The Game Changers Documentary

Author
Discussion

RB Will

9,662 posts

239 months

Saturday 30th November 2019
quotequote all
gregs656 said:
Soy is mostly grown to feed cattle, that is what drives the growth in soy bean production and has done since the mid 40s. Demand for the oil hasn't grown on the same scale so it is sold cheaply. It is not true that the oil or the meal are waste products, they are by products, but if the demand for soy meal hadn't grown it is not likely that soy would be grown on the same scale it is today. This also is well recorded.
Just for my own interest can you give me some sources for that? I’m not saying you are bullstting but I had heard the opposite in that human use of soy oil had gone through the roof hence all the growing of it.

DaveGrohl

890 posts

96 months

Sunday 1st December 2019
quotequote all
2018 US consumption of soy oil was 10.1 million tonnes according to Statista.com. Palm oil was the next biggest at 2.7 million tonnes.

When soy is processed 20% is oil and the remaining 80% is meal or hulls etc. This is what they mean when they say 80% of soy production is fed to animals. If you removed the animals the soy oil would still be produced but the rest of the co-product/by product/waste product (or whatever you wanted to call it) would rot somewhere, be it in landfill or spread on land or whatever. Methane would still be produced, just without the cattle producing something useful in between.

Having said that, if the 80% stopped going to cattle for money and was worthless as a result or even a drain on the processing cost then less would be grown, that much would be true. But to say cattle are driving soy production is pretty one-eyed in my honest opinion. But then they'd probably grow palm oil or something else in its place which would have similar consequences and problems.

Edited by DaveGrohl on Sunday 1st December 22:46

Patrick Bateman

12,143 posts

173 months

Sunday 1st December 2019
quotequote all
I couldn't contemplate giving up meat and not feel like I was missing out.

There is one fake meat thing I've tried that I genuinely prefer to the real deal and that's quorn cocktail sausages.

gregs656

10,816 posts

180 months

Monday 2nd December 2019
quotequote all
DaveGrohl said:
2018 US consumption of soy oil was 10.1 million tonnes according to Statista.com. Palm oil was the next biggest at 2.7 million tonnes.

When soy is processed 20% is oil and the remaining 80% is meal or hulls etc. This is what they mean when they say 80% of soy production is fed to animals. If you removed the animals the soy oil would still be produced but the rest of the co-product/by product/waste product (or whatever you wanted to call it) would rot somewhere, be it in landfill or spread on land or whatever. Methane would still be produced, just without the cattle producing something useful in between.

Having said that, if the 80% stopped going to cattle for money and was worthless as a result or even a drain on the processing cost then less would be grown, that much would be true. But to say cattle are driving soy production is pretty one-eyed in my honest opinion. But then they'd probably grow palm oil or something else in its place which would have similar consequences and problems.

Edited by DaveGrohl on Sunday 1st December 22:46
Soy oil is not high yield. The reason that soy oil is used in vast quantities is because it is cheap, it is cheap because the bulk of the produce goes to animal feed.

If we weren't growing soy for soy meal, we could grow crops with much higher oil yield to get the same quantity of oil produced by soy.

Soy and beef demand grew in tandem with one another, I think we can wind that back without having a detrimental impact.


gregs656

10,816 posts

180 months

Monday 2nd December 2019
quotequote all
Kenny Powers said:
You're right, but let's be realistic here. It is esposuing a vegan diet. Specifically, a plant-based meat-free diet, sure, but that is what vegans eat. The vegan executive producers probably felt it would be a bridge too far to pretend that wearing leather shoes will also wilt your morning erections. There's only so much that even the easily-impressed can be manipulated into believing. The film may not explicitly promote widespread adoration of ethical veganism, or whatever we want to call it today, but to suggest that this is not its ambition is erroneous at best, and disingenuous at worst.

Only in my opinion, of course.

Edited by Kenny Powers on Saturday 30th November 11:46
Veganism has always been an ethical position.

