Author Topic: LCHF and healthy eating  (Read 138611 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline bachfiend

  • Not Any Kind of Moderator
  • Well Established
  • *****
  • Posts: 1592
Re: LCHF and healthy eating
« Reply #1530 on: March 18, 2019, 08:45:26 PM »

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

 

No. 


Cars or livestock: which contribute more to climate change?

Quote
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.

Yes, I did read the articles you linked to. 

What is your take on your latest link?  According to the study, livestock and transport produce about the same greenhouse emissions of around 15%, which isn’t good.  And grazing ‘smart’ only reduces greenhouse emissions, not reducing them to zero or actually sequestering carbon (as Lonely Moa claimed), which would be necessary to avoid catastrophic climate change (I’m using ‘catastrophic’ in the science context of a little global warming reaching a tipping point precipitating larger global warming).

And anyway.  If you (and the general population)increase the animal-based food intake proportion in the diet to go on a low carbohydrate/high fat ketogenic diet, greenhouse gas emissions from livestock will come to exceed that from transport.
Gebt ihr ihr ihr Buch zurück?

Online CarbShark

  • Poster of Extraordinary Magnitude
  • **********
  • Posts: 11029
Re: LCHF and healthy eating
« Reply #1531 on: March 18, 2019, 09:07:08 PM »

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

 

No. 


Cars or livestock: which contribute more to climate change?

Quote
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.

Yes, I did read the articles you linked to. 

What is your take on your latest link?  According to the study, livestock and transport produce about the same greenhouse emissions of around 15%, which isn’t good.  And grazing ‘smart’ only reduces greenhouse emissions, not reducing them to zero or actually sequestering carbon (as Lonely Moa claimed), which would be necessary to avoid catastrophic climate change (I’m using ‘catastrophic’ in the science context of a little global warming reaching a tipping point precipitating larger global warming).

And anyway.  If you (and the general population)increase the animal-based food intake proportion in the diet to go on a low carbohydrate/high fat ketogenic diet, greenhouse gas emissions from livestock will come to exceed that from transport.

Aside from the part where they retract the claim that Transportation and Livestock contribute roughly equally to global warming?

Well that 15% figure is misleading. That is only looking at emission (farts and belches). It is not looking at consumption of carbon in plants, which consume carbon dioxide. The net effect of animals grazing in farting and belching and pooping on CO2 gasses is zero or less than zero.

The major source of greenhouse gasses related to livestock is in the costs associated with growing and transporting crops and transporting animals and meat.

And that amounts to closer to 3% of the total (not the 50 or the 15% you've claimed earlier).

and Donald Trump is President of the United States.

I'm not a doctor, I'm just someone who has done a ton of research into diet and nutrition.

Offline bachfiend

  • Not Any Kind of Moderator
  • Well Established
  • *****
  • Posts: 1592
Re: LCHF and healthy eating
« Reply #1532 on: March 18, 2019, 09:29:45 PM »

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

 

No. 


Cars or livestock: which contribute more to climate change?

Quote
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.

Yes, I did read the articles you linked to. 

What is your take on your latest link?  According to the study, livestock and transport produce about the same greenhouse emissions of around 15%, which isn’t good.  And grazing ‘smart’ only reduces greenhouse emissions, not reducing them to zero or actually sequestering carbon (as Lonely Moa claimed), which would be necessary to avoid catastrophic climate change (I’m using ‘catastrophic’ in the science context of a little global warming reaching a tipping point precipitating larger global warming).

And anyway.  If you (and the general population)increase the animal-based food intake proportion in the diet to go on a low carbohydrate/high fat ketogenic diet, greenhouse gas emissions from livestock will come to exceed that from transport.

Aside from the part where they retract the claim that Transportation and Livestock contribute roughly equally to global warming?

Well that 15% figure is misleading. That is only looking at emission (farts and belches). It is not looking at consumption of carbon in plants, which consume carbon dioxide. The net effect of animals grazing in farting and belching and pooping on CO2 gasses is zero or less than zero.

