The latest food and nutrition-related documentary on Netflix, The Game Changers, is one promoting a plant-based diet for athletes. Pardon me being late to the party on this one. I wasn’t going to watch this film. Then I started seeing the uproar that was the social media attention the film received. Then I started to get questions.
Let me start out by saying that I am not opposed to a plant-based diet, that is one that is mostly plants. The film, however, fails to define what plant-based means and makes comments that would suggest they’re promoting a plant-exclusive diet, that includes no animal products. Personally, I do include animal products in my diet, and I’ve also tried a vegetarian diet. The vegetarian diet didn’t work out well. I didn’t put in the time to make sure I was doing things correctly in order to get the required nutrients. For me, it was not optimal. That being said, I do not allow my negative experience to have an influence on how I approach plant exclusive diets or clients that wish to follow this type of eating pattern.
While I don’t necessarily have anything against plant-based diets, I do have a problem with the way information was portrayed in this film and the push to make people believe they should all be eating one certain way. I believe in science, if we’re going to claim to report scientific evidence, we need to report the whole story and provide an honest representation. I’ve read the articles and listened to the podcasts that on both sides of the argument for and against the film. No matter what the topic, food and nutrition-related documentaries should not be your sole source of nutrition information.
My knowledge base is in nutrition. So, I am only going to speak on the nutrition-related issues, and not even all of them. If I tried to cover all the topics, I would still be writing! I’ve just laid out a few things that were red flags while watching the film. If you want additional information on the environmental or historical components, or even more nutrition-related reviews, there are plenty of relevant articles available.
Let’s dig in….
Errors in Terminology
I already stated my disagreement with the term ‘plant-based’ for this film as it obviously promotes plant-exclusive diet patterns versus truly plant-based diet patterns. Another error is in some of the ways that plants are associated with carbohydrates in the film. The film points out a few high carb versus low carb studies implying that high carb is synonymous with plant foods, but you can have a non-vegetarian high carb diet and even a plant-exclusive low carb diet. Plants contain carbohydrates, but most vegetables are quite low in carbohydrates. Carbohydrates do provide a significant fuel source, especially for athletes, but this can be achieved whether we eat meat or not.
Conflict of Interest
It’s only ethical to mention conflicts of interest when presenting the information. This film did not provide these disclosures from the executive producers to the ‘experts’ interviewed. The executive producer of the film is the founder and CEO of a pea protein company. That right there is a HUGE red flag for me.
Not to mention, the narrator mentions a few times in the film and in a podcast that the studies showing no difference in health with the inclusion of animal protein are not to be trusted due to industry funding. The film itself uses industry-funded research and you could make the argument based on the executive producer that the entire film was industry-driven. When it comes down to it, I’m not saying this funding is right or wrong (someone has to fund the research), but we need to be consistent in what is labeled as credible evidence.
The Narrator’s Research
The narrator of the film, James Wilks, boasts his 1000 hours of research to gain credibility. As a dietitian, I spent over 1200 hours practicing in the field on top of a 70+ credit hour master’s program and a 4-year undergraduate degree in exercise science. At this point, I recognize the vast amount of information available and understand I STILL have so much yet to learn. 1000 hours is minimal.
Where are the experts?
Registered dietitians are the recognized experts in the field of nutrition. Not one dietitian was interviewed for this film. There was a dietitian featured from a news clip, but her view of eating as much meat as you want isn’t necessarily in line with what most dietitians think. As a member of groups of dietitians with a range of experience, I can say the feedback I have seen suggests the information provided is not the most scientifically sound. Even dietitians that follow a plant-based to plant-exclusive diet themselves see issues with the science.
Protein & Amino Acids
The film IS correct in saying that protein is not the main source of energy for the body. That is carbohydrates. Protein does have the ability to be a major source of fuel in the absence of carbohydrates and fat, however, physical activity is best fueled from carbohydrates, which do come from plant foods.
