Nutrition Made Simple! - 2021-05-03
Beef and climate change. Fact-checking 'What I've Learned"'s video on red meat and climate change, climate science evidence on meat, esp. beef, and environmental impact What I’ve learned: beef isnt that polluting raising animals= greenhouse emissions. growing their food = more emissions. eliminating animal agriculture reduces greenhouse emissions GHGs by 2.6%? stop raising animals BUT keep growing tons of corn even tho cows and pigs and chickens are gone grow tons of corn. our diet = 80% grains, mostly corn even with these crops =better for environment, less emissions if we keep producing animal food emissions don’t change as much farmers would stop growing food for cows? continue to grow animal feed? Feedlot diet: plant-based scenario= 5,000 cals 3,000cals from corn (24 ears of corn) if farmers didn’t change, kept putting out corn? (assuming crops in proportions currently grown) no animals but produce their food? environmental improvement = not large worth moderating animal agriculture? animal agriculture esp. beef, corn in monoculture, generates less emissions no animal products = lower food GHG emissions US meat = 3x the global average, dietary change has greater effect, reducing food emissions by 61-73%” we eat more beef, change our diet no animal products: “28% reduction in global greenhouse gas emissions”. emissions from food in half, total emissions down by 28% 50% reduction in animal products = 20% less emissions animal products = majority of food-related emissions (70% of agricultural emissions). “meat dominates impacts on emissions” moderating animal foods. reducing food waste cuts food emissions by 9%, changing diet, moderating animal foods, 56% less emissions from food total emissions? GHG emissions require diet change less animal products, esp. beef= effective to reduce dietary emissions no Animal Agriculture = 56% less Emissions less emissions: cattle to pigs/chicken. more impact than plants, less than red meat red meat? do environmental scientists hate beef? environmental impact is disproportionate emissions for plant foods. bigger emissions: eggs, dairy, fish, chicken, pork, beef. higher than other animal products meat (beef or lamb) = environmental impact 20–100 times plants. animal products = 2–25x higher than plants. whether foods are matched by protein content, serving, or mass beef requires more feed. 1lb of milk or eggs = 2-3lbs of plants, poultry = 2-5, pork 3-9, beef = 24-49 less cows = less crops feeding cows grass: environment. grass-fed beef requires more water, more fossil fuels, bigger carbon footprint (emissions extend) ruminants convert grass into human-edible protein, big environmental impact is all beef the same? some producers cause more emissions. even cleanest beef = worse than animal foods and much worse than plant protein like beans dietary change (foods we eat)=more benefits than tweaking production optimizing beef fossil fuels? can we cut fossil fuels and leave food alone? reducing emissions from fossil fuels is essential but even if fossil fuel emissions were halted, food would prevent climate targets climate goals require changes to food system. eliminate fossil fuels = more leeway on food changes to transportation + energy + Food (big chunk of emissions) many don’t want to change fossil fuels are animals/beef a significant source of emissions? yes. will it solve climate change by itself? no Connect with me: Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/DrGilCarvalho/ Twitter: https://twitter.com/NutritionMadeS3 Animations: Even Topland @toplandmedia References: https://www.pnas.org/content/pnas/114/48/E10301.full.pdf https://www.pnas.org/content/115/8/E1701 https://www.pnas.org/content/115/8/E1703 https://www.pnas.org/content/115/8/E1704 https://fdc.nal.usda.gov/fdc-app.html#/food-details/168400/nutrients https://www.pnas.org/content/115/8/E1706 https://fdc.nal.usda.gov/fdc-app.html#/food-details/168400/nutrients https://science.sciencemag.org/content/360/6392/987 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-018-0594-0 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2211912418300361 www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(18)31788-4/fulltext https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/aa6cd5/pdf https://academic.oup.cxom/nutritionreviews/article/77/4/197/5307079#.XK0fvVXgKR8.email https://www.mdpi.com/2076-2615/2/2/127 https://science.sciencemag.org/content/370/6517/705 Disclaimer: The contents of this video are for informational purposes only and are not intended as medical advice, diagnosis, or treatment, nor to replace medical care. This information is accurate and conforms to the available scientific evidence to the best of the author's knowledge at the time of posting. See your physician or qualified health provider with questions regarding medical conditions. Never disregard medical advice or delay seeking it because of information contained in Nutrition Made Simple!. #NutritionMadeSimple #GilCarvalho
I’d like to see another one covering the water/land use
same
Me too. WIL got so much wrong that one debunking video isn't enough.