The major source of greenhouse gasses related to livestock is in the costs associated with growing and transporting crops and transporting animals and meat.

And that amounts to closer to 3% of the total (not the 50 or the 15% you've claimed earlier).

You’re getting increasingly incoherent.  What point are you trying to make?  And the comparison ought to be greenhouse gas emissions resulting from producing animal-based food versus producing plant-based foods, not against transport.

Grass takes in atmospheric CO2, which is then released as greenhouse gases when the livestock eats it.  So do grain crops.  Neither will sequester carbon unless the carbon is buried, otherwise the carbon taken up from the atmosphere will just return (plus that from whatever fossil fuels you had to use to produce the food).
Gebt ihr ihr ihr Buch zurück?

Online CarbShark

  • Poster of Extraordinary Magnitude
  • **********
  • Posts: 11029
Re: LCHF and healthy eating
« Reply #1533 on: March 19, 2019, 11:05:14 AM »

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

 

No. 


Cars or livestock: which contribute more to climate change?

Quote
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.

Yes, I did read the articles you linked to. 

What is your take on your latest link?  According to the study, livestock and transport produce about the same greenhouse emissions of around 15%, which isn’t good.  And grazing ‘smart’ only reduces greenhouse emissions, not reducing them to zero or actually sequestering carbon (as Lonely Moa claimed), which would be necessary to avoid catastrophic climate change (I’m using ‘catastrophic’ in the science context of a little global warming reaching a tipping point precipitating larger global warming).

And anyway.  If you (and the general population)increase the animal-based food intake proportion in the diet to go on a low carbohydrate/high fat ketogenic diet, greenhouse gas emissions from livestock will come to exceed that from transport.

Aside from the part where they retract the claim that Transportation and Livestock contribute roughly equally to global warming?

Well that 15% figure is misleading. That is only looking at emission (farts and belches). It is not looking at consumption of carbon in plants, which consume carbon dioxide. The net effect of animals grazing in farting and belching and pooping on CO2 gasses is zero or less than zero.

The major source of greenhouse gasses related to livestock is in the costs associated with growing and transporting crops and transporting animals and meat.

And that amounts to closer to 3% of the total (not the 50 or the 15% you've claimed earlier).
And the comparison ought to be greenhouse gas emissions resulting from producing animal-based food versus producing plant-based foods, not against transport.

I agree that comparing the net effect of livestock production to transportation is not terribly relevant. And when the comparisons were made it was not equitable and has been retracted. I wonder why they did that.

Net increase in greenhouse gasses  are basically equal  between the two segments of agriculture. That’s pretty clear in the data.


Quote
Grass takes in atmospheric CO2, which is then released as greenhouse gases when the livestock eats it.  So do grain crops.  Neither will sequester carbon unless the carbon is buried, otherwise the carbon taken up from the atmosphere will just return (plus that from whatever fossil fuels you had to use to produce the food).

No. The Co2 is not released when eaten. It is metabolized by plants into carbohydrates. The carbs are broken down in the digestive system. Some is released in exhalation as the carbs are burned. Some are fermented in the digestion system and released as methane in burps and farts.  Some is used to build fat bone and muscle. Some is excreted in poop. Some of that is released in decomposition. Some gets mixed in with soil.

Many plants have deep roots which, in effect bury the carbon. That is where the effect of raising pastured ruminants sequesters carbon, as deep rooted plants bury carbon. That effect is not present in grain agriculture as the fields are plowed each planting and there are no deep roots.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
and Donald Trump is President of the United States.

I'm not a doctor, I'm just someone who has done a ton of research into diet and nutrition.

