Fascinating. I don't know what nutrients Ms. Teicholz refers to when she says meat is the most nutrient dense food. Protein maybe but that's only one type of nutrient. Meat does not have any antioxidants or phytochemicals.

She is doing the same as anyone who is debunking. You can easily put doubt in people's mind and that's what she is doing. That's exactly what oil companies and tobacco companies have done for years..

I liked both debaters, but some of the "questions" were horrible, especially the guy who said something about his money paying for the debate . . . what a jerk.

Have the presentations been published? I would like to check the sources and evaluate the studies and reports myself.

Shame we don't get to see Nina's slides.

Why are Ms. Teicholz's slides not displayed? Afraid of a fair debate?

Thanks for good advice

i found both presentations interesting, but i did find issues with each argument and rebuttal, of course. very interesting debate!!

"I have to give you a little lesson in scienctific evidence...epidemiology is a science where they follow large groups of people[yes,thousands] over long periods of time[yes, sometimes dozens and even hundreds of years]. They ask them what they eat, and they try and see who gets diseases[yes, like even the big, most rampant ones]. And they try and link it..." Of course they are. And they're doing a great job far as I can tell.

Those nine years didn't seem to do Teicholz much good, given that she consistently misrepresents studies in her book. She also started going on about low-fat diets and weight loss, which had nothing to do with the motion. Both sides made weak arguments, though, but Mackey won it for me, especially with his astute observation that Teicholz is completely fine citing fictional literature to support her points (and epidemiological studies when they support her point in her book), but whenever there's a study which doesn't agree with her conclusion, she says "oh, epidemiology is completely useless".

wow, the massai info was killer

Why does she start with : I am not here to prescribe any diet? Is that the point or what food is best?

Mr. Mackey, as a practicing vegan do you take supplements? Are supplements necessary for someone practicing a 90%+ plant based diet?

Wonderful company to work for at Whole foods Market Victoria British Columbia Canada 🇨🇦 pasific northwest region

"Liver and beef have more nutrients than blueberries and kale." I'm just not believing that.

John Mackey unfortunately comes across as a bully, shouting louder to persuade, whereas Nina calmly refers to data. Unfortunate cos I'm sympathetic with the Veg side! :-)

Unfortunate denial and cynicism to some degree on both sides. Unfortunate because you can also tell that, while they both have strong financial investments in their sides of the debate, they clearly know their stuff and aren't only concerned with their private interests. It's a shame they couldn't speak more calmly and collaboratively.

She could be right if only a few studies would confirm that meat is bad but there supposed to be very many.

wow, anything to sell a book, complete denial.

So fun, her studies are fine but not the other's. lol..

yeah, follow the money...which industries are being threatened? lol monsanto and unilever are problematic too! they're all troublesome in addition to the meat and dairy industries!

i don't shop at whole foods for 2 reasons too expensive for my budget and i do not like John Mackey he just really annoys me..

How many people will be killed by the increased pollution caused by raising animals?

Mr. Mackey: Meat is bad, m'kay?

There is no debate as all the facts are in and have been for over 2.6 million years. We evolved on a "hunter-gatherer" diet over this extended period of time. Basically our diet consisted of meat and fat with on occasion a few berries, seeds, nuts and a "few green leaves". Our paleolothic ancestors coveted the fat from the bone marrow and brains of the animals and fed their canine companions the filet mignon etc. It has only been about 10,000 years or so since we collectively left the forests and our hunter-gatherer mode to farm the land. Since that time there is conclusive evidence that we have become shorter in stature and our bone density (a prime determinant of health) greatly reduced compared to out paleolithic ancestors. We do not need carbohydrates and the Eskimo of today proves it as he/she eats a diet high in fat, moderate in protein with only a short seasonal diet of fruit and vegetables. These Eskimos have none of the "diseases of civilization" cancer, cardiovascular, and diabetes which are all related and stem from excessive carbohydrate/sugar consumption which over stimulates the pancreas to produce massive insulin surges. Admittedly today with all the numerous dietary distractions it is very difficult to not indulge our sweet tooth but Nature doesn't care. We must as individuals be determined to eat in as close approximation to the diet we evolved on for over two million years or be prepared to suffer the consequences. I have read countless books since 1994 on what we should eat and there are many good ones mostly written by endocrinologists like Dr.'s Michael and Mary Eades(Protein Power and the LifePlan book), Dr, Barry sears (Zone Diet), Dr, Loren Cordain, etc. Two books of recent note are... and don't laugh, seriously..."Eat Bacon, Don't Jog" By Grant Petersen and "Primal Body, Primal Mind" by Nora Gedgaudas. Our bodies when consuming the right foods (and this means low-carb -high fat, moderate protein and a few green leaves) will use our free form fatty acids/ketones as our primary fuel source. Our bodies run more smoothly and efficiently on this form of "high test gasoline" as opposed to carbohydrates/sugar which is akin to watered down gasoline. When you are a "fat burner" you don't get hungry every few hours as you do when you a "sugar burner" as most people today are. You will have a stable blood sugar level and be burning fat while you are being sedentary. You will lose that weight and lean out as I have. The first few months were trying but soldier on because it will be worth it once you "arrive". Make changes gradually and be persistent Regain your birth right!.