@@someguy2135 Gil’s video isn’t a debunking video. It’s more of a reaction/response video. Gil didn’t address many of Joseph’s points, even though he easily could have, by just looking at Joseph’s sources (they were not showing evidence for his claims, in fact in many studies the authors concluded something like “rise in global meat consumption will further increase pressure on freshwater resources.”
@@someguy2135 Wrong
@@maka8551 Your counterargument was admirably concise, but for some reason, I remain unconvinced. I suspect everyone reading it would agree.
I generally don't idolise people, but the way you approach topics and discuss them publicly is truly inspiring. It is very honest and transparent, but simultaneously sharp and logical. I honestly don't understand how anybody could downvote your videos. Thank you for everything you do!
appreciate the kind words! but definitely don't idolize me, that's death for a scientist, keep me on my toes! :)
@@NutritionMadeSimple hahaha will do! :P
Here’s my responses to Joseph’s comment, somewhere down under here in the comment section (it’s taken out of context, but I mainly want to share it here, because of the sources I recommend taking a look at):
“(1) good, cause they apparently assumed DHA and EPA are essential nutrients, even though the body can convert ALA to EPA and then DHA (not so effectively, still that assumption would be factually incorrect)
(2) the land would not be necessary anymore, as it's used to grow ANIMAL feed.
(3) globally, or as an individual? most animal products cost more than pulses, a good alternative to meat (nutritionally spoken). See Gil's video on the cost of food. Just a hypothesis which quickly formed in my mind: what about the environmental costs of climate change due to livestock, that costs money too.
(4) not from "no animals", but from not farming them anymore, growing their feed etc. The number is from the largest analysis of global food farms ever conducted, "reducing food's environmental impacts through producers and consumers"
(5) read the report I already wrote about from FCRN, Environmental change institute and "Oxford Martin Programme on the Future of Food"(Grazed and confused), to learn more about the carbon sequestration, seen on some farms In the US(1), but can't be implemented on large scale (see report)(2).
Sources: 1: "Impacts of soil carbon sequestration on life cycle greenhouse gas emissions in Midwestern USA beef finishing systems"
2: "Soil carbon sequestration in grazing systems: managing expectations".
If you have genuine interest about the soil carbon sequestration, I recommend you listen to the podcast „CAN HOLISTIC GRAZING REVERSE CLIMATE CHANGE? A REVIEW OF KISS THE GROUND“ (with environmental researcher Nicholas Carter), read (Opinion article, but it has references you can look at) "OPINION: Is Documentary ‘Kiss The Ground’ Just A Last Ditch Effort To Keep Meat Relevant?" (from Plant Based News, but the Authors are the same that talk together in the Podcast, not a journalist or writer from there) and listen to the podcast "REGENERATIVE AGRICULTURE WITH RYLAND ENGELHART AND FINIAN MAKEPEACE" (same podcast channel as the other one). To learn more about "plant-based scenarios" for agriculture, read these studies:
- „Paying the price for the meat we eat“ (not an actual scenario)
- "Reducing food’s environmental impacts through producers and consumers" (analysis of 38700 farms in 119 countries, with "no animal products" - scenario, and reducing animal products 50 % -scenarion, also read the erratum for the research paper.
- „Climate benefits of changing diet" more plants scenario
- "A Global Assessment of the Water Footprint of Farm Animal Products“ (just some more info on the water use of animal products)
- „Comparative analysis of environmental impacts of agricultural production systems, agricultural input efficiency, and food choice“
- "EATING AWAY AT CLIMATE CHANGE WITH NEGATIVE EMISSIONS
repurposing UK agricultural land to meet climate goals"
- "Including animal to plant protein shifts in climate change mitigation policy: a proposed three-step strategy"
- „Mapping tree density at a global scale" (as a sort of extra study on the study "Reducing food's environmental impacts through producers and consumers")
- „Degradation and forgone removals increase the carbon impact of intact forest loss by 626%"
- „Human appropriation of land for food: The role of diet" (more about land use)
- "Nationwide shift to grass-fed beef requires larger cattle population" (more about ruminants)
- „Holistic management
– a critical review of
Allan Savory’s grazing method“ (Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences)
- „Worldwide Alternatives to Animal Derived Foods – Overview and Evaluation Models“
- „Interactions among Amazon land use, forests and climate: prospects for a near-term forest tipping point“(more about rewinding)
- „Redefining agricultural yields: from tonnes to people nourished per hectare“
- „Livestock and greenhouse gas emissions: The importance of getting the numbers right“ (because it's important)
AND OF COURSE: The EAT-Lancet Commission report "Food Planet Health" ("Healthy Diets From Sustainable Food Systems").
Have a nice read :)”
You got groupies!
