Baboumian was comedy enough. And then there were the ring tests..

😅

I could care less

@@tommygunz5356 you mean to say that you COULDN'T care less. If you COULD care less, that means you care somewhat. Next time you try to leave a snarky comment you should probably make sure you don't make any errors in your comment

@@AMM1998 Circling Grammar nazi stork waiting to pounce.. alert !! nabb them YT trolls serr (comma after comment, you should probably ensure you don't use make make)

He does cover this in the documentary. Just because you aren't putting the dead animals in your mouth, doesn't mean you aren't creating equal levels of suffering to other habitats in the wild. We empathize more with larger animals. Mainly due to the ability to connect with their eyes (and other factors). Realistically, eating bugs for example would be far far worse than eating cows. It would take thousands of bugs to sustain a few people for a week. It would only take one cow. I use bugs as an example because its a species that even most vegans don't care about. My vegan friends exterminate cockroaches for example. If every life counts, then it would seem that harvesting plants would be the greater cause of death and suffering to wild life. Ironically the only way to reduce the suffering humans cause on the planet is by reducing the number of humans... Seeing as most people brand Hitler as the most evil man to have ever lived, it might not be perceived as ethical. Unfortunately suffering is unavoidable, this is the point Dave makes about the eco system. Life balances itself out. Each animal prioritizes itself and the ecosystem accounts for that. We as humans have actually broken the system. I would think the world would be a better place with elss humans. But im also not willing to kill any, so in my opinion you shouldn't battle in a fight you simple cannot win. Just be healthy and make choices for yourself, try not to judge others too much, and remember that the best marketing strategy is one that convinces you that what you are doing now is wrong.

@@coachalex4995 I don't mind being wrong. However simply saying it with no retort proves nothing to anyone...Enlighten me! To clarify, my comment is specifically referring to animal cruelty. I know cows are bad for the environment (if that's your point).

@@eddyertang Hey eddyertang, Firstly, the fact that you know vegans who kill cockroaches doesn't prove anything. It certainly doesn't mean that "most vegans don't care about [bugs]". I, myself, am a vegan and have killed the odd cockroach. It's a very subjective thing, but I believe it comes down to necessity through fear. I personally am afraid of them, and certainly wouldn't want them in my bedroom/kitchen cupboards. I definitely don't kill them because of the sensory pleasure (visual/sound/taste) that I can get from them. Secondly, "If every life counts, then it would seem that harvesting plants would be the greater cause of death and suffering to wildlife. ". You are aware that plants and animals are very very different? Specifically that plants don't feel pain? And also that so many more plants are fed to animals to fatten them up to produce a smaller amount of food? It's estimated that a huge portion of the world's surface could be freed up if we stopped farming animals. Thirdly, what are you doing bringing Hitler into this? Is that supposed to be funny? I don't believe he was doing what he did from some kind of ethical food production standpoint. Really?? That's weak, and potentially insulting to many. And finally suffering is not unavoidable. Unnecessary suffering is completely avoidable. If you don't need it to live, then it is unnecessary and you do it for pleasure. Can you really say, in the face of all the research, that a healthy vegan lifestyle is not possible? And if you accept that it is possible, then all the animal products you consume are for your pleasure and the animals' pain. Let's not forget that veganism is not about us eliminating animal death, it is about minimising our part in their suffering as much as possible. I hope these arguments were clear enough. Cheers, Greg

