Philosophical Vegan Forum

What did you think/How was it?

Trying to decide if I should watch it, or if it'll just be irritating like the Nye vs. Ham debate.

I watched the first two hours. As expected, Rogan is not an unbiased moderator. Kahn is doing a great job but Rogan and Kresser can't get past the fact that Kahn cited research from the 1950s. Kresser keeps saying that epidemiology studies are not valid as it is impossible to narrow down which of a person's bad habits actually lead to the illness. However, Kresser seems to have no problem citing epidemiology studies when the result suits his claims.

Not once did Rogan question or interrupt Kresser no matter how crazy his claims are. He shut down Kahn abruptly when he made the tobacco industry analogy calling it "conspiracy stuff" (or similar). After two hours the debate is still stuck on the saturated fat - disease link.

I didn't see this myself yet but apparently there is a part in the debate where Kahn mentions that a whole food, plant -based diet is the only diet has been proved to reverse heart disease. Kresser then replies that he is sure that future research will show that a paleo diet can do that too.

The first two hours kept me somewhat entertained although it never managed to move past the saturated fat issue. I'll probably watch the rest when I have time.

Thanks @Jebus for the summary.

I've seen that double standard before, I hope other people caught that too (e.g. the people on the fence).
Looking forward to hearing the cliff notes for the rest.

Jebus wrote: ↑Tue Aug 28, 2018 10:13 pm It was just announce that about one month from now there will be a debate on the benefits of a paleo diet vs. the benefits of a "vegan diet" on the Joe Rogan Experience (not exactly an unbiased host). Nutjob Chris Kresser will represent paleo while Joel Kahn will represent veganism.

I haven't listened to it yet. Although, like you, I'm not confident on Joe Roegan's ability to remain neutral or even critical of Chis Kresser's arguments.

Jebus wrote: ↑Tue Aug 28, 2018 10:13 pm This debate will be hugely important given the enormous size of Rogan's viewing base.I don't know anything about Dr. Kahn. I just did a quick Youtube search and my first impression is that he is very good.

Is Joe Roegan's audience receptive of opposing ideas? If not, debate may be futile (pre-existing biases or general ignorance on the topic may impact their perception of who "won"). I don't watch his podcast and am therefore unfamiliar with his niche audience. I'd suggest holding some kind of oxford-style debate at a public facility. Why not try to diversify the audience?

Jebus wrote: ↑Tue Aug 28, 2018 10:13 pm Is there anyone else you would have chosen over Kahn if it were your choice? Has Dr. Greger ever done a debate or is this something he purposely avoids?

Ginny Messina or Jack Norris. If you're looking for someone specifically with debate experience, I'd go with Gene Baur (founder of Farm Sanctuary).

This deviates from your question, but I'd love to see Ginny Messina and Peter Singer debate Sam Harris and Jordan Peterson on the merits of a vegan diet (oxford-style). Ginny Messina is a well-respected dietician who has published numerous papers in peer-reviewed scientific journals. Peter Singer could tackle the ethical implications of a vegan diet. I'm an altruist, so I may be biased in my selection of him.

Neither Harris nor Peterson seem to be staunchly anti-vegan, but they're largely apathetic/dismissive of vegan issues, and they're both regarded as significant intellectuals of this generation. I want this kind of debate to reach their audiences.

Jebus wrote: ↑Tue Aug 28, 2018 10:13 pm Not once did Rogan question or interrupt Kresser no matter how crazy his claims are. He shut down Kahn abruptly when he made the tobacco industry analogy calling it "conspiracy stuff" (or similar). After two hours the debate is still stuck on the saturated fat - disease link.

Yup I expected as such. How productive would you consider the debate to be so far? I may give it a listen.

Lay Vegan wrote: ↑Tue Oct 02, 2018 12:38 pmIs Joe Roegan's audience receptive of opposing ideas? If not, debate may be futile (pre-existing biases or general ignorance on the topic may impact their perception of who "won"). I don't watch his podcast and am therefore unfamiliar with his niche audience.