For me, Teicholz is the clear winner of this debate. The nine years she spent reading the studies obviously resulted in considerable expertise. Not having Teicholz's slides in this video is an obvious bias as is the funder of the debate participating in the Q&A session. Overall, my opinion of Whole Foods has tanked as a result of seeing this video.

omg yes! people want to hear what they want to believe! people want to hear that eating meat is good for them because they're eating meat...

Whole food plant based all the way

Not showing the opponent's slides, eh? Regardless of who's right, that's a dirty move and made me lose some respect for this guy and company. One last comment: Mr. Mackey needs to study why epidemiological studies are so discredited nowadays.

Wow, I just finished watching this and didn't know of or care about the CEO of Whole Foods, John Mackey, That is to say until now. I have to say I thoroughly dislike Mr. Mackey, If for nothing else his complete hypocrisy, He states he follows veganism for himself but the rest of us well we can do with 90% vegetarian and 10% animal based products! Huh? Come Again? Either you believe that veganism is ideal or it is not. Notice in the Seventh Day Adventist study that they keep citing the true vegans outlived the mostly vegetarians by 14 years, which they were so eager to point out. I shop at Whole foods and I see plenty of refined vegetable oils, highly refined grains, sugar filled foods, "junk foods" like potato chips, pretzels, cookies, and yes there is a meat department and plenty of dairy, there is even a whole cheese section. So what gives Mr. Macky? Oh yes he tells us up front at the start, poor Mr. Mackey tried to make Whole Foods all about the fruit and vegetables and it's not what the people wanted and he made no money so he then decided to sell all the horrible health destroying foods like meat, cheese, dairy, eggs, and processed junk food that he in all his wisdom would never consume himself. Another words it's alright in his book to sell you food that by his claim and belief will lead to disease and a shorter life all in the cause of capitalism. Go ahead Mr. Mackey line your pockets with all that wealth, it's nice to know that someone can afford all of your organic vegetables. He even mentions he's a vegan for ethical and environmental reasons, again so you create a business that engages in the decimation of the products that result in the death and confinement of millions of animals and the subsequent destruction of the environment by the animals waste and the millions of tons of petrochemicals used in the production of the feedstock. Give me a break, what a blowhard. I wouldn't believe a thing you say after this blaring unapologetic hypocrisy. We want the science sir, and we want it questioned, scrutinized, and challenged in order to get to the truth. Whatever the result, of the "ideal" diet if there were to be one, Ms. Teicholz critique of nutrition science as a whole still stands, and simply telling people to become vegan is neither truthful or science. Whether or not you agree with Ms. Teicholz this whole "debate" felt like a forum to promote Mr. Macky/Whole Foods and was clearly biased against Ms. Teicholz. It was quite telling when the sponsor/financial backer of the debate lambasts Ms. Teichloz and clearly believes in veganism and therefore supports Mr. Mackey. Not to mention Mr. Macky came off as a bit of a bully. This was a horrible presentation of the facts and he proved nothing. Ms. Teicholz stated that we can't just sit back and blankly accept epidemiological studies at face because of fundamental flaws that are coming under increasing scrutiny. Certainly the millions of people that struggle with weight and health issues have a right to know just how flawed or reliable these various studies are before we base our whole diet on the subsequent recommendations.

Nina is falsely excluding huge meta analysis on vegan diets, and inflating her interpretation that a large body of clinical controlled trials designed and funded by the meat and dairy industry, remains unopposed by trials supporting vegan diets, for which there is no opposing industry to provide funding. Misleading and dishonest, as always.

"No. I don't eat vegetables for breakfast. I don't know many people who do."

Nina Teicholz

Great closing arguments by John. Nina resorted to fear mongering and skinny witches...how scientific.

Who are these Maasai warriors I keep hearing about? Turns out they're a highly introgressed bunch with a specific mutation for a high tolerance of lactose. These are in fact X-men with the power to drink a gallon of milk in an hour and live to tell about it. Also they consider butter an important food for infants and they happen to have an increased infant and warrior mortality rate. The surviving elder men are only then allowed to marry. The culture is practically designed to be advantageous for breeding meat eaters, those who have survived to be elders. Their reputations are as warriors and cattle rustlers...not exactly sedentary...their level of fitness is likely in part due to their training and forging and maybe less related to diet. This is about as far out as outliers get when choosing societies to compare. The credible doctors have compared American diets to China's, Japan's, the Blue Zones, and those prior to industrialization. And to the guy saying meat has been known to cure the malnourished of course that depends on what else their meatless diet was lacking.

John Mackey does not look like a healthy man. He could use a good steak and potato dinner and some free weights.