Real Doctor Reacts To The Game Changers (Full Movie Documentary)

The Game Changers is a new

documentary

film that was released a few weeks ago in which James Wilks, former UFC champion, a fighting champion is injured and begins a quest to find the optimal diet to determine human health and performance. and along the way he meets several top scientists and athletes to determine the best way to be healthy to perform and recover, so today we are going to talk about the

movie

and the arguments that were made to see if he found that the optimal diet it worked Hi, I'm Dr. Ekberg I'm a holistic

doctor

and former Olympic decathlete and if you

real

ly want to master health by understanding how the body

real

ly works, be sure to subscribe and hit the notification bell so you don't miss anything.

I think I'm kind of unique. qualified to comment on this film because I am a

doctor

, I have extensive training in physiology, neurology and nutrition. Also, I have been a vegetarian for seven years, not the last few years, but from 1995 to 2002 I was a vegetarian. It's not the best solution, but if there is anyone else who feels this way, I won't judge. or try to eat them in meat, I was also an Olympic decathlete so I performed at that level of athletics and had some success and at that time I ate meat, then after that race I was a vegetarian for many years and now for the last 15 years more or less with an omnivore, like all kinds of things.

One of my channel's viewers, Cindy Zhu, saw this

game

-changing

movie

and was worried, so she wrote and asked if the movie was really true and if the plant-based diet was an even better alternative to the that I had done until now, the film is very good, it is very well produced, it has many names behind it, many famous people have invested in the film and are listed as co-producers arnold schwarzenegger pamela anderson jackie chan and others, james cameron produced and directed it , so there are a lot of famous people involved and as always we tend to confuse fame with experience, so as soon as something is well produced and there is someone famous behind it, for some reason they think the data has more value and we want to start to understand that this is not necessarily the case, so the film argues that a plant-based diet is better than an animal-based diet in all the aspects that drive performance, sex, longevity and health , everything in your life improves when you stop eating meat and start eating plants, so I'm not against vegans, I'm not against vegetarianism, but I get a little angry when someone has an agenda. and they say this is the only way to eat and then they try to scare you with tactics and misinformation and they cherry-pick certain information and present it in a way that makes it seem true, so I think there are a lot of There are happy people who are vegetarians and there are people healthy very happy who is omnivorous and eats meat so we just want to start understanding the bigger picture so James Wilks starts this quest to find the optimal diet because he is a UFC fighter, he is a champion in fights and then he didn't eat less meat, but then when you get injured, you decide you have a lot of time on your hands and you want to figure out what's the quickest, most productive, most optimal way to heal and recover so you can get back on your feet, you start doing some research and , interestingly enough, being a fighter is one of the things that catches his attention, one of the original fighters, the gladiator, so let's take a quick look and see what he has to say. about.

It totally baffles me that gladiators were expensive fighters who received the most advanced training and medical care in the Roman Empire and to think that the original professional fighters ate primarily plants when it goes against everything I was taught about nutrition. The first argument of the movie is that plant foods are better because the original gladiator fighters were vegetarians and I'm not going to argue whether they were or not, but I think it's a little strong to say that they were highly valued fighters and that they received the best nutrition. and medical care in the Roman empire as if gladiators are valued because you respect them and they are highly valued they are valued as animals for slaughter just as we feed cows today whatever it takes to feed the cow as fat as possible by feeding them with grain, so what they did to the gladiators was not make them fat, that's not what I mean by that comparison, but the goal was simply to make the gladiator last long enough and perform well enough to last a few years. . as a warrior before being sacrificed for entertainment purposes, so just to refresh my memory I went to Wikipedia and searched for gladiators and there I read the following.

Gladiators are most despised as slaves who were trained in difficult conditions, socially marginalized and segregated, even in death, which now does not sound like someone they respect and for the value of the person they cared for, because they value entertainment in the movie that talked about the gladiators having certain minerals in their bones, that strontium was present and that this is a sign that proves that they were vegetarians and I am certainly sure that the gladiators had very good bone quality, because human bones get stronger until approximately age. 20, which is when you are

full

y grown and these gladiators really didn't live much longer.

Wikipedia says about life expectancy that George Ville, using evidence from first century gladiator tombstones, has an average age at death of 27 years and an estimated mortality among all who entered the arena at 19 out of a hundred, so for for every hundred people that were in the arena to fight, nineteen died each time for each fight, nineteen percent of the people died or were executed or sacrificed, so again, that doesn't sound very high. I, but even the age of twenty-seven is probably a high estimate because it was based on headstones and most of these people didn't have headstones.

