19 at 20:47
  • 1
    A E, thanks a lot! This was very helpful as guidance. I added more questions and another quote. Tell me if my questions are too ... something. – oyvind Dec 08 '19 at 23:42
  • 3
    I honestly can't see this as a duplicate of the other question. – T. Sar Dec 09 '19 at 17:53
  • There are so many confounding variables to this. I have a friend who, years ago, became a vegetarian. He lived on a steady diet of Taco Bell bean burritos and McDonalds french fries. Needless to say, this was not a healthy move. For that matter, straight up granulated sugar is plant-based. Doesn't mean it's good for you. – Him Dec 11 '19 at 20:39
  • This issue is simply ***a scientific debate***. It's completely impossible to resolve debated scientific questions on a skeptics site. If you ask "what is dark matter" or "what killed the dinosaurs" - that type of question has absolutely no relation to a skeptics fact-checking site. – Fattie Dec 12 '19 at 15:37
  • As OP implies, obviously each side just asserts that the "preponderance" of evidence is on their side (or else, evidently, they would then as scientists 'convert' to believing the other side). There's nothing "skeptical" to check/refute. – Fattie Dec 12 '19 at 15:38

0 Answers0