What a diet can and cannot do for you, explained by Netflix's "You Are What You Eat."

Editor's note: Due to a technical glitch, this email didn't send on Friday, so we're sending it now! Hope y'all are staying warm. —Izzie Ramirez, deputy editor

Hey readers,

It’s Kenny here. 

A recent Stanford University study won’t end the raging war over what we should eat for optimal health, but it does give vegans a leg up. 

 

Published in the medical journal JAMA Network Open in November, the first-of-its-kind study recruited 22 pairs of identical twins, split up by diet. In each twin pair, one was randomly assigned to eat a healthy vegan diet for eight weeks while the other was assigned a healthy omnivore diet that included meat, eggs, and dairy. Those in the vegan cohort ended the study with much better health outcomes, particularly lower fasting insulin and lower cholesterol — a key indicator for heart health.

 

While most nutrition research is published with little fanfare, the twin study has received outsize attention thanks to an accompanying Netflix documentary series — You Are What You Eat: A Twin Experiment — that follows the culinary journeys of four of the twin pairs participating in the study. It was released in early January — right in time for New Year’s resolutions — and quickly became one of the streaming platform’s most watched television programs in the US.

 

“Identical twins are the perfect natural experiment because each individual has identical genes in every cell of its body, so they are a perfect way to tell nature from nurture,” Tim Spector, a professor on twin research at King’s College London who was not involved in the study, said in the Netflix series. Researchers also noted that the twins said they had similar lifestyles and were raised in the same households. 

 

The study results are in line with a large body of nutrition research on the benefits of healthy plant-based diets. But I worry its findings could be undermined by the sometimes oversimplified nutrition advice served up by the cast of mostly vegan advocates starring in You Are What You Eat. It’ll likely be effective in persuading a lot of its viewers to give plant-based eating a try, but in others, it could instill some skepticism. 

 

What happens when you go vegan for two months

 

For the first four weeks of the Stanford study, each participant ate preprepared frozen meals; for the final four, they had to provide their own food following a few basic principles: Choose minimally processed foods and consume a variety of vegetables, starches, proteins, and healthy fats. 

 

The researchers were most interested in what would happen to the participants’ low-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels (LDL-C), known as “bad cholesterol,” an important marker of heart health. LDL-C levels for the omnivorous group barely budged. LDL-C levels for participants on the vegan diet fell by 13 percent on average. Fasting insulin levels fell by 20 percent more for the vegan group (high fasting insulin is a risk factor for developing diabetes).

 

The vegan participants also lost 4.2 more pounds on average than the omnivore participants, though the researchers didn’t intend to study weight loss and participants were told to eat until they were full. 

 

The vegans, however, experienced a drop in their levels — though not to anywhere near the level of deficiency — of the critical vitamin B12, which is essential for nervous system function. Nutrition experts recommend that vegetarians and vegans take a vitamin B12 supplement, which the study authors didn’t ask of participants. (The study was only eight weeks long, but for long-term vegan diets, supplementing B12 is a must, and it’s easy to do for a few pennies per day.) 

 

What plant-based food can and cannot do for you

 

Carnivorous critics have said You Are What You Eat amounts to little more than vegan propaganda, and at times, it can feel that way. The series’ vegan advocates talk at length about how meat and dairy production accelerates climate change and deforestation, pollutes air and water, and abuses animals — claims that can sound hyperbolic but are actually spot-on.

 

But You Are What You Eat’s health claims are more complicated. There’s no doubt that a minimally processed plant-based diet can offer immense health benefits, especially for people who aren’t consuming enough whole grains, fruits, and vegetables, but the series sometimes makes sweeping generalizations about the benefits of plant-based eating and the harms of meat and dairy consumption — like when cheese is misleadingly described as “biologically addictive.” 

 

While sometimes plant-based advocates can oversell the diet’s health potential, many meta-analyses conclude that vegans and vegetarians, along with flexitarians (those who significantly reduce their meat intake), tend to have lower rates of heart disease, Type 2 diabetes, and some cancers.

 

Critics have also pointed out that the study was partially funded by tech entrepreneur Kyle Vogt, who is vegan and an executive director of the Netflix series. They also noted the lead Stanford researcher, Christopher Gardner, has received funding from Beyond Meat, a plant-based meat company. (The company didn’t fund this study, though the vegan cohort did consume Beyond Meat products.) 

 

But none of that means the study amounts to bad science. It was “very nicely conducted, especially because both the vegan and omnivore diets were quite healthy,” Walter Willett, a professor of epidemiology and nutrition at Harvard’s school of public health, told Vox.

 

And its findings are highly consistent with existing nutrition and environmental health research, which points to the need for people in rich countries to eat less meat and dairy and more plant-based foods. 

 

“There is no body of evidence that conflicts with the finding that a healthy plant-based, vegan diet as implemented in this study, is better than a typical omnivore diet,” Willett added. 

 

The biggest limitation of the study was its short length. Eight weeks is a blip in nutrition science, which is why researchers favor longer-term studies. Nutrition science is also messy and complicated, and a diet is only as good as it is easy to follow. 

 

Most people struggle to stick to diets, including vegetarian and vegan diets. For example, only one of the people in the vegan cohort decided to stay vegan after the completion of the study. However, going vegan for two months did have a positive effect on most of the participants assigned to the vegan diet — all but one said they planned to eat more plant-based foods than they had prior to the study.

 

For those looking to improve their health — and shrink their carbon footprint — by eating more plant-based meals, it may make sense to first try out a flexitarian diet, which is much lower in meat and dairy than the standard American diet.

 

“Each step in the direction of a healthy plant-based diet will have benefits for personal and planetary health,” said Willett. “One doesn’t need to be a strict vegan to have major benefits.”