Someone called „Lucas Bleyle“ posted this under WIL‘s video:
"As a student studying sustainable agriculture, I thought I would do my civic duty and shine some light on some of the misrepresentations or straight-up misinformation in this video.
1. The U.S. eats vastly more meat than most people around the world, especially those in developing countries. However, the position of the animal agriculture industry is to bring up all developing countries to a meat consumption level comparable to the US. This means expanding production significantly with the associated increase in resource use and GHG emissions. If we really want to maintain or even reduce emissions from animal agriculture, we can’t keep alive this notion that American meat consumption is sustainable if adopted by the whole planet.
2. Emissions from animal agriculture in the US are diluted by extremely high per capita emissions, so dietary emissions are a smaller fraction of the total. Attributing the small percentage all to increased efficiency in the US is misleading.
3. The U.S. has an enormous amount of cropland that is rain-fed and has excellent soil. Most of the midwest (currently growing predominantly animal feed and biofuels) could be used to produce human food. California isn’t particularly well suited for food production, at least not that much better suited than much of the midwest. This idea that there is all this land that can only be used for animal agriculture is a talking point I would be careful about using.
4. It is straight-up antiscience to suggest that methane doesn’t matter because it is part of a “natural carbon cycle.” We don’t care about where the carbon comes from, we care about its global warming potential. Non-ruminants don't produce a lot of methane so the carbon we eat is breathed out as carbon. Human respiration is carbon neutral. When ruminants convert it to methane, they multiply the global warming potential by a factor of 20 to 90 (depending on the time scale it is averaged on). This transformation of carbon to methane makes it irrelevant whether or not it will eventually be taken up again by plants. While it is in the atmosphere it is contributing to additional harm than if it had stayed as CO2 the whole time.
5. Also, enteric fermentation is only one source of animal methane. Manure management is another area of emissions so you need to add that when discussing methane emissions from livestock. On this same note, manure also leads to N2O emissions that you didn’t address at all.
6. Yes, there were a lot of ruminants in the past, but in the past, we didn’t have a climate crisis and the atmosphere was in balance. In a world with climate change, we have to do whatever it takes to reduce warming including diverging from what might be prehistorically true. This is an appeal to nature fallacy, that doesn’t hold up in the modern world.
7. Veganism is not the end all be all, but most vegans also take significant steps to address their personal carbon emissions across the board. You will never hear a vegan deny that fossil fuels are the main contributor to climate change.
8. Also, you never addressed livestock emissions from a land-use change such as land degradation or deforestation (especially in places like the Amazon rainforest). If so much land can only be used for animal agriculture why are we perpetually expanding into natural ecosystems to create more land for it?
9. What I’ve Learned, I beg you to stop presenting topics as though you have overturned the scientific consensus on a topic. You have a big audience who put a lot of trust in your content. You have a duty to present an issue accurately. I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt that you just simply misunderstand the food system and were hoodwinked a bit by Dr. Frank Mitloehner. What you’ll find is that the animal sciences are full of people who own animal farms. It often presents a clear violation of conflict of interest in research, because researchers have a vested interest in the outcomes of studies. This is particularly pronounced in studies that are life cycle analysis/modeling because there is an enormous amount of subjectivity that goes into the design of this type of study. The responsible thing would be to follow this video with another video discussing some of the ways you misrepresented this very important issue."
Thanks!!
@@neleawest7196 you’re welcome. I thought it would be fair to add this to the discussion, as Bleyle made some good points
Please go and see his commynity page on yt. He is making detailed answers to his critics which I think they are also on the same line as the main video... taking a generous approach to evidence
@@albertoandrade9807 I cant find it :(
@@Fer0611xXxI mean WIL's channel
"This is raising cognitive dissonance to an Olympic sport" LMAO. Awesome work as always Gil! I really appreciate the tips to understand those studies and not just to read as "magical sources of data and infos"
@@dulejmani https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLSJAwas-bYxv57W1Gd9n0TiS3A96-acTt
I really really appreciate the non biased approach to this topic, I did not enjoy the videos attacking “what I’ve learned” because they seemed to play into his points exactly. But I really appreciate that you almost exclusively used sources and not your own opinion. Would love to see more people follow in your footsteps
They were "attacking" his video because the whole thing was irresponsibly misrepresenting everything we know about climate change and the gross inefficiencies of animal-ag through the consensus of hundreds of peer-reviewed studies by independent researchers.
@@rasputozen true, but they were respectful to Joseph himself, which is counterproductive.
Yes. I'm skeptical of vegan responses that say stupid things like, "People will say anything so they can keep eating bacon."
@@richarddoan9172 that’s a weird thing to think is dumb?
