Joe Rogan Experience #1393 - James Wilks & Chris Kresser - The Game Changers Debate


  1. tom pom

    tom pom47 menit yang lalu

    i literally got a headache watching 40 minutes of this shit,, no thanks.. idiotic crap, wasted time... next!!

  2. Cyber Krunk

    Cyber KrunkJam Yang lalu

    James Wilks doesn't fully fully understand scientific method. There is a little misleading on both sides though.

  3. tup2retro

    tup2retro2 jam yang lalu

    Lots of confusion here about hypothesis testing, and this bogged down the conversation quite a bit. In science, your hypothesis is typically that something “is” having an effect. In statistics your null hypothesis is always that there “is no” effect. The statistical method can certainly help you avoid confirmation bias. Their argument about the misleading quote had a lot to do with the differences between hypothesis testing.

  4. Cheryl Bartone

    Cheryl Bartone3 jam yang lalu

    I’m an epidemiologist so I guess I’m shifty 😂

  5. mohnish2009

    mohnish20096 jam yang lalu

    chris got torn a new one

  6. Alin Ioan

    Alin Ioan7 jam yang lalu

    Just watch this at 2x speed

  7. Benny D

    Benny D7 jam yang lalu

    I watched the Game Changers trailer and I’ll definitely watch the documentary but I don’t see myself not consuming beef 🥩 products anytime soon😉 The majority of the world including elite athletes still consume meat products & will continue to do so. Nothing against vegans/vegetarians but some of them (a lot of them) like to spread pseudoscience & misinformation just to promote their agenda. Vegetables are healthy & necessary but so are meat products. Overconsumption is a problem & that’s what leads to health problems. Moderation is the key imo.

  8. Luis Paras

    Luis Paras9 jam yang lalu

    I'd love to see James Wilks debate Rhonda Patrick

  9. Joseph Carrouth

    Joseph Carrouth11 jam yang lalu

    When is the forest plot scene

  10. Tom Dransfield

    Tom Dransfield14 jam yang lalu

    Fuck joe please take control of this shit Show

  11. MichaelIsabel

    MichaelIsabel15 jam yang lalu

    This was such a beat down. Like if Connor didn’t knock out Cowboy in the first minute but he just kept hitting him in the face for 3h 40m and we just watched the whole thing. Chris owes Joe and his listeners an apology for being misleading. How can you spend 2:15 dubunking something as you’re an expert and be so misinformed or intentionally lying? No one knows what they should be eating because of people like him. James was so well prepared. Eat more plants.

  12. M

    M16 jam yang lalu

    How can James Wilks assume people are eating high quality bread . Cmon - most people out there eating white or whole meal bread which has only a couple grams protein at best ! Laughable 😂

  13. Bias

    Bias16 jam yang lalu

    i would watched a ten piece mini series "the game changers"

  14. alexandergoldman

    alexandergoldman17 jam yang lalu

    Joe...that video of you and Chris should be taken down...shame on you for posting something that has so many misleading statements and untruths.. disgraceful. I expect much better from you

  15. alexandergoldman

    alexandergoldman17 jam yang lalu

    Title should read 'James "1990's Mike Tyson' Wilks vs Chris 'Erkel' Kresser' as this was a smackdown of epic proportions. Chris started off ok...but absolutely wilted and shriveled after the 1/2 way mark.. James was dude

  16. oklakugels1

    oklakugels118 jam yang lalu

    Is his movie as good as this podcast?

  17. LBkid90

    LBkid9019 jam yang lalu

    I would like to have seen James debate Layne Norton

  18. Chino Gambino

    Chino Gambino19 jam yang lalu

    20 minutes in and it is impossible to watch this, there is no practical way to really confirm either of these guys assertions are correct while listening or retain the information in any organized digestible manner. This should be an argument in writing, not rhetoric because whoever talks the most or seems the most confident will fool most of the idiots listening on social power alone. Wilks' first point is retarded, he's being dodgy and he's actually too stupid to realize the more detail he reveals the weaker his attack on Chris actually is to anyone paying attention. 71% found no statistically significant risk, 13% found decreased risk and 16% found increased risk, since this is a meta study we are only reviewing the literature, not making a determination on what results to accept but the trend. The difference is only 4 papers between those that found any affect at all of dairy on cancer rates and we have no idea by what margin, is it 1% increased risk in one paper and 50% in another? Which are accurate? Who knows. Then he brings up industry funding but then denies its to attack the veracity of the papers, but then proceeds to fill the air with his voice anyway! Wilks demolishes himself by just talking all the damn time, its not impressive to anyone who has dealt with liars before.

  19. Carlton Simmons Jr.

    Carlton Simmons Jr.20 jam yang lalu

    I lean towards James Wilk's point of view, but the way he argued here was all over the place.