@@gregbrowning5437 About your first point: I think subjectifying the purpose for killing living creatures is very gray territory to base your argument upon. Many would argue that killing a bug through your own (irrational) fear is far worse than eating animals for your own health. You also used the word "necessity", you use this subjectively to justify your actions. You compare it to pleasure. The pleasure in the removal of hunger is not so different from the pleasure you receive by removing your fear. Regardless of which is worse, it would be extremely difficult to convince someone (using your argument) that your actions are acceptable and those you appose are not. Second: I think you didnt watch the video or wernt paying attention, maybe also to my comment. We are not discussing the value of plant life (which should not simply be overlooked). We are discussing the billions of living animal ecosystems that a killed and completely eradicated through farming. This happens to bugs, rodents and small mammals directly, but many more species indirectly by destroying their homes and food sources. Providing a much slower more painful death. This is why i said "Just because you aren't putting the dead animals in your mouth, doesn't mean you aren't creating equal levels of suffering to other habitats in the wild"... This is the unseen torture you are causing by eating plants, and you have distanced yourself from it by not seeing it, and not putting the carcass of the dead animals in your mouth. Im not judging or saying you are bad for avoiding meat, i think its a really respectable thing to do, but im just talking about the facts of the situation. Thirdly: No, no intention to be funny in my comment. Simply stating that the only way to eradicate the negative human impact of humans is by reducing the numbers. Eating meat, or plant based diets (as demonstrated above) causes immeasurable suffering to the animals plants and environment around us. There is no way to prevent this currently. Maybe science will resolve it with printing food and new food production technologies. But likely they will come at their own price. 100% right now you simply cannot avoid contributing to suffering if you wish to stay alive. Thats' just a fact. The point i was making that unless you are willing to commit some mass exodus of humans (the most destructive species to the planet) then you will never solve your ethical dilemma. Therefore i pointed to Hitler as an example of what people think of those who try and interfere with human life on a drastic scale. Finally: "Unnecessary suffering is completely avoidable. If you don't need it to live, then it is unnecessary and you do it for pleasure." Completely untrue and again missing the point. Certainly not done for pleasure. Simple survival dictates the requirement for something else to suffer, and the amount of suffering you (and everyone else) has caused to defenseless creatures is simply immeasurable. May it be directly or indirectly. I'm sorry to be the one to break that to you. Do you watch TV? that requires power, that requires oil. Do you know what adding to oil demand causes and contributes to? War, oil leaks, oil rigs in the sea killing wildlife, high risk jobs with high mortality rates, disease. This is just one minute example. I wish your argument had even one piece of relevant or true information but its just a very basic and uninformed mindset. I don't expect you to now agree with mine, but denial is a state you should live within for as short a duration as possible. At least if your going to start debating about it. Cheers Ed

@@eddyertang Thanks Eddy for your clear unhindered (by emotions) thoughts. Not breeding (too much) is the challenge. Hard to put upon others. China has produced generation(s) of little princes that way. Rational decissions make us superior, but emotional ones prevent us from protecting ourselfs.

Nice comment

This pretty much sums it up.

I agree, great comment!

Thanks for a great summary. I am very dissappointed at the point of view presented in this video.

Well I think he's not trying to convince you he is right he is merely sharing his opinion. Which is also why he showed the anecdotal evidence at the end, he was trying to provide a broad picture. Dunno bout the regenerative farming so no comment on that you might be right and he might be right I don't know. Also I really don't care about the ethics and sustainability so I'm also not commenting on that.

You are not refuting his point. He cited (1) arguing that livestock can be raised in areas unsuitable for crop production, and additionally that existing predictions of crop usage for omnivorous vs. vegan diets did not use an optimized vegan diet and thus underestimated the necessary amount of crops for vegans. Unless you can provide some contradictory research or a different reinterpretation of the literature your comment is at the moment is just restating the point that he disagreed with in the video! (1) journals.lww.com/nutritiontodayonline/Fulltext/2018/07000/ Assessing_the_Role_of_Cattle_in_Sustainable_Food.5.aspx#pdf-link Layman, D. K. 2018. Assessing the Role of Cattle in Sustainable Food Systems. 53, 160-165

preach brother

Yeah, "me, me, me, me". I feel good eating a lot of meat, so I don't care about the environmental costs. Its high time climbers take responsibility. I hope flying to 30 bouldering places all over the world every year will also one day become a thing of the past.

@@kriszteblade Suppose I went to the gym, but the only reason I enjoyed going to the gym was to espouse how disciplined and hard working I was to others. Suppose I endured all of that suffering in order to feel that sense of superiority. Would my behaviour genuinely motivate others to go? Instagram posts filled with me shaming others for being so unhealthy and undisciplined. Am I a force for good in the world? It's really quite questionable. On the one hand I'd likely be making people want to exercise, but not out of a want for their own health, not out of love for their own life and fitness, but instead because of a sense of shame that I'm shoving down their throats, making them feel insecure. I'm guilting people into doing something that I consider to be for their own good, but couldn't I just accomplish the same goal with a positive spin instead? 'If you don't care about your fitness, or are unable to care about it, then that's OK, it's your choice, but know that there are genuinely plenty of positives to it that you're missing out on. I understand it's hard to get used to, but it really does feel good to know you're doing something positive'. Isn't that a more encouraging, convincing, and less abrasive approach? I say this because people generally don't like doing things which they themselves don't desire. If your approach to recruit new vegans is to shame them and talk about how virtuous you are, don't be surprised when decent people are reluctant to submit and join you. If your approach is instead to be a decent and empathetic human being who wants the best for others, and is tolerant of different opinions rather than cramming your own down their throat, you might be surprised to find that people are far more open to following suit. By all means though, continue telling other people how selfish they are and how selfless you are if you want to. I'm sure you're in a similar position to professional climbers and refrain from flying around the world purely for ethical reasons, and definitely not any other reasons.