Thank you! I am studying to become an MD and it makes me happy to see someone so eloquent and smart
“What I’ve Confirmed*”
*that supports my existing belief bias.
😂😂😂😂😂
I'm curious if WIL will make video about cognitive dissonance xD
@Cyril this is not a refute Video, and claims about methane cannot debunk that WIL cited studies that disproof him or calculate the impact of unrealistic changes.
Imagine a world without meat. How many grains would we need to make up the difference.
Great video as always! Thanks for taking the time to do this one 🙌
The authors of that study must really like corn on the cob. Excellent video would you do one covering creatine supplements?
I love the way you view issues like the environment and health holistically. Many focus on one aspect of these issues which reminds me of the Indian parable of "7 blind men describing an elephant". Great work Gil.
That's a Muslim story about Allah.
@@StratsRUs😂😂
“Cognitive dissonance as a sport” 😶 what a scary thought 💭 😁
I think I will win the gold 🏅. 😂
@Cyril Whether something is a natural form of atmosphere or not is irrelevant, it's all to do with amounts and proportions. This video doesn't address the methane argument, it addresses the flaws in the use of the White and Hall study. You could argue that the methane argument is being overlooked and is a bigger factor (which may or may not be true), but not that this video is debunked because of its existence.
There's also the fact that even if all methane produced is reabsorbed, it's still capturing energy at a much higher rate than other gasses while it's in the atmosphere, so its temporary presence is still a contributing factor.
You see the sport playing out whenever one YouTuber challenges another to a debate :p
@@Xentillus Bro, the total animal collective, even before we started farming animals, produced 40x more methane than cattle right now do.
@@MitsurugiR What does that have to do with anything I said?
Thank you! I hope "What I've Learned" does a follow up.
He wont
@@CLAMPED1 I know :'(. But I can still hope.
@@MiguelRaggi Fair enough
He’s commented on this video and he and Gil discussed a little bit with plans to potentially create some follow-up content in the future on this
@@spencerkm i am hyped!!
This was a much better response than the "Eating less meat won't save the planet debunk" video that I watched earlier, this perfectly fixed a lot of the errors and confusion in a neatly packaged 16 minute video. I don't really have much else to say to feather add to the discussion but I would recommend checking out the other comments for that instead.
This is far and away the most useful YouTube channel I've come across. How rare it is to see someone consistently emphasize the importance of not conflating causation with correlation, drawing conclusions only with a preponderance of evidence etc. All under an overarching tone of teaching the methods to avoid mindless adherence to authority. Keep up the great work!
I am really happy that you could make a video about this topic so soon. Looking forward to this.
Sweet! Excited to watch this tomorrow. Thanks for tackling this Gil. I watch both you and WIL and it’s nice to see you both in the comments discussing some of the points in a respectful way. Our world could use more of that!
thanks!! I believe you were one of the viewers who alerted me to this
What a great video. I only just found your channel, and you are a gold mine! This was the easiest choice to subscribe that I've made in a long while, and I find it extremely sad that videos like this one only got 16k views. Keep up the great work!
Thanks for doing this video, doctor. I know others have made counter videos. You made a good point about the unlikelihood of producing the same amount of corn after cessation of animal consumption. On a whole most definitely there would be huge drop in carbon and methane emissions. I would like to overeat occasionally, but 4700 is not even in my biggest days. I don't think it would be possible to burn enough calories daily to break even at 4700 calories consumption. I think some marathoners or ultra-marathoners do not get even close to 4700. My burn rate now as sedentary 135 lb age 50s person is 1750.
Your use of visuals and underlining of the studies I think is very useful.
I'd love to see videos about the water and land use too !!
Thank you so much for the wonderful video! This was a really good look at the issues. We all really appreciate your work to attempt to unobfuscate these issues.
„unobfuscate“ What does that mean? (I’m not a native speaker)
@@SchgurmTewehr It means "to make less confusing" :)
@@subhasishmukherjee9196 ok, thanks.
Wow, so happy to discover your channel, thank you for explaining this way, with honesty, it's not boring at all !
well done!
this channel needs more love :)
came here from the comment section of earthling ed
Love it, your videos are right to the point and come without any hostility, it’s very refreshing. I think a way to help, and add to our “tools” as listeners would be book suggestions. Reading through studies, if it isn’t something you’re used to doing, is pretty dry and confusing. But a well presented book is much easier to digest. Just a thought. Thanks for your hard work!
Don't cut down on the studies please. Book also good idea.
So in the beginning you talk about emmision from animals, and the crops, but how much of the emmision will the crops absorb again?
Love your work, what you are doing is absolutely vital and very much appreciated.