The numbers reported in regard to the adequacy of protein intake are slightly misleading. The film states the RDA for protein is 0.8 g/kg, which it is. However, data shows this is the bare minimum for protein requirements. The statements saying that those consuming only plant proteins were achieving amounts far above the recommendation were referring to this 0.8g/kg figure. I wouldn’t say that’s the most straightforward statement in terms of describing the adequacy of protein content in the diet. The film goes on to state that athletes require more protein but doesn’t go much farther than that. For active individuals, a common recommendation is about 1.6 g/kg, double the RDA. All that considered, I don’t disagree that you can get enough protein from plants, however, that just translates to a larger volume of food overall AND being intentional with what foods you’re selecting. We need to be mindful of selecting plant proteins to ensure that amino acids are bioavailable in large enough quantities. Variety in any diet is important but becomes even more important for plant-exclusive diets.
When it comes to comparing plant proteins to animal proteins in terms of grams per serving, on the conservative side, yes you can make it work so that a peanut butter sandwich has the same amount of protein as 3 eggs or 3 oz of beef, but note the calorie comparison a little over 200 calories vs over 400 calories. I would also like to point out that you would need both the bread and peanut butter to create a complete protein choice.
There was also the argument of protein quality. Again, yes, you can get your complementary proteins in with a variety in your diet, but when comparing a single plant-based protein food to a single animal-based protein food, the plant-based food is inferior. I don’t disagree with the following statement from the film, “research comparing plant and animal protein has shown that AS LONG AS THE PROPER amount of protein is consumed the source is irrelevant” but that proper amount is a much larger volume of plant foods compared to animal foods.
There is a claim that amino acids from animals cause cancer… but plants have the same amino acids. The amino acid in question is leucine. Long story short, the pathway that leucine stimulates is only harmful as a chronic elevation. Leucine from the diet is an acute (short term) response. This is a similar explanation for how exercise creates short term stress but long-term gain.
But studies say people are healthier and everyone claims to feel better?
Many comparisons use the standard American diet (SAD) as the reference for the meat-containing diet they are comparing to. This is a misrepresentation as the SAD contains high amounts of ultra-processed foods that experts agree are not components of a healthful, omnivorous diet.
Even looking at some of the examples in the film, what were these people eating before? If they’re inadvertently adding more fruits and vegetables, they’re going to feel better whether they have meat or not! Bryant Jennings, a boxer, mentions how eating vegetables was not how he grew up. I do agree that changing the diet to include more plant foods IS beneficial.
The Gladiators
A number of sources have found that the ‘study’ about the gladiators was actually a narrative article and when diving deeper, the narrative talked about how the gladiators needed to be fat to be well protected, got the lowest quality of food. Looking at the original study that the article was based on, the author suggests the diet was a mixed diet that was high in vegetables.
The Conor VS. Nate Debate
Conor McGregor vs Nate Diaz is not a great example of a plant-based athlete being better than an omnivorous athlete. First of all, this would be the one area of the film where plant-based is used correctly when they refer to Nate Diaz. Nate is not a vegan, most of the time he’s consuming fish and eggs along with plant foods. With this fight being short notice, Nate did not cut as much weight as he normally would have to, and this forced Conor to move up in weight class. Conor simply got beat by a bigger fighter. So, let’s pretend there was a completely fair playing field… Conor beats Nate in the rematch. Also, Nate Diaz has 12 losses on his record. If his plant-based diet was the reason he won against Conor, what’s the rationale for why he lost the other 11 fights other than the rematch?
The Studies
The studies that compared blood flow and endothelial function were not controlled studies. If you pay close attention, there is actually a point in the film where the doctor states, “this experiment is not scientifically validated.” This limits how much we can actually rely on this data. To be more scientifically accurate, peer-reviewed studies on the topics should have been discussed.
In epidemiological studies that associate red meat and cancer, those who eat meat are also more likely to have poor health behaviors like smoking, less exercise, less fruits and vegetables, and less fiber. Therefore, we can’t single out meat as the sole negative health factor. One study in the UK did follow healthy non-vegetarians and saw no difference in mortality rates when compared to vegetarians.
Misleading interpretation of scientific studies can lead to numbers that sound scarier than they really are, take this example that Layne Norton lays out in his review of The Game Changers: “Many of the studies they cite are drastically misrepresented. They mention that meat intake increases the risk of various cancers by ~20%. This is a relative risk, however. If your absolute risk of cancer is 5% and you increase it to 6%, the relative risk increase is 20% (6-5/5 = 20%). In reality, the risk is only increased by 1% and that is not considering all the confounders we previously discussed (less exercise, more calorie consumption by meat-eaters).”