  20. Zachary Wingate

    Zachary Wingate21 jam yang lalu

    Why are vegans so angry !!!

  21. Adam Jakubowski

    Adam Jakubowski23 jam yang lalu

    I am vegetarian. I am completely stunned by how James Wilks is. He is a complete asshole. Honestly, listening the first hour of this makes me want to eat meat, no matter who is right in this argument. All I can say is that not all vegetarians are assholes :P.

  22. Chino Gambino

    Chino Gambino19 jam yang lalu

    He's not even right according to a lot of vegans and even vegan food company reps say his film is full of exaggerations and lies.

  23. Just clicking buttons

    Just clicking buttonsHari Yang lalu

    Lentils and peanutbutter, but what else? Sure soy and seitan, but what else compared to lentils? Go to beans, 347kcals per 100g. You do have more leaner options with animal products, than with vegan products. Still eating mostly vegetarian/vegan during my week. Just eat a healthy balanced diet, we all would have less problems and those two wouldn't have to argue for 3.5 hours like little childs.

  24. Bonepuff

    BonepuffHari Yang lalu

    Jeeeessuuuuus. How unlikeable can a person be? James seems to be a douche and he sure likes to hear himself talk. And the only thing James seems to be focusing on is to prove how Chris is wrong instead of arguing the topic. To be as informed as James is, he sure seems incompetent.

  25. Big Ups Nuff Respect

    Big Ups Nuff RespectHari Yang lalu

    Hold these L’s with pride Joe.....”Joe looks old for his age”

  26. Big Ups Nuff Respect

    Big Ups Nuff RespectHari Yang lalu

    Chris is worthless.....meat is not good for you...

  27. Thomasz Yesensky

    Thomasz YesenskyHari Yang lalu

    Joe is a great mediator

  28. P M

    P MHari Yang lalu

    Sooo eat your veggies...... and your healthy meats. Like Chris has been saying all along lol

  29. Joffery Lannister-Baratheon

    Joffery Lannister-BaratheonHari Yang lalu

    This bald-headed dude is an idiot. He should run for president he's so full of shit.

  30. Xabier Marshall Baquedano

    Xabier Marshall BaquedanoHari Yang lalu

    So... James comes in and criticises the world for trusting industry funded, cherry picked research, then tells us to go on his website and look at the mass of evidence collected by his team of scientists who are paid to promote a plant based diet... If you then read the papers they cite you realise that they cherry pick findings from those articles. You could debunk most of the game changers documentary purely on the literature it claims support from!

  31. Chino Gambino

    Chino Gambino19 jam yang lalu

    He does it right here too at the beginning, the first 20 minutes James is trying to make a difference of 4 papers between 20 showing an inverse and 24 positive correlation with dairy and cancer into a real case of dishonesty on Chris' part. Its so stupid, the positive assertion is "dairy correlates with increased cancer", Chris' statement of 84% of inconclusive or inverse studies only suggests the evidence is not strong. The opposite statement of "87% of studies show either no correlation at all or a positive correlation" as Jame's suggested as just as valid would be stupid, you couldn't use it to support the contention either way since its important to know what the split is between null and positive papers. If the contention were "dairy correlates with decreased cancer" then Chris would have to split his 84% to make sense let alone be up front. Its the lamest gotcha I've heard for a while.

  32. Frank Redmond

    Frank RedmondHari Yang lalu

    Chris got absolutely bodied, & rightfully so. 😂

  33. Martins Flatearther

    Martins FlateartherHari Yang lalu


  34. jmoney262

    jmoney262Hari Yang lalu

    James “let me finish” Wilks

  35. Ryan Shordee

    Ryan ShordeeHari Yang lalu

    Bald guy is worse than a women

  36. Nicholas Barszcz

    Nicholas BarszczHari Yang lalu

    Smh..So much wrong about this... Love when people think they know how to interpret primary literature just because they read beyond the abstract...

  37. Leon M.

    Leon M.Hari Yang lalu

    Really appreciate the work James put in

  38. Joe Heiler

    Joe HeilerHari Yang lalu

    This was three guys who have zero grasp of basic statistics arguing in circles for 4 hours about basic statistics. Still better than anything else on the internet

  39. RickyHairdo

    RickyHairdoHari Yang lalu

    Joe “ ever seen a chicken f*#k up a mouse “ Rogan

  40. Lino Buckingham

    Lino BuckinghamHari Yang lalu

    spicy, pretty cool debate, I think James needs to chill a bit more and not interrupt as much, still going to go with chris's view about eating good quality meat and plants.