Hi there! I’d love to hear your thoughts on a recent randomized study published in the American journal on clinical nutrition over cardiovascular disease and possible benefits of the Mediterranean diet and incorporating lean cuts of red meat. Is the study suggesting their is a higher benefit above the Mediterranean diet by adding in lean red meat? Thank you for all you do!!!
yeah I saw that. it neatly tracks with the saturated fat content of the diet. we may cover it in an upcoming video. can I feature your comment? thanks!
@@NutritionMadeSimple absolutely! Thank you again, brother.
Pessoas como tu ajudam a trazer a informação científica de uma forma mais fácil de compreender e rápida, o que ajuda muito a educar a população que normalmente pode não ter tempo para ler todos os artigos de maneira a compreender bem um problema. Obrigado por procurares esclarecer as pessoas sobre estes temas, cada vez que fazemos uma decisão sozinhos é como que 1x, mas através dos teu vídeos muitas pessoas descobrem informação muito importante e muito facilmente e de repente consegues influenciar 5000x ou 10000x ou 1M de decisões para que sejam science-based. Por isso e por seres Português um muito obrigado, és um orgulho para nós!
Thanks a lot Gil! Personally, I’d definitely be interested in further videos taking a look at the land-use and water accounting points brought up in the WIL video
I don’t understand how eliminating animal agriculture will reduce emissions by 56 percent. When all agricultural emissions only account for 10% of yearly anthropogenic emissions.
great video as always, how do we get a more plant based diet to the main stream audience?
Replacements for meat, from the industries already doing it, and gradual change and acceptance of Whole Foods from westerners..
@@SchgurmTewehr we need it to be quicker tho, that’s why I ask
@@tobygosling1653 share Gil’s videos!
Extremely interesting and useful video, thank you. I believe the importance of this topic cannot be understated and if you create further comprehensive videos or series (perhaps together with Joseph from the What Ive Learned channel), I'm sure it will be a valuable contribution to the debate and grow your channel at the same time.
This channel recently published a video talking about the quality of protein and the rate we as humans can make use of the protein sources. The point was that we can digest almost all of the protein in animal based foods and about half the proteins in plant based foods. What are your thoughts on that? He also touched on the balance of certain micronutrients being better in animal food than in plant based protein
there might be a difference but it's small. not very relevant for most, in specific cases (body building, old age etc) might be advantageous to up the protein a bit if going plant-heavy. Studies have also shown muscle hypertrophy is not different between animal and plant protein if total protein (esp. leucine) is matched and ≥1.6g/kg/d
Thanks Doc! Been really conflicted by the What I've Learned video. Thanks for the tip on looking at the details of a study and how to assess it
I really enjoyed listening to your arguments/breakdown. Thank you for such a civil response/debate.
Great job! I wished we had many more people doing this type of work you do and to whom journalists could consult before publishing their "flashy headlines". If you are aware of others doing similar work, please let us know! Thank you!
Very thoroughly researched and clearly explained. Thank you Gil 🙏
Great content as always, informative and comparative educational, which makes it even more entertaining!
I blame YouTube for the reason this channel isn't as popular as other trendy "dietician" channels
Your best video to date - an excellent summary. Sharing now.
man you need millions of subscribers...the work you do is priceless... thank you.
It’s sad how little engagement this channel gets by attempting to tell the truth rather than telling the majority of people what they want to hear
Top notch content, as usual.
this is great content! You try to make people think, which is making a difference! Keep it up!
4:25 "... 24 ears of corn every day, per person.. and a half.."
That really says it all for the research going into that video.
Thanks for explaining so clearly!
Just a question. Since animal based food are more nutritionally dense, in replacing it with other plant based food wouldnt we be eating a lot more calories as a byproduct of trying to take enough nutrition needed. Also, the only thing u addressed from the original video is that one of the studies they got their conclusion from had made use of erring scenario. Why didnt you mention that the feeds the cows eat are mostly byproducts of crops that humans are unable to eat.
Thanks Gil.
Great reply and breakdown 👍
The best response video to date 👏🏾
Thank you for your wisdom, your knowledge, and your sanity. 🌹
Love how you explain and quote! thank you!
@poopeyinmymouth - 2021-05-04
I wish everyone online made content like this. So straightforward and respectful.
@jamescalifornia2964 - 2021-05-04
" Respectful" indeed. It is very easy to like this guy's style. 👌
@ThePartTimeEconomist - 2021-05-05
Absolutely, he presents the facts and tells us what we need to hear while also understanding the importance of being encouraging and not judgmental.
@dulejmani - 2021-05-23
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rEWoPzaDmOA&t=1s
@moiraflint - 2023-04-14
@@petterbakken7818m