Topic: LCHF and healthy eating

[John Albert]

Remember that the lion's share of agricultural land is not arable, and much (and it should be all) arable land is also used for grazing.

Are you joking, or do you really believe we should be using all our arable land as pastures to graze cattle instead of converting it into farmland to help feed the human population?

[CarbShark]

You’re cherry picking your sources to support your ideological preference for your low carbohydrate/high fat ketogenic diet. 

The term cherry-picking suggests that there are more studies out there that are being ignored that contradict the studies I cite.

If you know of such evidence feel free to share it.

If not then we can assume that you don’t actually know of such evidence and are just making shit up. Again.

An ‘alternate hypothesis of diet and nutrition’ is one that’s not accepted by authorities, and it’s unproven.  Unproven.  The data isn’t available.

Sort of. It’s not accepted by all authorities and neither hypotheses is proven. But there is plenty of data and evidence to support the alternative hypothesis.

.The carbon footprint of animal based food must always be greater than plant based food. 

Nonsense. More shit you’re  making up. The
Standard practice for agriculture (plow, fertilize, plant, harvest, repeat) sequesters zero carbon.

And agreed - a vegan diet could be more expensive than an animal based diet, if you consume a diet based on truffles for example.

A vegan diet, the way it’s usually practiced today, is one of the most expensive.

But the fact remains that animal based diets are too expensive for the Earth.  They take up too much land area and energy. 

The land area we’ve covered. (Most of the land is unsuitable for agriculture). As for energy, show me the evidence.

You’ve attempted to dismiss my figure of ten times as much as energy to produce the same number of calories (in varies according to the food and production practice), but the fact remains that it’s much higher. 

Attempted? That’s been fully dismissed. That was a number you made up and has no relation to reality.

And the Earth can’t afford the cost in land area and energy for more than a small percentage of the privileged to adopt your diet.

Another conclusion based on bias rather than evidence



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[bachfiend]

CarbShark,

I’ve already provided the studies of energy consumption of plant based food versus animal based food, and animal based food comes out very poorly in comparison.  Grazing’s carbon footprint can be made smaller, but it can’t be eliminated.  So too can agriculture’s carbon footprint.  You need to compare best practice grazing to best practice agriculture, in which case grazing will come out worse.

You don’t have any studies showing that your low carbohydrate/high fat ketogenic diet is best, that it’s healthiest and leads to reduced mortality and morbidity long term.  All you’ve ever cited are short term studies showing slightly greater weight loss in the overweight and obese and marginally better blood lipid proxies of cardiovascular risk.

You discounted the Lancet longterm observational study showing that mortality is U-shaped, with increased mortality with increasing and decreasing carbohydrate intake from around a 50% carbohydrate share - and decreased carbohydrate share leads to the steeper increase in mortality.

But anyway.  If you have evidence that the world can adopt your low carbohydrate/high fat ketogenic diet affordably, then show it.

[John Albert]

[CarbShark]

Doubling down on vegan propaganda, I see

[John Albert]

You clearly didn't even watch the video. It does not promote veganism at all.

[bachfiend]

You clearly didn't even watch the video. It does not promote veganism at all.

Yes, but I did.  And it’s very good.  CarbShark and Lonely Moa wouldn’t like it, because it destroys their arguments.

Historically, when the economics of animal based diets have been put up against plant based diets, plant based diets have won.  They’re capable of supporting much larger populations.

As an example, the Plains Indians lost in the 19th century because of economics.  The Lakota and the Cheyenne had better weapons (General Custer’s troops had single shot rifles prone to jamming, the Indians had repeater rifles) and better horses (the Indian ponies thrived on grass alone, the American army’s horses needed extra grain and hay to survive), but they were lost even in the same year as the Battle of the Little Big Horn.

Their animal (bison) based diet was on a death spiral in the few  centuries it was employed following the introduction of horses into their society.  Until they got the horse from the Spanish around 1600, Indian diet  was much more plant based - and that had been sustainable in much larger numbers of the population for thousands of years (until the introduction of Old World infections decimated the population).

[CarbShark]

You clearly didn't even watch the video. It does not promote veganism at all.

I did. And I stand by what I said. They make the vegan case against meat; about cruelty to animals; and every other argument to support veganism (including citing the long since retracted paper on energy and carbon). 

The fact that they conclude by saying people should at least reduce their meat intake rather than go full vegan does not mean it's not propaganda.

[John Albert]

...

[John Albert]

Those aren't "vegan" arguments. They're just well-informed ecological and ethical arguments that are supported by current science and facts about the meat farming industry.