What you are calling a vegan diet is the invention here.

LordGrover

33,531 posts

211 months

Monday 2nd December 2019
quotequote all
Soy like grains is very poor food for ruminants. They are unable to properly digest it and suffer poor health as a result, though they get fat and hence more weight.
Again, it's the method, not meat that's the issue.

gregs656

10,816 posts

180 months

Monday 2nd December 2019
quotequote all
LordGrover said:
Soy like grains is very poor food for ruminants. They are unable to properly digest it and suffer poor health as a result, though they get fat and hence more weight.
Again, it's the method, not meat that's the issue.
I think we are basically in agreement.

My feeling is more people will consider this because of The Game Changers than they did before.

hyphen

26,262 posts

89 months

Monday 2nd December 2019
quotequote all
DaveGrohl said:
You clearly haven't heard the Joe Rogan/Chris Kresser podcast, it absolutely demolishes just about every argument that vegans have about saving the planet and other things. I could quote you all sorts of little gems of info from it but then we'd be here for a week and you've clearly made up your mind, which is a shame. All that we can ask is that people have all the facts rather than just hear a one-sided propaganda exercise.
yes

When I watched gamechangers, I thought a lot of it was off (like gladiators, extreme all meat comparisons to all veg rather than balanced diet etc) and the Joe Rogan episode summed it up all well.

Et tu, Arnie?!!

DaveGrohl

890 posts

96 months

Monday 2nd December 2019
quotequote all
gregs656 said:
Soy oil is not high yield. The reason that soy oil is used in vast quantities is because it is cheap, it is cheap because the bulk of the produce goes to animal feed.

If we weren't growing soy for soy meal, we could grow crops with much higher oil yield to get the same quantity of oil produced by soy.

Soy and beef demand grew in tandem with one another, I think we can wind that back without having a detrimental impact.
It is what it is. Not quite sure what the yield of a particular oil as a percentage has got to do with it per se. It's supply and demand. Soy meal is a high quality protein source for cattle, rape meal isn't as good in comparison for instance. Different crops get grown in different countries for several reasons. People demand beef so they get raised. Soy isn't grown in the UK because it can't be, it can be grown in warmer countries so it is. Hey ho, it's not some worldwide conspiracy, just a huge number of individuals making individual business decisions. Contrast that with the big business forces that are behind the push for veganism.

Edited by DaveGrohl on Monday 2nd December 22:23

JaredVannett

1,561 posts

142 months

Thursday 5th December 2019
quotequote all
Just released... the producer of the game changers documentary debates the critics on Joe Rogan #1393:



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s0zgNY_kqlI

FredClogs

14,041 posts

160 months

Thursday 5th December 2019
quotequote all
I'll give that a listen, since listening to Kressers "debunk" of the film and veganisms ethos in general I decided to do a quick Google on Kressers himself, only to find he's not as well qualified to speak on these things as he makes out... In fact he's not really qualified at all. I think this might end up being an intellectual dead end all round, not the first time Rogan's taken me down that way.

mikiec

305 posts

85 months

Friday 6th December 2019
quotequote all
I exited after about 45 mins, that was painful!
Summary JW: who are you to question this doctor/study! CK pointing out studies that conflict with the doctor/study.
Interesting that a lot of people criticize CK qualifications while no one seems to have an issue with a exMMA fighter presenting the vegan facts

Kenny Powers

2,618 posts

126 months

Friday 6th December 2019
quotequote all
Ah the good old 'qualifications' rebuttal. Eminence vs. Evidence?

Thanks for the link, though. I shall listen to the Podcast.

FredClogs

14,041 posts

160 months

Friday 6th December 2019
quotequote all
Kenny Powers said:
Ah the good old 'qualifications' rebuttal. Eminence vs. Evidence?

