You Are What You Eat review
Published 1.5.2024: I haven't had time to do this in awhile, but one result of the changes to my life in the real world is that I had time enough to read the first (of what I'm sure will be many) paper related to the Stanford Twin Diet study and watch the accompanying Netflix series.
The series was four episodes long, and for the most part they didn't drag. This article got a lot of vegans very excited, and it was the basis of the Netflix series. I'm going to talk about both at the same time rather than publishing two different pieces. I have not watched any critiques of the either, good or bad. My suspicion is that both sides will get from it what they expect. Keto/carnivores will hate it and pooh pooh it, which alone is a reason for me to love it.
(An aside: the last seven years have caused me to seriously detest the keto diet. Carnivore diets are also just stupid to me. Humans are omnivores who can survive on almost any earthly diet— that's a feature not a bug. Deliberately eliminating plants is asinine, as is deliberately eliminating animal products or eating only fruit. At least vegans have their ethical arguments to fall back on— even if they are unpersuasive. Humans evolved to eat everything. And across the globe, we do. That doesn't really relate to the topic at hand, but I believe in putting my biases upfront. I think keto/carnivore are stupid fad diets and neither is healthy for most people.)
The topic at hand was a small study of identical twins, who were assigned either a healthy omnivorous diet or a vegan diet. The study lasted 8 weeks. For the first four food was provided to the participants, for the last four they had to cook for themselves. The series followed 4 sets of twins. Two male and two female. One set of female twins were chefs, and they did not really adhere to the diets.
In the mainstream press coverage, it was noted that the twins assigned to veganism did NOT remain vegan when it ended. Across the twin sets who finished (one set did not), both twins improved their markers by eating more vegetables. The omnivorous diet was deliberately designed to be healthy with plenty of low fat (lean) protein sources and vegetables.
Gardner has said in interviews that he tried to make the omni diet as healthy as possible. Vegan diets (keto, paleo and low carb diets too) easily beat the standard American diet (SAD). The primary end point was LDL-C, but they measured a bunch of factors. The vegans had lower "bad" cholesterol levels, they also lost weight because they got tired of eating vegetables so their calorie deficit was higher. The twins that were chefs both complained that the diets were "too carby" so they didn't eat them, but I'm jumping ahead…
Dr Gregor is a talking head in it (Mr. "the answer is always to eat more plants"). Christopher Gardner (who once took funding from Gary Taubes) ran the study and features prominently in the feature. They discuss the addictiveness of cheese (how casein creates a feel good hormone in humans). And also that dairy is high in saturated fat. They also discuss how the majority of the human race is lactose intolerant… casein is the thing that I think sets me off and why I had to give up all dairy.
Apparently, World War II (WW2) was the start of the A LOT of the nutrition problems we have. I didn’t know that a lot of men were unacceptable to the US military in WW2 because they were too thin. So the government effort became to fatten up the population for war. A quick Google later to try and verify this claim and this piece showed up.
WW2/US also introduced processed foods to a lot of cultures that never had it. The US didn’t really have it until WW2… Processed food existed, but wasn’t mainstream. After the war, and into the 1950s and 1960s, it was all about ease in the kitchen.
They measured the biological clock at baseline. This is related to genome and epigenetics. Gardner doesn’t expect much. They also measured brain function and saturated fat gets dinged for damaging the brain. The vegan diet should be lower in saturated fats by design.
The second episode was the rest of the baseline measurements, including female “arousal” while watching porn. The idea was that diet would affect females. Arousal is related to blood flow, so it's likely that there will be an effect? Apparently they’ve done studies in men and found that they have more erections on a plant based diet. All of which is a tad strange to me, but okay.
There was a huge range in terms of body composition with the twins, but most were young and not obese.
And then they go into the horrors of large scaled animal farming. Cows produce more greenhouse gases then all of the transportation. If we’re really concerned about the planet, we’d eat a LOT less meat. It winds up with a lengthy coverage of 11 Madision Park in NYC, which is a 3 Michelin star restaurant. Apparently the head chef decided to switch to plant based (he very carefully does not say vegan) during the pandemic.
Antibiotics in industrial farming is introduced in episode 3. Seriously, watching videos like this makes me want to eat less meat… Not no meat, but a LOT less. And then industrial fisheries get the spotlight. Negative spotlight, of course. And that not even fish farms. It’s boats and nets, but now it comes to fish farms. I try to avoid farmed salmon. I knew that fish farms were bad.
They talked with Miyoko Schinner about cashew based cheese— she famously is no longer involved with the business, Not sure how long this documentary is in the works. Anyway, Miyoko’s products are decent, but it tastes like cashew— which it is. So the third episode ends with Gardner teasing that they learned something unexpected… and the episode ends.