I would guess that his audience is mostly American men (fairly well educated) between 18 and 50. Probably lots of MMA fans. I think there is always potential for vegan conversion or at least meat reduction no matter who the audience.

Lay Vegan wrote: ↑Tue Oct 02, 2018 12:38 pmNeither Harris nor Peterson seem to be staunchly anti-vegan, but they're largely apathetic/dismissive of vegan issues

Harris has expressed a good understanding of the ethical argument but definitely needs schooling on the dietary part.

Lay Vegan wrote: ↑Tue Oct 02, 2018 12:43 pmHow productive would you consider the debate to be so far?

Not at all productive. They got stuck on the saturated fat healthy or unhealthy chapter. Kresser seemed very well prepared and knew exactly how to install doubt in the viewer's mind.

Mic the Vegan, Earthling Ed, Emily from Bite Size Vegan or Gary Yourofsky.

Hey guys, it's Avi.

AY and I put out an in depth analysis of the Kresser Kahn debate. It was riddled with pseudoscience and caused much confusion for the public. I hope the feelings toward Isaac here are set aside and this analysis is judged on its own merits. The analysis is 8 hours long and it's only part 1. It is time stamped though in the pinned comment.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q9mL7MqJjII

Warmest wishes and I hope you find value in this,

Avi

Jebus wrote: ↑Tue Oct 02, 2018 1:58 pm Not at all productive. They got stuck on the saturated fat healthy or unhealthy chapter. Kresser seemed very well prepared and knew exactly how to install doubt in the viewer's mind.

I listened to snippets of the debate.

I know next to nothing about this topic, save that nutrition research is highly complex and often conflicting.

Kresser brought up some good points, but misrepresenting a handful of cherry-picked egg studies does not invalidate 50+ years of cholesterol research.

Isn’t there something of a consensus on saturated fat in nutrition science? Health organizations typically advise people to eat as little saturated fat as possible, warning that eating foods high in cholesterol could result in increased LDL and increased risk of heart disease.

American Heart Association wrote:Eating foods that contain saturated fats raises the level of cholesterol in your blood. High levels of LDL cholesterol in your blood increase your risk of heart disease and stroke… Replacing foods that are high in saturated fat with healthier options can lower blood cholesterol levels and improve lipid profiles.

http://www.heart.org/en/healthy-living/ ... rated-fats

Other health organizations echo this sentiment.

World Health Organization wrote: Also, the risk of developing NCDs is lowered by reducing saturated fats to less than 10% of total energy intake, and trans fats to less than 1% of total energy intake, and replacing both with unsaturated fats, in particular with polyunsaturated fats…Unsaturated fats (found in fish, avocado, nuts, sunflower, canola and olive oils) are preferable to saturated fats (found in fatty meat, butter, palm and coconut oil, cream, cheese, ghee and lard) and trans-fats of all kinds…

http://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheet ... althy-diet

Kresser also seems adamant about a lack of evidence that high blood cholesterol increases the risk of heart attack. But a lack of evidence is not evidence that saturated fat is healthy, especially since research shows that unsaturated fats (relative to saturated fats) promote heart health.

Heart Foundation wrote:The combined evidence suggests that whole diet changes, not altering one nutrient, is required 
to promote cardiovascular health. Replacing 
energy intake from saturated fat with energy from polyunsaturated fat (PUFA),8 monounsaturated fat (MUFA) and wholegrains is associated with a lower risk of a heart disease.

The rational thing would be to follow the guidelines of health professionals, who are properly trained to conduct and extrapolate on hard science. Their general advice is to limit foods high in saturated fats, and eat plenty of foods high in poly and monounsaturated fats.

Also, as you stated, I find it interesting that Kresser is rather skeptical of old studies, but cites a 1999 study on egg consumption and risk of cardiovascular disease to prove that dietary cholesterol doesn't raise blood cholesterol (anyone familiar with nutrition here who can engage those claims?)


I think Kresser is a good example of why we should rely on nutritionists and professional guidelines instead of our own myopic biases and limited research.