Marcus Jumkelman questions Villes' calculation of the average age of death; He says that most would not have received any tombstones and would have died early in their careers, between the ages of eighteen and twenty-five, so the average career of a gladiator was one to two. years, that's the life expectancy, so yes, they will not have osteoporosis, they will not have signs of degeneration, they will be young, healthy people, no matter what they are fed, in one of the doctors who provide that upper part. Medical care was someone other than a Greek physician named Galen who would probably become the most accomplished of all ancient medical researchers.

Galen influenced the development of several scientific disciplines, including atomic physiology, pathology, pharmacology and neurology, as well as philosophy and logic, so Galen was 'a very complete physician and formed part of his training in a gladiator school in Pergamon, where he saw the training, the diet and the long-term health prospects and then he would criticize the gladiators, so he criticized the diet and again you can There is really no argument that says that these gladiators were very, very well cared for and who became vegetarians because they felt it was the best food available to them at that time.

James Wilkes knows an ultramarathon runner who was very successful and broke all kinds of records and ran the Appalachian Trail faster than anyone before and this person is a vegetarian so James Wilkes asks how can a vegetarian generate enough energy for these . long endurance races so he sends information to dr. James Loomis. What I found in the locker room was some pretty old-fashioned ideas about nutrition: You'd go to a pre

game

dinner with the football team and you'd see that this spread would be very protein-oriented meat and chicken because their perception was that the protein sustains your energy, but in reality this is not the case, the true energy for exercise comes mainly from carbohydrates in the form of glycogen that we store in our muscles and when we sacrifice those carbohydrate calories for protein calories in our diet, which ends up happening Will you really develop chronic carbohydrate or glycogen depletion and what does that lead to?

Well, it leads to chronic fatigue and loss of stamina. I totally agree with Dr. Loomis saying that it is an outdated idea that athletes had that energy would be obtained from meat from meat protein, but then dr. Loomis says that carbohydrates are the main source of energy and then shows a diagram with proteins stealing energy from carbohydrates as if they were the only two macronutrients we have access to. Of course, I remember that there is a third one which is fat and what most people don't realize, even if you eat zero fat you won't last very long, but if you have followed an extremely low fat diet your body still has about 50 percent carbs and 50 percent fat because many of your cells function better on fat and your body can't store carbs very well, so it converts them to fat and then you burn a mixture of carbs and fat, so that even if you eat almost no fat, your body is still going to burn about 50/50, so having a graph showing that it's carbs and protein that provide the energy is just ridiculous, so if you're dependent on carbohydrates, so you eat mainly carbohydrates and no fats.

You'll run on about 50 percent carbs and 50 percent fat, but if you're fat adapted, then if you're on a ketogenic diet, then you'll run on about five percent carbs and you'll run. Currently, approximately five to ninety percent of your energy comes from fat, in both cases, depending on how much protein you consume, some of the excess protein will also be burned for energy, so these numbers are not They are accurate, but you get a rough idea that it is not energy from carbohydrates or proteins, it is energy from carbohydrates or fats and that the body's main source of energy is fat.

If you eat a lot of carbs, some of them will turn into fat, but if you eat mostly fat, if you burn fat you don't convert fat into carbs and his final argument was that if you don't eat enough carbs you will deplete your glycogen stores and end up with chronic fatigue, lack of energy and endurance and It's exactly the opposite, because what robs you of your endurance when you are not fat adapted and when you eat enough carbohydrates to become insulin resistant, it is the insulin resistance that causes chronic fatigue, and not the other way around, so it's not mentioned in In this whole movie about fat as a source of energy, the only time fat comes up is when men, if you have animal fat in your blood, talk about how it interferes with circulation and with the endothelium, so check that there is a direct correlation between "a meal and endothelial function the endothelium is the lining of blood vessels regulates blood flow throughout the body knows that a specific muscle group or organ needs more blood flow and it dilates it opens when the endothelium is damaged it cannot open it cannot allow blood to enter.