Callum Scott excellent comment,

You can eat meat and animals while being environmental friendly and respect the life of the animal. You can eat vegan and still have a huge impact on the environment : soy plantation, advocat, banana,etc... all this shit crossing ten time the world before ending on your vegan plate.

Why would you ask a climber about diet? Would you ask dietitian/diet expert who climbs for tips on climbing? I recommend nutritionfacts.org as a first step in getting science based diet information.

Good questions. Yes I think even when the vegan diet is carefully planned, it is unrealistic to expect optimal function, because the list of supplements would be so long and difficult to get right (B12, B6, retinol, vitamin A, DHA, EPA, zinc, iodine, choline, carnitine, creatine, methionine, glycine and others). A nice analogy for the vegan diet is flying a plane very low. If you get every meal just right and take every supplement, you can just stay above problems, but there is not much 'room' for error or poor choices along the way. Yes the difference of improving the diet will definitely be noticeable for climbers at all levels. Connective tissue injuries, fatigue, anabolic resistance, poor mental health and other preventable conditions are very common and improving diet quality can make an impact on all of them. It would not be my choice to supplement with refined protein powders to offset the poor protein quality because refining of this nature is environmentally wasteful and it is much more environmentally responsible to just eat high quality properly farmed food.

@@climbermacleod This is simply not true. B12 is the only supplement necessary. Please look it up. E.g. WHO. Choline is plants. Please look it up, e.g. nih.gov. Also excess choline is associated with prostate cancer.

@@Halorocker101 Trust is a personal decision. I would argue though that blogging and studying an msc does not make one an expert in a field. I teach msc students so I have some insight into this. Regarding Gregors bias, well, Dave is not a vegan, is he by default biased? If Gregor started eating meat, would you believe him more? Gregor lives from digesting literature and drawing conclusions not from selling soya.

@@Halorocker101 Great conclusion. Take care!

Have you not watched the one on the keto diet?

Felt exactly the same in terms of my performance and energy levels, I originally did it for the animals but the added health benefits have been amazing. Its a shame to see Dave take this stance I'd like to say your diet was a personal choice and whatever you want to do is ok. Unfortunately the meat heavy diet condemns billions of animals to abhorrent conditions and brutal deaths every year.

if you carefully listen to Dave, what he says here in no way contradicts your experiences...

Extra work to go onto a diet that produces almost 100x more carbon

You miss soooo many nutrients on a vegan diet. So ‘quality’ of diet is just an ‘idea’ .... you need vit B’s K2 D and so on. You can not get them in a Vegan diet!

@@Doors_of_janua looks like you got your nutrition information off of instagram and some anti vegan weightlifter bros. Stop cherry picking information to reassure yourself. Of course there are poor examples of vegan diets but... dont knock it till you've tried it, or at least done some actual research.

@William Boyle you're trippin william. you say "whatever nonsense you eat as a vegan." then "i tried eating vegan food" obviously salad isnt enough calories to fulfill you and you had/have no idea what you're doing. if salad is the only thing you can think of when listing vegan options then you have no place in a nutritional debate😂. stick to your meat and your biased charts you see on instagram.

@William Boyle Fair enough, to each their own! Ignorance is bliss. However you wanna justify keeping your eyes and ears closed is fine.

That is an easy one! Because packaged foods are optimised for profit, not for your benefit. Packaging is specifically designed to obscure or mislead if it suits the manufacturer to do so.

This would be great!