Inflammation
While a burger may cause inflammation, eating that meat with the antioxidants from fruits and vegetables gives you the nutrients you need to promote anti-inflammatory properties. The key here is balance. Taking a deeper dive into this study, the change noted was only seen in one out of many inflammatory markers in a very small population (11 participants), I would say further research should be done.
When talking about protein and inflammation, we need to take the issue of association vs causation into account. When investigating the effects of meat on health, high fat, high-calorie foods are the comparison. One thing that could be noted is the connection between weight gain and inflammation. Vegans consume 600 calories less than omnivores on average. So is it the meat, or the caloric deficit? Studies show that when corrected for BMI differences, red meat no longer shows a significant association with inflammation.
Weight Loss
Eliminating animal products can result in a calorie deficit. As I mentioned, vegans consume about 600 calories less. This may be the reason behind weight loss some people experience. This can also be an issue for athletes that have a heavy training schedule. If the energy deficit is too large, you can also end up with impaired performance, immune system dysfunction, and a number of other complications that are related to a condition called relative energy deficiency in sport (RED-S).
Cardiovascular Disease (CVD)
The link between eating meat and CVD is more likely due to an excess calorie intake rather than eating meat. Also, some animal products like fish or even lean beef have been studied and can decrease CVD risk. The Mediterranean diet pattern that promotes lean meat as a protein source, is a current recommendation for a heart-healthy diet; the vegan diet is not the only diet to improve CVD markers.
Muscle Glycogen Depletion
Dr. James Loomis claims that an increase in protein depletes muscle glycogen due to protein taking the place of carbohydrates. This could occur with an extreme carbohydrate restriction, but even then, the body adapts. Either way, by eating animal protein you aren’t going to unintentionally over-restrict carbohydrates. The graphs used to represent this in the film are incredibly misleading and a misrepresentation of reality.
Vitamin B12 & Zinc
It is agreed upon by both sides of the argument that vegans and vegetarians are more likely to be deficient in B12. There is a suggestion that omnivores could be deficient in B12 as well, and I don’t argue that deficiency is possible, however, my nutrition philosophy is ‘food first.’ Let’s not supplement if we don’t need it, and if we do, let’s add in some foods with B12 before turning to supplementation. Enough on B12, did you know vegans are more likely to be deficient in zinc than in B12? I feel that the conversation about zinc was lacking and deserves a bit of attention as well. Zinc is found in red meat, poultry, seafood, fortified cereals, and the best source of zinc is oysters. Whole grains, beans, and nuts also contain zinc, but the beans and grains typically also contain compounds that limit zinc absorption causing vegetarians and vegans to need far more zinc than omnivores.
Vegan or vegetarian does not automatically equate to health.
Not all vegan and vegetarian food items are healthy. Some vegan foods are still highly processed and calorie-dense. It should be noted that benefits from plant-based diets come from eating whole plant foods, not highly processed plant-based alternatives. This is the same concept as fat-free foods that compensate with extra sugar, or gluten-free foods that are processed with other additives.
While the film makes it obvious that vegans can be high performing athletes, they failed to take note that meat-eating athletes are also high performers. Some of the best in the world. If you asked if I promote a plant-based diet, I would say yes. That’s the truth. I believe over ½ of your plate should be plant foods. I see the benefit of consuming higher amounts of fruits and vegetables. That being said, the overall premise, I don’t disagree with. If this leads people to eat more fruits and vegetables, great! I don’t feel the fear tactics or the all or nothing mentality is the best approach to behavior change and health behaviors. A major takeaway here, don’t get your nutrition or other health information from a movie.
If you have further questions about the film, my review, or even help learning how you can go plant-based/exclusive, please contact me.
Below are links to reviews that do a great job of laying out the science in even more detail:
https://kellyjonesnutrition.com/the-game-changers-review/
https://www.biolayne.com/articles/research/the-game-changers-review-a-scientific-analysis/
https://abbylangernutrition.com/the-game-changers-review-plant-based-or-fear-based/
https://tacticmethod.com/the-game-changers-scientific-review-and-references/#