The flow does not increase as much and therefore restores athletic performance. I found that pretty convincing, I mean, I get scared when I look at that graph and see that the blood vessel is closed and I mean it feels like it's something really bad. , so I went to look at some of the research and I didn't have time to look at a lot of it, but I picked one at random to see what it said and I got one from the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition selected in 2013, it was in the movie and what I actually said is that saturated fatty acids do not affect endothelial function or arterial stiffness, so the research they cite says the exact opposite of what they just said in the movie, which is not very inspiring.

Trust me, I must say that in the results of this study for one hundred and twelve participants with data available for the analysis of the specified results no significant differences were shown and in the conclusion it says that the replacement of saturated fatty acids with polyunsaturated fatty acids or the Carbohydrates in healthy subjects do not affect vascular function so this is the thing with the research, although in this case the claims were not even supported, the research said exactly the opposite, at least in the one I saw found, I am sure that There are some positive findings in some of the other research, I don't dispute that, but for every research that says one thing, there is equally prestigious research that says the opposite; when you look at enough research it's almost like a perfect 50/50 split on the topics and they all contradict each other, why?

Because people tend to find what they are looking for for two reasons. They have a goal when they start the research and they are more likely to achieve that goal than not, the other thing is that if you find what you are looking for, you are really happy and rush to publish, but if you don't find what you are looking for as a researcher, thenyou tend not to publish and this is not just my opinion or theory, it seems that about 85 to 90 percent of the positive results are published about 85 to 90 percent of the negative results should not be published, in other words they publish when They find what they're looking for and that's what we think is research and they still contradict each other, so whatever it seems like, whatever you try to prove with research, you can always go out and find a study that backs up what you say. you think, so after they show us the scary video of the endothelium collapsing, they do blood tests and then they put the blood in a centrifuge to separate it and then they show us what happened.

Here is your blood from today and your blood from yesterday, both nice and clear, so look at the words when he holds them up, he says it looks nice and clear, okay, whoever says clear is nice, there is no evidence, there is no evidence , there is no suggestion. which is better than cloudy, there are many athletes who eat meat and do very well with cloudy blood, maybe it is better, but they give us these prejudices that help us make the decision, so right after that call the fried chicken guy . the vials says oh that's pretty gross, ok I don't want it floating in my blood because I'm under the impression that's a bad thing, but what if it's cloudy is it better?

Well, the research they did certainly doesn't support the fact that this is the case. it had some impact, it could be cloudy it's better and if it's actually fat in the blood and fat is our main fuel then maybe it's a good thing, I don't know, but I'm just saying what they suggest is not proof of anything. A little later in the movie, they get the question right: what are humans supposed to eat? What are we biologically physiologically prepared to eat? We are humans primarily herbivores or better suited to eating meat. Humans do not have specialized genetic, anatomical, or physiological adaptations for meat consumption;

On the other hand, we have many adaptations to plan consumption. We have longer digestive tracts than carnivores and this allows humans to digest fibers that require a longer processing time, so let's look at that. argument she says that humans don't have a specific adaptation to eating meat, but we have many adaptations to eating plants well again, she chooses certain data so there are probably 50 different criteria to determine if we are suitable for one or the other, but I'm going to choose three. He picked one and talked about the length of the digestive tract, so yes, humans have a different digestive tract than a lion, but we are closer to a lion, much closer to a lion than a cow, so if we go a carnivore looks like a carnivore like a lion, they have a relatively short digestive tract, a small intestine, they have a very low pH, which means they produce a huge amount of hydrochloric acid.

The pH is between one and three in most carnivores, their teeth are sharp for breaking down meat. and they don't have flat teeth to grind vegetables and plants, they plant a herbivore like a cow, a rabbit or a goat, they have a very different digestive tract, they have a very long digestive tract, a very complicated digestive tract, they really have nothing in common with a human or a lion because they mostly have stomachs with bacteria that digest food for them they have multiple stomachs with bacteria and humans and lions do not have that it is very long and complicated and different very different their pH is high they have very little hydrochloric acid because there is no animal protein to break down and digest and their teeth are flat to allow them to grind grass and plant products, so where do humans fall when they are omnivores?

It means we can eat a little bit of everything Carnivores evolved mainly in areas where there is a lot of meat to eat. evolved, they live in areas where there are a lot of plants, but people like you know they spread all over the planet and there are some people who eat mainly meat, there are some people who eat mainly plants, there are some people who eat mainly fish, others eat mainly fruits and they all do relatively well because we are omnivores, we have the length of our digestive tract is medium, it is longer than that of the lion, but it does not look at all like a cow, we also have a stomach that is very, very similar to the first part. of digestion where we break down proteins is almost identical to a lion, it is a small bowl that receives the food that produces enormous amounts of hydrochloric acid.