I would enjoy a nutrition book for everyone, like a flowchart - according to your goals (health, energy, focus, longevity, ethical considerations, digestion, body development (muscle, sinews, bones..)..). I think some first stages of change apply to anyone, like getting away from industrial (junk) food. The mental change is pretty big (at least for me) - according recipes (book(s)) would be great to get going. This could change things. There is only(?) much shit on the market. Studying papers can't be the only way, even for educated people.

@Pierre Gleize are you an athlete?

Paul focus on real food from the earth. Carbs are always the best energy source. Where can we find them? Plants :)

👍

I did this recently and pretty much immediately stopped eating animal products.

@@IsaacSMILE has the same impact on me. running had already got me eating quite clean, so was already pondering the change, but just never got round to it. I watched Land of Hope and Glory and just knew I would never eat meat / dairy again. My taste buds are not worth others suffering in such sick circumstances, especially as their are so many delicious vegan foods around now.

Brainwashed

Luke Hinds him

Both of them actually

Either way, Chris Sharma eats meat and sends harder than you ever will.

It's total junk. Take your nutrition advice from good science, not Hollywood.

I think that you have fallen foul of the latest round of vegan propaganda, which seems to be very selective on when (and where) deforestation began. Indonesia has been largely deforested (eg Sumatra is 95% deforestated, mainly for palm oil plantation) but this has been erased (conveniently) to push focus on amazon cattle ranches. Truth is, these amazon cattle 'ranches' are industrial factory farm feedlots, which is clearly wrong. But the primary reason for deforestation is logging. Then comes the 'golden' (fertile) period for arable production, then a lot of it is turned over to cattle feedlots (tertiary). Also, the work of the Savory institute proves that the absence of large bovine herds is driving desertification and Allan Savory has proven that reintroduction and constant moving of herds (mimicking pressure from predators) regenerates desertified areas (which amount to ⅔ of earth's landmass) therefore making the whole argument that cattle take up too much land, rather null and void.

That was directed at @Hutchslover.

@@bbwoolfy Concerning the deforestation argument, sure, the logging itself is the main driver in areas with little to no Forest management and suficient biomass per tree. But that is hardly the reason to completely clear areas with arid shrubland with fire for example, that's why I didn't even name the amazon. I'm not really concerned with any agenda, I'm speaking from the point of a biologist. I think it's well established by now, that unregulated deforestation for any cause is bad, especially in areas with a biodiversity as high as Sumatras or even more so Borneo. I don't see where this issue has been erased. Neither in peoples minds nor the media does that appear to be the case. Concerning the regeneration of desertified areas, the method of choice is hardly universal. And in ecosystems that naturally do not have any large herds of bovines, this approach would lead to little more than create more ecological problems (e.g. australia). Plantations aswell as reintroduction of native flora and fauna would rather come to mind.

@@Hutchslover Slash and burn has been a favoured form of clearing deforested land (from logging) for arable farming for a very long time now. Accelerated with the rise of globalisation. Taking a more sinister turn under Bolsinaro who wants to eradicate all indigenous people in Brazil. You did mention Brazil and I was involved in a recent discussion with vegans pushing the same arguments re pastured beef taking up too much land. One even promoting factory farming over pastured livestock. Incredible! But they were flooding me with all this carefully prepared, highly selective propaganda which erased global deforestation, particularly Indonesia (which is now dubbed 'sustainable' palm oil by virtue of some jedi mind tricks). Also Dave mentioned Amazon deforestation for beef in the video. So that's why I brought it up. In the work of the savory institute, restoring degraded/desertified land, I don't see any issue in regards to Australia, given that they have large bovine herds there already. The crux of the issue is in how the herds are managed. The problem being that with current (lack of) thinking animals are allowed to graze in areas for too long and thus impacting the plants and soil beyond repair. I see it as quite a natural low impact solution to restoring barren land and increasing biodiversity. Would you say the same re changing the hydrology of land to increase biodiversity? What harmful impact do you envisage from turning degraded/desertified land into rich fertile biodiverse land using Savory's methods?

bbwoolfy wwf un ipcc do not agree with you on this. At least 80 % deforestation is for feed for farm animals.

Thanks. Yes I experienced keto flu and once it had passed I felt good. It is really worth experimenting with your electrolytes to see if adding more calcium, magnesium, potassium and/or sodium helps with symptoms. Mine disappeared instantly after adding extra salt and magnesium.