The fourth episode begins with the final assessment, then switches to neuroscience and why people won’t eat plants. I will just note that ALL the plant food at 11 Madison Park looks freaking delicious. And none of it seems overly processed at the start (it’s a lot of touching of the food as it typical in a Michelin starred restaurant). Vegans (who will claim it's a lifestyle not a diet, hence the "plant based" monicker) don't help themselves in my opinion with some of their arguments. But that is a topic for another day. The emphasis here was not the morality but rather the health benefits and the environmental benefits. Both of which I think are more persuasive arguments for non-vegans… but which don't allow vegans to feel as superior.
The fourth episode is looking into the new vegan products being developed— at least they were being developed at that time. Vegan or plant based meats have faced a backlash in the market. Koji is a product I need to learn about. I'm sure there will be future pieces on koji and its uses. Prime Roots is a company making vegan cured “meats” with koji, which are available in New York City, but nowhere else at the moment.
The final results are revealed, at least for the four sets of twins that were highlighted. The body compositions changed, but depended more on the amount of resistance training rather than the type of food that was consumed. All the vegans lost visceral fat, but most of them lost muscle too. Resistance training and eating enough is critical, particularly on a plant based diet. (I'm trying to remember to use plant based rather than vegan, but the documentary used the word vegan, because that's what most people would use.)
Then we get into the female sex stuff (arousal, whatever). The vegans had a greater change, though all changed for the better. Now the brain results: No change in cognitive results. LDL levels changed though and quickly— but that was an expected result, or at least it should have been. TMAO went down (it relates to eating meat, so obviously, no meat, no TMAO). The vegan dieters had longer telomeres, which suggests, but not prove, that their aging might be slower.
The documentary ends with a “where are they now” bit 6 months later, so these results were not "hot off the presses.". It does mean that Miyoko Schinner may have been with her company at that point. At six months none of the vegan group were still vegan. All were eating less meat, but they were still eating meat, Vegans (in the true sense of the word) are appalled by this, and might therefore state that health and environmental arguments are not "strong" enough and the morality arguments should have been undertaken.
No idea how that would work though. Half our subjects are "moral" the other half aren't? Yeah, I don't think anyone would answer that advert. And that's how they found the twins, but advertising.
My bottom line: I don't think it's surprising that if you increase your vegetable intake that health markers are affected positively (and both twins in each set saw improvements.) It would have been great if the researchers had matched protein during the month in which they were providing food. Then it would be a better comparison as to whether a plant based diet would increase muscle mass.
The series was four episodes long, and for the most part they didn't drag. This article got a lot of vegans very excited, and it was the basis of the Netflix series. I'm going to talk about both at the same time rather than publishing two different pieces. I have not watched any critiques of the either, good or bad. My suspicion is that both sides will get from it what they expect. Keto/carnivores will hate it and pooh pooh it, which alone is a reason for me to love it.
(An aside: the last seven years have caused me to seriously detest the keto diet. Carnivore diets are also just stupid to me. Humans are omnivores who can survive on almost any earthly diet— that's a feature not a bug. Deliberately eliminating plants is asinine, as is deliberately eliminating animal products or eating only fruit. At least vegans have their ethical arguments to fall back on— even if they are unpersuasive. Humans evolved to eat everything. And across the globe, we do. That doesn't really relate to the topic at hand, but I believe in putting my biases upfront. I think keto/carnivore are stupid fad diets and neither is healthy for most people.)
The topic at hand was a small study of identical twins, who were assigned either a healthy omnivorous diet or a vegan diet. The study lasted 8 weeks. For the first four food was provided to the participants, for the last four they had to cook for themselves. The series followed 4 sets of twins. Two male and two female. One set of female twins were chefs, and they did not really adhere to the diets.
In the mainstream press coverage, it was noted that the twins assigned to veganism did NOT remain vegan when it ended. Across the twin sets who finished (one set did not), both twins improved their markers by eating more vegetables. The omnivorous diet was deliberately designed to be healthy with plenty of low fat (lean) protein sources and vegetables.
Gardner has said in interviews that he tried to make the omni diet as healthy as possible. Vegan diets (keto, paleo and low carb diets too) easily beat the standard American diet (SAD). The primary end point was LDL-C, but they measured a bunch of factors. The vegans had lower "bad" cholesterol levels, they also lost weight because they got tired of eating vegetables so their calorie deficit was higher. The twins that were chefs both complained that the diets were "too carby" so they didn't eat them, but I'm jumping ahead…
Dr Gregor is a talking head in it (Mr. "the answer is always to eat more plants"). Christopher Gardner (who once took funding from Gary Taubes) ran the study and features prominently in the feature. They discuss the addictiveness of cheese (how casein creates a feel good hormone in humans). And also that dairy is high in saturated fat. They also discuss how the majority of the human race is lactose intolerant… casein is the thing that I think sets me off and why I had to give up all dairy.