We have the same pH between 1 and 3 that a lion or most carnivores have if we take care of the teeth. Human teeth are sharp in the front and flat in the back, so we can do both. We don't have one or the other. We have both, which means we can eat all kinds of different foods. There's probably no one alive. I haven't heard that you're supposed to eat more fruits and vegetables and I'm not going to argue with that. I would say eat more fruits and vegetables if you are insulin resistant and then eat very little fruit, but we hear eat more fruits and vegetables.

More vegetables and fruits is like a mantra and the main reason why the main argument is that they are

full

of vitamins, minerals and antioxidants. So let's see what they have to say about antioxidants dr. Stahl talks about what I have found almost entirely in plants that have an average of 64 times the antioxidant content of animal foods; Even iceberg lettuce has more antioxidants than salmon or eggs, so switching to a plant-based diet can help reduce measures of inflammation by 29. percent in just three weeks. So if we accept the idea of ​​antioxidants, then it sounds like a compelling argument like wow, sixty-four times more antioxidants like 64 times more of the good stuff, even iceberg lettuce is like water, more antioxidants than salmon, so , why would you do it?

Do you want to eat salmon if it doesn't have antioxidants? So this is all part of a big myth, the first thing is what are antioxidants and who are they good for, so plants produce antioxidants to protect plants, they don't have any higher ulterior motive, they don't sit in the ground and say, I bet a human will come eat me later, I think I'll prepare some antioxidants for the human to recover. No, plants produce antioxidants to protect plants. Well, humans do the same thing that humans make antioxidants for humans. Within our own cells we produce something called glutathione and it's the main and only antioxidant that really matters in humans and guess what it doesn't come from a plant, it's made up of three amino acids glycine glutamine and it's called cysteine ​​and amino.

Acids are natural proteins, so there is nothing magical about plant antioxidants because they are made for plants. Humans produce glutathione, which is by far the dominant, providing the vast majority of antioxidant functions in the human body, and we make it ourselves from amino acids that come from proteins. Another thing that most people don't realize about antioxidants is the name antioxidant, why do we do it? What does it mean? It's against oxygen. That is what it means. Why do we have oxygen? Why do we breathe? Because we breathe oxygen to be able to oxidize fuel. proteins, carbohydrates and fats and convert them into energy, this is how people produce energy, it is from fuel that we oxidize with oxygen, if you take an antioxidant it interferes with that energy production, so don't worry if you only eat one food Normal, if you only eat a lot of vegetables and even fruits, if you are not insulin resistant, then you will get harmful amounts of antioxidants, but if you eat them, in addition, you will get a lot of alpha lipoic acid supplements and megadoses of vitamin A. and c and e now you're actually lubricating, you're taking a life, you're interfering with energy production, you're preventing your body from producing the energy it should have, so if you're not sure how important oxygen is for energy production, just hold down. breathe for a few minutes and see how eager you are for more oxygen and then you realize that the more synthetic antioxidant supplements you take, the more you mix them up, so those supplements are more like asphyxiation therapy than anything else , probably The most common argument in favor of carbohydrates only for plants in general, but for carbohydrates is that we need glucose in the blood and that the brain can only function on sugar, let's see what they have to say about that. "We have a brain that is desperate for glucose.

I mean, it's such a demanding organ that it's the only thing it really needs for energy. Good meat is not a very good source of glucose. To have a big brain like this, "You have to eat something else and the most efficient way to get glucose is to eat carbohydrates." The brain is desperate for glucose, it is a very demanding organ and protein is not a good source. All three things are simply wrong because the body uses whatever fuel is available and I agree that protein alone is not the best fuel but if necessary the body can make glucose from protein, the brain is quite demanding because it doesn't eat protein, it uses glucose and it doesn't use fat per se, but in the absence of glucose, the brain will use as much if 75% of ketones work and ketones are a byproduct of fat metabolism to say that the brain only works with glucose is simply incorrect and if it says that the brain when you have a big brain the best way to supplement it is to eat a lot of carbohydrates, it is simply not true because carbohydrates especially processed carbohydrates, but carbohydrates in general what they do is create sugar spikes in blood, they increase blood sugar and provide fuel for the brain, but it produces too high a level, it produces spikes and then when you have a spike it will go down, so now you have a blood sugar roller coaster and with the time you can also have hypoglycemia in the background of that and with continuous consumption of carbohydrates you develop insulin resistance and that is no longer a mystery 85, 87% of the world is overweight in the Western world. overweight and it's because of insulin resistance and what happens to the brain that he maintains that the brain really loves that glucose, when you become insulin resistant then you also get an insulin resistant brain so now They call dementia type 3 diabetes, okay, carbohydrates are not the preferred fuel, it is one of two fuels, it is a good fuel if we can provide it in a stable way, carbohydrates do not provide it in a stable way, they provide it in a mountain form Russian and the brain doesn't like it in Another quite tragic thing happens in a movie like this when they talk about athletes, wrestling champions, boxers, soccer players, people who practice contact sports, people who frequently hit their heads. and even if they wear helmets, some of them don't.