Just because you couldnt find it doesn't mean the evidence is not out there... Bioavailability is widely researched and in my understanding based on the amino acid profile of the food which is then compared to the >human< needs for anabolism of proteins. And as you correctly stated that leucine plays a major part in muscle synthesis why then do you not understand why animal protein is more bioavailable?

@@Danfranschwan2 Bioavailability is a different concept from the completeness of the amino acid profile. Bioavailability refers to the body's ability to digest the protein. For example, some minerals like iron are known to be much less bioavailable from leafy greens than from red meat -- that is, even though there's iron in the plants, it's in a form that's not as readily absorbed by the body. If you have found evidence that a similar argument applies to proteins, you should link to it.

Tibor Frei hey man! I think you might be interested in watching the “debunks of the Game Changer debunks” - check out Mic The Vegan or Dr Garth Davis. It’s important that there is a critique of the people “debunking” this documentary as they mistakenly overlook many hugely important concepts or fall to fallacies. 🙏🏼👍🏼

@@Scott-ec5uy Will check it out, thanks mate.

While admittedly my background is by no means nutritional science, your comment underscores why building a strong background understanding is important to form a critical viewpoint on deep subjects such as these. I'm not sure if a debate format would ultimately be the most desirable--often times they only reveal who has better debating skills. I suppose those who are truly invested in this topic must go through the process themselves (as David does in the video) and rigorously evaluate the scientific literature and reviews...

Why does everybody say 'thanks for giving your opinion'? He is not. He is looking at the science (often refers to in it) to understand if the claims in the documentary are sound. So SCIENCE is giving an opinion, and on the main it's a damning one for the documentary. Game changers is Hollywood tackling a difficult, delicate subject with a lot more nuances than the promoters of the video have money (or intellectual honesty, but was a given).

I would not recommend watching debates to form opinions about topics. Often the one who seems to be "winning" is really just shouting louder than their opponent, which says nothing of the validity of their claim.

Thank for the comment. I've only briefly spoken about environmental issues around food production so far and at some point will give them the same treatment as the health/nutrition aspects. I have thought about the points you bring up of course; 1. Nobody is arguing for human edible grain/foodstuffs fed to livestock. This practice is in part a byproduct of overproduction of these foods, although it has shifted since then. Most human edible crops that go to livestock (e.g. soy) is going to monogastrics, not ruminants. I think we would be in agreement this is not a good practice. I don't advocate for this kind of practice and don't eat a lot of pork or chicken myself for this reason. For ruminants it's a totally different picture. 86% of their crop feed is non-human edible because humans can't eat most of crop plants. If humans are going to grow peas/soy/nuts/grains for their own consumption, most of the weight of the plant is wasted (and hence the resources that went into growing it). But ruminants can upcycle this 'waste' into extremely nutritious food that fills nutrient gaps in the human diet and improves soil health (if managed properly). 2. You should consider the difference between stock and flow climate gases. CH4 is more potent but is gone in ten years. This is why stable herd sizes to not cause warming. See papers by Myles Allen and colleagues at the IPCC for more on this, referenced in my McDonalds video. Herd sizes in various western countries have declined while productivity has increased. The bulk of herd stocks are in countries with far poorer productivity such as India. This is low hanging fruit to reduce herd sizes massively and cause global cooling while still meeting demand for adequate human nutrition. Not saying this is culturally/politically easy, but is possible. Of course some of the efficencies that have been used come at costs to welfare. I'm not advocating for these. Good veterinary care does the heavy lifting here and is what is missing from developing countries with large inefficient herds. I don't see anything wrong with improving this.

Is it though?

I don't know what Adam Ondra or the others eat either. The details matter! So no I can't comment and wouldn't even if I did know. What they eat is up to them. One thing I would say though, is to be pretty wary of attributing cause and effect to any one thing with respect to training/diet etc and a single athlete. There is variation in tolerance for 'good' and 'bad' diets in any population and if you take a cohort of athletes eating a sub optimal diet, you'll still get a few great athletes who are self selected as the ones who can tolerate the sub optimal diet or training.