 

But if you’re going to eat less meat and dairy, it’s important to replace them with healthy plant-based foods like nuts, soy foods, and other legumes, Willett said. Ultimately, you’re much better off eating a healthy omnivore diet than a plant-based diet low in actual plants and high in vegan doughnuts.  

 

Almost a quarter of Americans say they’re trying to cut back on meat, yet annual per capita consumption continues to rise.

Some of the hesitancy to eat more plant-based food may be purely mental: There are several moments in You Are What You Eat where people remark that a vegan dish is so good that they wouldn’t have guessed it was vegan.

 

You Are What You Eat is strongest when it critiques the ecological destruction wrought by meat and dairy production, how those sectors have heavily influenced our food system, and the barriers consumers face to eating healthy plant-based foods.

 

The responsibility for improving public health ultimately shouldn’t lie with the individual. It’s the responsibility of policymakers who’ve shaped it through regulations and subsidies that favor the  meat and dairy industries at the expense of Americans’ health and the climate. While the series has its flaws, it gets the big picture right about a lot of what’s wrong with our food system, and how to make it better.

 

—Kenny Torrella, staff writer

P.S. If you want to recommend this newsletter to your friends or colleagues, tell them to sign up at vox.com/future-perfect-newsletter.

 
 
Learn more about RevenueStripe...
 

Maybe, just maybe, psychedelics are the “master key” for unlocking everything from blindness to stroke to anorexia

An illustration of a rainbow eye.

Getty Images

What can psychedelics do for human brains? Senior reporter Sigal Samuel invited Gul Dolen — neuroscientist and Future Perfect 50 honoree — onto The Gray Area podcast to discuss what she learned from giving psychedelics to octopuses and mice and how she thinks psychedelic-assisted therapy will change in the coming years. Read the transcript here.

More on this topic from Vox:

  • A new approach to measuring what’s going on in our minds
  • Why psychedelics produce some of the most meaningful experiences in people’s lives
  • Psychedelics can have enormous benefits, but the risks shouldn’t be ignored
 

Do we really live in an “age of inequality”?

Rich people in the UK at what is presumably a tea party or soiree.

In Pictures Ltd./Corbis via Getty Images

Lots of disputes in the social sciences are like this: touching on big, societally important questions, but ultimately turning on disagreements over highly technical issues. And so it is with the great inequality battle of 2023, writes senior correspondent Dylan Matthews. In his latest piece, he explains how the answer has less to do with economic models than it does with politics.

More on this topic from Vox:

  • We’ve been fighting poverty all wrong
  • The first results from the world’s biggest basic income experiment
  • I give 10 percent of my income to charity. You should, too.
 
WHAT WE'RE THINKING ABOUT
Rows of bottled and canned soda in packages on a grocery store shelf.

Jeffrey Greenberg/Universal Images Group via Getty Images

The purpose of sin taxes is not really to raise revenue, but to alter human behavior. If we introduce a little financial disincentive when people do something we have good reason to believe is not good for them, maybe fewer people will do it. Sugary beverages have been a popular target for such taxes — but do they actually motivate people to buy less Coke and Pepsi? New research suggests they do: Purchases of sugary drinks dropped by a third in US cities in the two years after the introduction of taxes on those beverages. —Dylan Scott, senior correspondent and editor

 

You might have seen Future Perfect’s predictions list for 2024, including calls on the US and Mexican presidential elections, Dodgers all-star Shohei Ohtani, psychedelics, and much more. But that isn’t quite enough predictions for me, so I’ve been working my way through the predictions contest that Metaculus and Scott Alexander are running. If you want a helping hand, the experienced forecaster Zvi Mowshowitz has published his predictions for each question. The best part is, at the end of this year, you’ll get to see how much more accurate your calls were than Zvi’s and mine! —Dylan Matthews, senior correspondent

 

Are you looking for a TV series to fill your empty January nights? Then let me introduce you to Paris Police 1900, an eight-episode French TV show that is, as the name suggests, about the Paris police in 1900. You’ll meet a mix of real-life characters — like modernizing Paris police commissioner Louis Lépine and oddball painter Adolphe Steinheil — as well as fictional ones, all against the backdrop of a Paris crossing the bridge between the 19th and the 20th centuries. 1900 is all about the effects of the Dreyfus Affair. If you like the show as much as I did, you’ll move onto Paris Police 1905, where you will learn way too much about syphilis. You can access both series on MHz Choice. —Bryan Walsh, editorial director  


A new study out of the United Kingdom asked one group of people to rate the intelligence and sentience of cows raised on organic farms, and another to do the same for cows raised on factory farms. The group that rated factory-farmed cows gave them much lower mental capability scores than the organic group. That might seem odd, but it makes sense in light of the “meat paradox,” the cognitive dissonance people can feel when confronted with their love for animals and their love of eating them. Researchers theorize that people feel guilty about factory farm conditions, so they attribute lower mental capacities to the animals to assuage that guilt. However, the factory-farmed group also reported a greater intention to eat less dairy, a sign that guilt can also be a motivator for dietary change. —Kenny Torrella, staff writer

 

Questions? Comments? Tell us what you think! Email us at futureperfect@vox.com. 

 
Learn more about RevenueStripe...
 
FacebookTwitterYouTube

Access the web version of this newsletter here.

 

This email was sent to comercialyventas.aliperiodicos@blogger.com. Manage your email preferences or unsubscribe. If you value Vox’s unique explanatory journalism, support our work with a one-time or recurring contribution.

 

View our Privacy Notice and our Terms of Service.

 

Vox Media, 1201 Connecticut Ave. NW, Floor 12, Washington, DC 20036.
Copyright © 2024. All rights reserved.