The brain is very soft and inside a very hard shell and when you get hit, although the helmet prevents the skull from breaking, the brain bounces back and hits the inside of the bone, creating traumatic brain injuries, microtrauma throughout the day and the brain has a very limited ability to repair it is encased in bone for the reason it is supposed to be protected, it is delicate and when it is not supposed to be injured it has a very poor ability to clean itself and regenerate and the best hope you have the brain to recover is called Autophagy and autophagy occur in the absence of insulin and carbohydrates, so if you are in your head on a regular basis and eating a high carbohydrate diet, you are really setting yourself up for some long-term neurological damage. , so especially people who receive a blow to the head should do a ketogenic diet and t.

They have to work with intermittent fasting because that autophagy is their best hope for preventing brain degeneration. Some more things they mentioned in the movie are proteins. They say it is a myth that meat has higher quality proteins. The only thing that matters is the presence of the essential amino acids in the foods themselves and it is simply false, they are right because plant foods have a lot of protein, but it is not in the same proportion and it is not as bioavailable, it is not absorbed or used in the same extent as animal foods and they also talk about ysterhema iron which means muscle or blood iron and they say it is associated with increased inflammation and increased heart disease again, they are picking up isolated pieces of information that they don't know What else did that person eat, well, it could be all the sugar or all the trans fats or all the bread they ate.

I was with that, but the availability of iron is a big problem and heme iron is much more available, so there are between 2 billion people in the world who are anemic and anemia is one of the worst diseases you can have . Anemia means that you don't have enough iron, you don't have enough hemoglobin in your red blood cells to capture oxygen and transport it toyour cells, so it's like you're always starving for oxygen. Everything in your body is functioning at 70 to 80 percent because it is not receiving. fuel and that's up to 2 billion people and guess most of those people are mainly vegetarians because the iron in plants is not as available as they found and 2/3 of the iron in the human body comes from heme iron in the blood or muscles even if only a third of the iron is ingested, so we can eat tons of spinach and plant foods that contain iron, but that doesn't mean we are actually going to absorb it and not use it and the same applies. to the protein that bioavailability is the amount that we absorb and use LizeThe same no, we do not absorb as much from plants as from animals, so there are many people who do well with plant foods and I congratulate them, I praise them, I respect and support them, but there are also a large number. of people who after several years of vegetarianism become seriously ill because they cannot absorb the appropriate iron, proteins and amino acids, as a doctor you see very difficult cases, we see many vegetarians, we see many examples, so this does not mean that meat or plant foods are good or bad, but you have to figure out what works for you and if something works for you, don't try to pressure someone else and say it's better for you and then move on to the last part of the movie.

It "brings" them a very, very serious problem, with which I totally agree, except that they draw wrong conclusions: it is about the environment, deforestation and the amount of water that is used. wrong path, let's see. Around three quarters of all agricultural land in the world is used for livestock production, which is a huge cost to biodiversity and, which is the largest source of habitat destruction, is the livestock sector, meat, dairy, eggs and fish farming, which provides 83 percent of the world's agricultural land, but only 18% of the world's calories. So that's the real big problem we're facing: the way we produce food has gotten completely out of control, but it's very easy to blame when trying to find a scapegoat and in this movie they say, oh look, it's the carnivores. the problem they have. but it's not the way we produce food in general, it's not the carnivores, it's not the cows' fault, it's the industrialization of agriculture, the problem is industrialization, the massive scale of food production, soil depletion, the runoff, the pollution and all the garbage. that ends up in the rivers it's not about the meat or it's not about the fact that we use mass agriculture we use synthetic fertilizers chemical fertilizers and we rotate not crops we don't respect nature we don't try we don't do anything in balance with nature and it doesn't matter if they grow plants for themselves or if they grow plants to feed animals, that's just the wrong model, okay, that's we should stop eating meat, we need to change the way we produce. food in general and very often we hear the argument that we still need GMOs to feed the world population, we have these needs for massive farms, we need chemical fertilizers and that is a big lie, it is a big fallacy and I analyzed it recently. a little bit and I thought to myself: you know, there are small farms that I know that are huge, they produce enormous amounts of food and use nature's resources, they do everything in a sustainable and environmentally friendly way, they rotate and they can keep it going for always.