How one chooses to respond to those issues is one's own choice. Some people will completely ignore the facts or handwave term away as pusillanimous liberal propaganda. Others may react very moralistically and decide to become vegetarian or vegan, but still others may follow the advice suggested in the video, and become a more thoughtful and moderate consumer of meat products.

[bachfiend]

You clearly didn't even watch the video. It does not promote veganism at all.

I did. And I stand by what I said. They make the vegan case against meat; about cruelty to animals; and every other argument to support veganism (including citing the long since retracted paper on energy and carbon). 

The fact that they conclude by saying people should at least reduce their meat intake rather than go full vegan does not mean it's not propaganda.

Care to cite your study showing that animal based food has a lower carbon footprint than plant based food, when it’s obvious that the reverse is true?

At a guess, I’d say you can’t.  You’re just quibbling about the exact number that plant based food is better than animal based food regarding energy consumption.

And anyway.  Is this the ‘long retracted’ paper you’re referring to?


https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Joseph_Poore/publication/325532198_Reducing_food%27s_environmental_impacts_through_producers_and_consumers/links/5c701c3b92851c69503900c6/Reducing-foods-environmental-impacts-through-producers-and-consumers.pdf?origin=publication_detail

It seems to have had an erratum published in February, which isn’t a retraction.

[CarbShark]

New ARS Study Shows U.S. Beef Is Not a Significant Contributor to Global Warming – On Pasture

An Agricultural Research Service (ARS)-led team has completed a comprehensive life-cycle analysis quantifying the resource use and various environmental emissions of beef cattle production in the United States. Their results so far indicate that U.S. beef’s contribution to climate change is small percentage of the country’s Greenhouse Gas emissions, and were not a significant contributor to long-term global warming.

Study Clarifies U.S. Beef's Resource Use and Greenhouse Gas Emissions : USDA ARS

[bachfiend]

New ARS Study Shows U.S. Beef Is Not a Significant Contributor to Global Warming – On Pasture

An Agricultural Research Service (ARS)-led team has completed a comprehensive life-cycle analysis quantifying the resource use and various environmental emissions of beef cattle production in the United States. Their results so far indicate that U.S. beef’s contribution to climate change is small percentage of the country’s Greenhouse Gas emissions, and were not a significant contributor to long-term global warming.

Study Clarifies U.S. Beef's Resource Use and Greenhouse Gas Emissions : USDA ARS

American grazing produces 3.3% of American greenhouse gas emissions, which is HUGE.  It’s a long way from sequestering carbon as Lonely Moa claimed.  And it doesn’t include the emissions involved in producing feed (even on pasture there’s some supplementary feeding with grain before slaughter).  And there’s emissions in transporting the cattle to be slaughtered, being slaughtered and processed, and having the meat transported to the consumer.  And the meat has to be kept refrigerated to prevent it going off, creating further emissions.  Grains don’t need to be refrigerated.  One year’s harvest will last years in storage, no problems (provided rodents are excluded).

[CarbShark]

New ARS Study Shows U.S. Beef Is Not a Significant Contributor to Global Warming – On Pasture

An Agricultural Research Service (ARS)-led team has completed a comprehensive life-cycle analysis quantifying the resource use and various environmental emissions of beef cattle production in the United States. Their results so far indicate that U.S. beef’s contribution to climate change is small percentage of the country’s Greenhouse Gas emissions, and were not a significant contributor to long-term global warming.

Study Clarifies U.S. Beef's Resource Use and Greenhouse Gas Emissions : USDA ARS

American grazing produces 3.3% of American greenhouse gas emissions, which is HUGE.  It’s a long way from sequestering carbon as Lonely Moa claimed.  And it doesn’t include the emissions involved in producing feed (even on pasture there’s some supplementary feeding with grain before slaughter).  And there’s emissions in transporting the cattle to be slaughtered, being slaughtered and processed, and having the meat transported to the consumer.  And the meat has to be kept refrigerated to prevent it going off, creating further emissions.  Grains don’t need to be refrigerated.  One year’s harvest will last years in storage, no problems (provided rodents are excluded).

So you didn’t read the articles linked to.

Got it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[CarbShark]

And anyway.  Is this the ‘long retracted’ paper you’re referring to?

 

No. 


Cars or livestock: which contribute more to climate change?

What we choose to eat,  how we move around and how these activities contribute to climate change is receiving a lot of media attention. In this context, greenhouse gas emissions from livestock and transport are often compared, but in a flawed way.
The comparison measures direct emissions from transport against both direct and indirect emissions from livestock.