  41. Zack Lynch

    Zack LynchHari Yang lalu

    Did anyone manage to listen to this for longer than 10 minutes? James is absolutely unbareble, disrespectful in dialogue, and has no patience to actually have a conversation.

  42. Jay hyler

    Jay hylerHari Yang lalu

    man! this Vegan got super triggered super quick!!!

  43. Androth

    AndrothHari Yang lalu

    looking at these two, the vegan looks energetic and quick witted while the meat eater looks tired and defeated. hmm.

  44. enniemeanieminnie

    enniemeanieminnieHari Yang lalu

    This was really hard to listen to. *after 12 hours of only him talking* “Hold on I’m not done yet”... he’s never done. Even if he had valid points, the way he conducts himself makes invalid. Also where are the scientist? Nutritionalist? Get them in and Gretas out of here. JOE aka mom

  45. fernando Robledo

    fernando RobledoHari Yang lalu

    He wanted to bring them in. I guess Joe didn't think that would be fair

  46. Lo Lo

    Lo LoHari Yang lalu

    The argument shouldn’t be vegan against omnivore. If you’re planning correctly I don’t see the problem with either, it’s that most people don’t plan and are poorly educated. The argument should be against processed foods and sugar and biased studies. You are not going to turn vegans into omnivores and visa versa. Those are beliefs like religion.

  47. Chaos acolyte

    Chaos acolyteHari Yang lalu


  48. malackfortar

    malackfortar2 hari yang lalu

    hahaha, google trend: forest plot. You're welcome!

  49. Jorge B

    Jorge B2 hari yang lalu

    When you realize your listening to a fighter have an argument with an acupuncturist and the host is a pothead about what I should eat 🤔

  50. TheHitchHiker

    TheHitchHiker2 hari yang lalu

    Ten minutes in and im already tired, they aren't even arguing at the same level, or listening to what the other one is actually arguing.

  51. banditbanger13

    banditbanger132 hari yang lalu

    I generally like Joe but this podcast reminds me of the one where Shermer was on - he is letting one of the participants agressively interrupt the other and repeat the same things over and over again to make it look like they are right. James is clearly a bully with an agenda and an overall bias. Shame on you Joe. On James also - this is no way to argue. If anyone is interested, here is a well thouht out cririque:

  52. Lopata991

    Lopata9912 hari yang lalu

    Did you see what Chris just did there? :D

  53. driedtoast12

    driedtoast122 hari yang lalu

    Joe and Chris were correct. James argument would have made sense had he said "87 % of studies don't find dairy to be PROTECTIVE against cancer". I totally agree with Joe and Chris that "84% of studies don't show dairy to cause cancer". Also, a negative study is useful, but James plays down the 71% of negative studies as if they are not important.

  54. driedtoast12

    driedtoast122 hari yang lalu

    This is all good food for thought, but I think we have to take it with a grain of salt

  55. buz cheva

    buz cheva2 hari yang lalu

    I started on a vegan diet and got laid within 3 hours.....just saying

  56. husmenusta

    husmenusta2 hari yang lalu

    Past 1 hour mark, still couldn't answer one question? Why is meat bad for you? Just, dogging evading changing subjects.

  57. michael algie

    michael algie2 hari yang lalu

    This show was a great example why people who are NOT "proper experts" shouldn't debate on a public platform. To James credit he did admit that, but i found his conversation style too "aggressive" (which is understandable because he was defending himself but still irritating) he put himself in the public eye so if he wants to come across more tolerable to his critics, which wouldn't shut people off when he starts speaking, he should take notes from guys like Peterson, Weinstein and Harris. I still don't think the "truth" is clear except don't eat Mcd's and do some exercise BOOM. And I'm in the Rogan Diet lifestyle except my Meat is better : )

  58. RuelMP

    RuelMP2 hari yang lalu

    lmao Chris and Joe just hearing what they want to hear. smh. Chris had the audacity to mention confirmation bias 4 podcasts ago.

  59. Dylan James

    Dylan James2 hari yang lalu

    Where do you think chickens get their B12 from?!?!

  60. Scott Henning

    Scott Henning2 hari yang lalu

    Joe failed this one.

  61. Vive Viveka

    Vive Viveka2 hari yang lalu

    "A study published by Stanford": as if it is therefore true. Lots of things are published by Stanford. Many disagree. Wilks' claim that the rest is just "old science" and this one study (done where, by whom, and exactly how?) supersedes prior studies somehow is absolutely bogus.

  62. Vive Viveka

    Vive Viveka2 hari yang lalu

    What a train wreck.

  63. Vive Viveka

    Vive Viveka2 hari yang lalu

    3:35:40: "He's unable to read a single study and understand it" (Wilks). Total and absolute nonsense and dishonesty.