So I thought, let's see what percentage of the world's food is actually grown on small farms, because we're under the impression that almost all food comes from these mega farms, so I was hoping to see maybe a small percentage or maybe 2 percent. of the The world's food comes from small farms and then I was preparing the argument to say well, you know, if 2 percent comes from small farms, let's multiply those farms 50 times s and we can have one hundred percent of the food supply . Well, I thought that might be reasonable, but it totally blew me away.

I had no idea how much of the world's food comes from small farms. It turns out that more than 70% of all food production in the world comes from farms smaller than 25 acres, large farms only. supply 30 percent of the food, so it's not even a big transition, the only reason we've ended these mass production farms is because of commercial interests, because of the convenience of automation and because of government subsidies , okay and if we really want to get back to producing food naturally we can produce vegetables and meat in abundance in the areas that the world provides and even meat can be produced sustainably and a great example is a place called Polyface Farm in Virginia.

There is the farmer. He is a family farmer named Joel Salatin. and he has been farming there for over 50 years and for the last 50 years I don't know if he himself has done it for that long but for the last 50 years they have not introduced any chemical fertilizers. They didn't plant any seeds they don't have a plow or a silo they have 500 acres and of those 500 acres they have one hundred acres open for grazing where they feed their animals 400 acres are still forests, so on those one hundred acres they naturally produce 300 percent more meat than a commercial farm its ok to use modern product production methods the way we are taught the way we are made to believe its the only way to feed the world through chemicals and mass production well its doing it the wrong way natural and produces 300 percent more food per acre and you don't add anything, you just let nature take care of it, rotate the crops, move the fields, move the livestock and it happens the way it's supposed to happen.

I think the film is successful. showing that there is a good chance that you can be healthy and have a long and very productive life if you choose to be vegetarian or vegan. I think the movie doesn't prove its arguments that plant-based foods would be superior at all. I think all your arguments are empty. I think they have gathered their information by choosing what anyone can do to support their point of view. I think they have backed themselves with a lot of famous people and influential people and we mistake that for the truth with experience, so again learn everything you can about the principles of physiology and I wanted to make this film because when my viewer asked me and I started watching the movie, I saw it as a threat because the biggest problem we face.

What I have is insulin resistance and if people stopped eating animal foods and started eating predominantly plant foods and the way is not that you can't have a low carb diet with plant foods, but the The way the movie promotes this is to eat a high carbohydrate diet. foods to fuel your activity and fuel your brain and what you are going to feed that way is insulin resistance and if you are very sensitive to insulin and you eat this way you can probably do it and live very well for a long time, but if insulin resistant like almost 90 percent of the population, then you won't be able to reverse that insulin resistance by eating the way they suggest, so I wanted to clear things up in this comment so people feel safe and secure that yes it is.

It's okay to eat an omnivorous diet, you can eat a little bit of everything. I don't think you should necessarily go overboard on one or the other to figure out what works best for you. I also recommend that you buy the best quality foods you can. I know some people feel like they can't afford it, but if you can spend a few extra dollars, then support the movement towards healthier foods: organic, grass-fed, local and sustainable, because that is the future of food production. and the more you support it, the more it will grow. I don't think a lion is unethical because it eats an antelope and I don't think humans are unethical because we eat meat.

I think it is unethical to raise animals the way we do. do on mass farms I believe an animal has a right to a life in the environment it is designed for and then I believe it is perfectly ethical to eat that animal just like the lion eats the antelope, but we should respect them just like the American Indians respected them. The Buffalo used everything from that animal. I hope this was helpful and if you enjoyed this movie, I'm sure you'll love it.