Apparently, World War II (WW2) was the start of the A LOT of the nutrition problems we have. I didn’t know that a lot of men were unacceptable to the US military in WW2 because they were too thin. So the government effort became to fatten up the population for war. A quick Google later to try and verify this claim and this piece showed up.
WW2/US also introduced processed foods to a lot of cultures that never had it. The US didn’t really have it until WW2… Processed food existed, but wasn’t mainstream. After the war, and into the 1950s and 1960s, it was all about ease in the kitchen.
They measured the biological clock at baseline. This is related to genome and epigenetics. Gardner doesn’t expect much. They also measured brain function and saturated fat gets dinged for damaging the brain. The vegan diet should be lower in saturated fats by design.
The second episode was the rest of the baseline measurements, including female “arousal” while watching porn. The idea was that diet would affect females. Arousal is related to blood flow, so it's likely that there will be an effect? Apparently they’ve done studies in men and found that they have more erections on a plant based diet. All of which is a tad strange to me, but okay.
There was a huge range in terms of body composition with the twins, but most were young and not obese.
And then they go into the horrors of large scaled animal farming. Cows produce more greenhouse gases then all of the transportation. If we’re really concerned about the planet, we’d eat a LOT less meat. It winds up with a lengthy coverage of 11 Madision Park in NYC, which is a 3 Michelin star restaurant. Apparently the head chef decided to switch to plant based (he very carefully does not say vegan) during the pandemic.
Antibiotics in industrial farming is introduced in episode 3. Seriously, watching videos like this makes me want to eat less meat… Not no meat, but a LOT less. And then industrial fisheries get the spotlight. Negative spotlight, of course. And that not even fish farms. It’s boats and nets, but now it comes to fish farms. I try to avoid farmed salmon. I knew that fish farms were bad.
They talked with Miyoko Schinner about cashew based cheese— she famously is no longer involved with the business, Not sure how long this documentary is in the works. Anyway, Miyoko’s products are decent, but it tastes like cashew— which it is. So the third episode ends with Gardner teasing that they learned something unexpected… and the episode ends.
The fourth episode begins with the final assessment, then switches to neuroscience and why people won’t eat plants. I will just note that ALL the plant food at 11 Madison Park looks freaking delicious. And none of it seems overly processed at the start (it’s a lot of touching of the food as it typical in a Michelin starred restaurant). Vegans (who will claim it's a lifestyle not a diet, hence the "plant based" monicker) don't help themselves in my opinion with some of their arguments. But that is a topic for another day. The emphasis here was not the morality but rather the health benefits and the environmental benefits. Both of which I think are more persuasive arguments for non-vegans… but which don't allow vegans to feel as superior.
The fourth episode is looking into the new vegan products being developed— at least they were being developed at that time. Vegan or plant based meats have faced a backlash in the market. Koji is a product I need to learn about. I'm sure there will be future pieces on koji and its uses. Prime Roots is a company making vegan cured “meats” with koji, which are available in New York City, but nowhere else at the moment.
The final results are revealed, at least for the four sets of twins that were highlighted. The body compositions changed, but depended more on the amount of resistance training rather than the type of food that was consumed. All the vegans lost visceral fat, but most of them lost muscle too. Resistance training and eating enough is critical, particularly on a plant based diet. (I'm trying to remember to use plant based rather than vegan, but the documentary used the word vegan, because that's what most people would use.)
Then we get into the female sex stuff (arousal, whatever). The vegans had a greater change, though all changed for the better. Now the brain results: No change in cognitive results. LDL levels changed though and quickly— but that was an expected result, or at least it should have been. TMAO went down (it relates to eating meat, so obviously, no meat, no TMAO). The vegan dieters had longer telomeres, which suggests, but not prove, that their aging might be slower.
The documentary ends with a “where are they now” bit 6 months later, so these results were not "hot off the presses.". It does mean that Miyoko Schinner may have been with her company at that point. At six months none of the vegan group were still vegan. All were eating less meat, but they were still eating meat, Vegans (in the true sense of the word) are appalled by this, and might therefore state that health and environmental arguments are not "strong" enough and the morality arguments should have been undertaken.
No idea how that would work though. Half our subjects are "moral" the other half aren't? Yeah, I don't think anyone would answer that advert. And that's how they found the twins, but advertising.
My bottom line: I don't think it's surprising that if you increase your vegetable intake that health markers are affected positively (and both twins in each set saw improvements.) It would have been great if the researchers had matched protein during the month in which they were providing food. Then it would be a better comparison as to whether a plant based diet would increase muscle mass.