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