We do actually know the specifics: "Diet is important. I don’t feel like my diet is very special, but I suppose some people would think that it is. The most important thing is how I eat during the time when I’m training hard. Right now I’m climbing outdoors, and in comparison I don’t climb as much. So diet is still important, but less so. I try to eat as much natural food as possible. For breakfast I have porridge or a smoothie. Throughout the day I eat only fruit, nuts, and seeds, as well as some vegetables and good spices like turmeric, curry, and cumin mixed with rice, buckwheat, or millet. In the evening I have some protein. It can be meat, eggs, lentils, or legumes. I don’t eat that much meat. I find that if I eat too much meat I’m not as strong. But at the same time if I go two weeks without any meat-I also feel weak. So I eat meat once or twice a week." www.climbing.com/people/adam-ondra-the-future-of-climbing/

No I will do this, but just have my hands full with another project at present. It takes a lot of work to produce this sort of video, so I can't say exactly when I would publish it, but I definitely will because it is important.

@Abel Abel Yes you certainly can but our anatomy and physiology is not that of a herbivore as David makes very clear above. I do include high fat low carb nuts and seeds in my foods but the best high quality nutrition comes from an inclusion of animal food products in a diet for humans. Ethically I wish we were herbivores which was my motivation for holding out for a significant part of my life. The truth is that we are not and I now eat to maximise my health. That requires food from animals. It's fine if you disagree with me Abel, you must do what you think is right.

@Abel Abel Fortunately truth has never been governed by consensus. It is established through scientific evidence, not dogma. Archaeology shows the exact opposite of what you state here as fact. The rapid development of the human brain happened as a result of hunting being mankind's primary food source. Evidence of that is irrefutable from early settlement remains cave paintings etc. How many cave paintings are there of early man collecting bananas? At the advent of agriculture humans became smaller and their jaws narrower. Again, anyone who has studied would know this. Native Americans upon their discovery were found to be one of the healthiest, tallest and most immune resistant races and as is very well documented, their food sources were based on hunting - especially bison and every single part of those animals were used. Scientific evidence here: www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2001/05/010529071125.htm Clearly you only looked at the title of the video above and did not watch it. It gives clear anatomical and physiological evidence of the opposite of your unsupported statement. Evidence is what shows the truth. NOT consensus.

@Abel Abel what of all the insects killed for growing single crops? or do they not count as animals?

Exactly! Everyone has different health issues which require a different approach to diet

totally agree!

How sure are you such docs so bad for veganizm? I got approached by several people to share experience of being vegan after they watched this movie. I think it is very difficult to get the message across. Too simple, not true enough. Too true, not catchy enough...

@@greengraycolor Admittedly, I have no hard proof of this being a net negative for veganism. But I think the fact-based criticism in this video shows how easy it is to make this documentary look bad and reinforce stereotypes about deluded vegans with an agenda. And some of the clips of ex-vegans shown here are a good example. Too often, vegan KZfaqrs promote false promises and incomplete diets and then return to meat after a couple of years in bad health. In my mind, that is worse for veganism than these people never going vegan in the first place. A healthy vegan diet still requires good information and some effort in this day and age and pretending it doesn't isn't helping anyone. The best thing you can do is being a healthy, well informed vegan, helping people out with good information when they try to go vegan.

@@greengraycolor Plus, I think that it's wrong to promote a cause with lies or half truths, even if it's a good cause.

@@nutzerbezeichnung I have only seen reviews of this documentary but so far I haven't heart a valid claim it lies. Half truths, well, as a scientist I would never hope for more. Every study, every literature stream is never a complete picture. I cringe here because Dave makes wild claims, imprecise arguments sprinkled with a lot of terms which make people think he is an expert. I think it's easy to make any claim look ridicules if the topic is not trivial relative to the level of knowledge of the audience.

@@greengraycolor Lies of omission and blatant misrepresentation of cited studies. I think that's enough to discredit this documentary.