Thanks for the link, though. I shall listen to the Podcast.
To be fair it does seem he's a doctor of acupuncture and not much else, I'm afraid I don't understand the full biological arguments and facts so if I'm going to take what people are saying at face value I'm going to side with the one with the great qualifications, in this instance there seems to be a vacuum of qualifications in this argument. So I resign myself to being non the wise.

Kenny Powers

2,618 posts

126 months

Friday 6th December 2019
quotequote all
This guy is trying to shut down the conversation using eminence which, by his own admission, he himself does not possess. Just as I suspected would be the case. Overall it's a very interesting podcast, and it's only right to hear both sides of the debate. I will definitely listen to the entirety of it. Currently two hours in.

On the subject of 'qualifications', I personally think it's of only partial value when it comes to analysing the veracity of available data. There are systems engineers and journalists who are currently schooling the establishment on human nutrition. To discount their work as meaningless because they are not 'experts' in the field, is to do the pursuit of science an injustice. Science is advanced by challenging, not following.


Halb

53,012 posts

182 months

Friday 6th December 2019
quotequote all
FredClogs said:
I'll give that a listen, since listening to Kressers "debunk" of the film and veganisms ethos in general I decided to do a quick Google on Kressers himself, only to find he's not as well qualified to speak on these things as he makes out... In fact he's not really qualified at all. I think this might end up being an intellectual dead end all round, not the first time Rogan's taken me down that way.
what are the other times?

FredClogs

14,041 posts

160 months

Friday 6th December 2019
quotequote all
Halb said:
FredClogs said:
I'll give that a listen, since listening to Kressers "debunk" of the film and veganisms ethos in general I decided to do a quick Google on Kressers himself, only to find he's not as well qualified to speak on these things as he makes out... In fact he's not really qualified at all. I think this might end up being an intellectual dead end all round, not the first time Rogan's taken me down that way.
what are the other times?
His continuing support or at least acceptance of the fiction author guy who bangs on about Egypt and the alternative geology guys... I can't remember their names but did waste quite a lot of time having to read further into the arguments before I realised at best they were fringe loons... Not to mention the Milo, Jordan Peterson, Rupert Sheldrake all of whoms nonsense goes unchallenged on Rogan's podcast... I realise that's the forum, I just get frustrated when I realise I've wasted time on nonsense.

Halb

53,012 posts

182 months

Friday 6th December 2019
quotequote all
FredClogs said:
His continuing support or at least acceptance of the fiction author guy who bangs on about Egypt and the alternative geology guys... I can't remember their names but did waste quite a lot of time having to read further into the arguments before I realised at best they were fringe loons... Not to mention the Milo, Jordan Peterson, Rupert Sheldrake all of whoms nonsense goes unchallenged on Rogan's podcast... I realise that's the forum, I just get frustrated when I realise I've wasted time on nonsense.
If you’re referring to Rand Carlson, he’s not fringe. Also some of the hypothesis that Hancock put forward in the 90s is starting to come true.

DaveGrohl

890 posts

96 months

Monday 9th December 2019
quotequote all
LordGrover said:
Soy like grains is very poor food for ruminants. They are unable to properly digest it and suffer poor health as a result, though they get fat and hence more weight.
Again, it's the method, not meat that's the issue.
Just out of interest why do you say soy and grains are very poor food for ruminants? Obv you can chuck a lot of rolled grain into their ration and that causes high acidity in the rumen which isn't great for the animal, but there are many other methods of including high quantities of grain that don't result in high levels of acidity. Soy is one of the best protein sources for fuminants, the amino acid profile is better than any other plant food for them. Only things like fishmeal or meat and bone meal are higher quality but they come from fleshed organisms.

RB Will

9,662 posts

239 months

Monday 9th December 2019
quotequote all
Having listened to the latest podcast linked above I don't think I'm any the wiser.

Some fair points from the guy from Game Changers but it felt like a bit of a petty points scoring thing rather than coming to fully inform the audience.

Im also not entirely sure what he was arguing half the time as his position on the podcast doesn't seem to alight with what about 99% of Game Changers viewers thought the film was about