Thanks for the comment. Sure, there are plenty of modelling studies that conclude less animal food will reduce emissions. But I wonder if you can show me one that measures food correctly (in nutrients rather than kcals or kgs) and addresses the land use consequences of mono crop agriculture (soil death). I'm not quite sure what you mean by methane not being sequestered in the same way as the carbon cycle. The point was that fossil carbon is not part of the biogenic carbon cycle and methane from ruminants (who acquire those carbon atoms from the atmosphere, via grass) is.To your point 2: The sources of increased methane concentrations are addressed in the video in reference 25. Did you read this paper? Other work from Myles Allen at the IPCC, Michelle Cain and others has shown that the stable herd sizes over long periods do not add to warming (correcting earlier incorrect accounting of GWP100). Speaking of opportunity cost, Allen himself has pointed out that there is a rather more worrying opportunity cost of becoming distracted from the big fish (fossil carbon) by focusing on reducing herd sizes which offer only a one off pulse of cooling for a couple of decades. This of course is not to mention the opportunity cost of a human nutrition disaster, or the carbon emissions of healthcare costs as a result of dealing with it. No, herd sizes in the west are smaller largely because of improved veterinary care (genetics, care standards, nutrition) which increase yield of meat and milk per animal raised. I'm totally with you on forest clearance for cattle grazing. However, note that cattle grazing is also used to protect forests from degradation and outright destruction from fire. Its about the management. Also note that nearly 90% of cattle feed is human inedible, much of it waste products from human food production. Should we send brewers hops, corn stalks and pea husks to landfill instead? Broadly though, I'm with you that cattle should eat mostly grass. I think your final point about the efficiencies of industrial farming as it is currently practised being needed is debatable. However, I would certainly agree pastoralism is under threat and that is a very big problem.

@@climbermacleod Thanks for such a thought out reply. I'm pulling together a proper response so will post tomorrow when less busy. To risk been a kiss arse, your a legend mate, properly inspired me to move from (Leeds) gym climbing to chasing trad and mountaineering so thank you.

Eat from a local butcher not a supermarket- simple, no? Locally sourced meat which isnt ranched or imported for supermarkets is obviously better

You should research on industrial fishing and fish farming as its for sure worst on the enviroment than meat production. Most fish relies on wild stocks and current industrial pratices are completely unsustainable its impact on stocks and environment is being ignored

@Thomas Bake properly raised ruminants build soil and increase soil carbon. It's an issue of choosing your meat carefully. Know your farm, how they raise their meat and don't fly your food around the world in a plane. Eat what grows where you live.

@@climbermacleod Thankd a lot for your answer. I'll try to take everything into account.

Yes I have read most of Pollan's books. I think the majority of it makes sense, but crucially, only in the context of a western style mixed diet where meat is considered unhealthy. Without that part, the case for variety is rather more shaky. A great number of studies have now amassed testing the idea of meat being unhealthy from various angles (SFAs, protein, heme iron, TMAO etc etc) and none of it has supported the idea. For this reason, Pollan's famous catchphrase has been reworked to "eat meat, not too little, mostly fat". One can build a rather stronger case from the evidence for this version than Pollan's original version! But other than this, Pollan is right about synthetic food and the negative influence of profit driven big business in the food supply.

Mostly vegetarian is not the same as vegetarian. This is Adam Ondras' diet: "Diet is important. I don’t feel like my diet is very special, but I suppose some people would think that it is. The most important thing is how I eat during the time when I’m training hard. Right now I’m climbing outdoors, and in comparison I don’t climb as much. So diet is still important, but less so. I try to eat as much natural food as possible. For breakfast I have porridge or a smoothie. Throughout the day I eat only fruit, nuts, and seeds, as well as some vegetables and good spices like turmeric, curry, and cumin mixed with rice, buckwheat, or millet. In the evening I have some protein. It can be meat, eggs, lentils, or legumes. I don’t eat that much meat. I find that if I eat too much meat I’m not as strong. But at the same time if I go two weeks without any meat-I also feel weak. So I eat meat once or twice a week." www.climbing.com/people/adam-ondra-the-future-of-climbing/

Are you referring to Honnold's mini-rant about overeager vegans? I think you missed the point or forgot the '/s' ;) instagram.com/p/B_fVa5qFDBw/ "alexhonnold: Rant of the day: diet. For some reason there are tons of folks who get mortally offended every time I post about how vegetarianism or veganism are better for the planet. And yet it’s a fact that eating less meat and dairy is the simplest way for the average individual to lower their impact. There are countless reputable sources on this subject, though it’s maybe easier to just watch a few films like @gamechangersmovie or @cowspiracy (both of which I had slight issues with, but the overall arguments are sound). The most vocal critics of my diet posts fall into a few categories: 1) People who don’t want to think about it one way or another, they just want to eat how they’ve always eaten. In some ways this category annoys me the most - it’s intellectual laziness. I grew up eating steak and drinking milk; my family was as middle class American as it gets. And then I read a ton of books and started worrying more about performance and my carbon footprint. So I stopped eating meat (or at least seriously limited it). We have to change as we learn new things. 2) Folks who argue that meat can be sustainably raised (or they hunt their own food). I agree that in some cases this can be “sustainable”, but there’s no version of sustainable meat that feeds 7.8 billion people. We have to start by just eating less meat. 3) People (almost always overly macho young men) who think that I must be seriously light duty to eat mostly plants. I don’t even know what to say to them, but I’ll just leave then with this @jimmychin pic of me soloing the Excellent Adventure, 5.13a (7c+). I think the plants did me well that day, as they have for the last 7 years or so. For anyone interested, read Eating Animals by Jonathan Safran Foer. It had a big impact on me. Oh, and my last mini rant is reserved for vegans who are all up on their high horse and poo poo other folks’ good efforts - it’s better for someone to eat meat once a week than to eat it every day. It shouldn’t be a test of ideological purity. Diet is a spectrum and it’s better to do less harm than more."

Martin Renaudin - I’m able to put on muscle much easier on a plant based diet too. I used to be one of the guys who ate masses of meat thinking I needed it after training sessions. In fact , when I used to concentrate on protein sourced from animals, the muscle mass a density used to decline quickly. Plant based, my muscle mass and weight stays constant. 👍🏼

Hi Martin -- I recently switched to a plant based as well but Ive found the opposite effect. May I ask what specifically you have been doing with your diet to achieve this? I probably havent been as rigorous with supplementing and I would love to know what I can do better. Cheers, Leo.

@@ItzSkillful to sum up, cereals and leguminous plants, vegetables, oliv oil, all kind of seeds, and things like seitan, plant based steak that I cook with indredient like cgm, brewer's yeast, soya

Hello Sean, I hear your sentiments about the ethical problems related to the use and consumption of animal products. I've been living on a plant-based diet and vegan lifestyle myself about as long as I have been climbing. Roughly 8-9 years now. Perhaps started climbing a little later than that. I turn 40 at the end of this year and I have been continuing to make gains in the gym and on the rock. I'm interested to hear what sort of discomforts or in what way your switch to a plant-based diet made you feel bad and perhaps I can offer some insights into how I approached it. And hopefully, you can glean something from it.

So if you got this from a vegetarian diet (whilst still eating eggs, milk, and cheese) then it may have been something to do with the type of foods you were eating. Alot of eastern foods are a good way to mix up a large amount of lentils, legumes, nuts, grains etc... I would also consider suppliments. The reasons outlined in this video though are part of the reason I keep milk, eggs, and mussels in my diet. The cheese is just because i'm addicted.

4 cups. The my tea breaks didn't make the cut.

@@climbermacleod 4 cups. Respect

Yes - low meat, insects, a balanced approach to agriculture wih mixed livestock and crops. Lots of important ways to keep the planet alive. Not sure a vegan diet will save the planet. Campaigning for animal welfare will certainly do more than not eating meat.In the long term, synthetic forms of food will be the way forward

"They didn't do it right" is the default defensive position of vegans as concerns ex-vegans. Alyse is one out of *thousands* who are forced to abandon veganism every month, much less every year. Almost all of the people who give video testimony as ex-vegans are intelligent, credible, and made every effort to carry through on what they believed was the "ideal diet". If a diet is truly natural and healthy, why is it so damned hard for even dedicated, educated people to "get it right"? Alyse and the others didn't fail the diet. The diet failed them, as it did for me many decades ago. Films like "Game Changers" are part of a concerted, profit-driven and cynical move to completely convert the food supply to one that is controlled at the corporate, global level. The only sustainable pushback is to support local, pasture-fed, animal-based farming and distribution. F*ck Monsanto, Cargill, and cynical manipulators like James Cameron and Arnold (neither of whom is vegan btw).

I believe this comment commits the straw-man fallacy.

@@terraflow__bryanburdo4547 "Films like "Game Changers" are part of a concerted, profit-driven and cynical move to completely convert the food supply to one that is controlled at the corporate, global level." lol dude not sure the discussion can go further than this

Just noting here the absurdity of implying veganism is being pushed by some nefarious corporate lobby given the depth and power of the animal agriculture lobby around the world. Truly, these people live in a fantasy land