Offline lonely moa

  • A rather tough old bird.
  • Stopped Going Outside
  • *******
  • Posts: 4864
Re: LCHF and healthy eating
« Reply #1534 on: March 19, 2019, 01:07:09 PM »
[quote author=CarbShark link=topic=43212.msg9606851#msg9606851 date=1553007914

Many plants have deep roots which, in effect bury the carbon. That is where the effect of raising pastured ruminants sequesters carbon, as deep rooted plants bury carbon. That effect is not present in grain agriculture as the fields are plowed each planting and there are no deep roots.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
[/quote]

The exudates (sugars) released in the soil by deep rooting plants have fed ruminant herbivores probably from the time of the dinosaurs.  The deep carbon rich soils of the great plains, the Steppes and others (new mostly gone) were built this way, but now have volatilised the carbon in the last century or two.  Some scientists ascribe a large percentage of the carbon n the atmosphere to this.

As well as not being in the ground long enough to build soil, all cultivation and drilling exposes soil to the volitasation of carbon and nitrogen from the soil in GHG forms.  Fertilising the plants with soluble nitrogen fertilisers (nearly ubiquitous) increases GHGs from the mining of fossil fuels to create nitrogen rich fertilisers to transporting them to farms and application.  Much of NO2 is lost (even with careful direct drilling) without positively affecting plant growth.

Livestock grazed on permanent pasture, as long as the numbers don't increase, is a carbon sink, or at worst, a wash.  Agriculture and horticulture by its nature is a huge source of GHGs. 

"Pull the goalie", Malcolm Gladwell.

Online CarbShark

  • Poster of Extraordinary Magnitude
  • **********
  • Posts: 11029
Re: LCHF and healthy eating
« Reply #1535 on: March 20, 2019, 05:39:20 PM »

New military study: Remarkable results among soldiers on ketogenic diet — Diet Doctor

Quote
A new study has found that US soldiers on a ketogenic diet for 12 weeks lost much more weight, significantly improved their body composition and insulin sensitivity, but suffered no loss in physical performance compared to matched controls.

Both the article and the study (linked above and below) make clear that it's a small, non-randomized study so certainly not conclusive.

But these results are very promising and definitely worthy followup with RCTs.



Sci-Hub | | 10.1093/milmed/usz046

and Donald Trump is President of the United States.

I'm not a doctor, I'm just someone who has done a ton of research into diet and nutrition.

Online CarbShark

  • Poster of Extraordinary Magnitude
  • **********
  • Posts: 11029
Re: LCHF and healthy eating
« Reply #1536 on: March 20, 2019, 05:51:37 PM »

Levels of Evidence Supporting American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association and European Society of Cardiology Guidelines, 2008-2018. | Cardiology | JAMA | JAMA Network

Quote
Question  What proportion of recommendations in current American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association (ACC/AHA) and European Society of Cardiology (ESC) guidelines are supported by evidence from multiple randomized controlled trials (RCTs), and how has this changed over the past 10 years?

Findings  In this systematic review of 51 current guideline documents that included 6329 recommendations, 8.5% of recommendations in ACC/AHA guidelines and 14.3% of recommendations in ESC guidelines were classified as level of evidence A (supported by evidence from multiple RCTs), compared with 11.5% of recommendations in a systematic review of ACC/AHA guidelines conducted in 2009.

Meaning  Among recommendations in major cardiovascular society guidelines from 2008 to 2018, the proportion supported by evidence from RCTs remains small.
and Donald Trump is President of the United States.

I'm not a doctor, I'm just someone who has done a ton of research into diet and nutrition.

Online CarbShark

  • Poster of Extraordinary Magnitude
  • **********
  • Posts: 11029
Re: LCHF and healthy eating
« Reply #1537 on: March 21, 2019, 10:45:27 AM »


Reassessing the role of grazing lands in carbon-balance estimations: Meta-analysis and review - ScienceDirect


Quote
• Carbon gains outweigh carbon losses in grasslands under extensive grazing conditions.

 • Reassessment of carbon sequestered in grassland soils is needed in inventory reports.
« Last Edit: March 21, 2019, 02:33:07 PM by CarbShark »
and Donald Trump is President of the United States.

I'm not a doctor, I'm just someone who has done a ton of research into diet and nutrition.

Offline lonely moa

  • A rather tough old bird.
  • Stopped Going Outside
  • *******
  • Posts: 4864
Re: LCHF and healthy eating
« Reply #1538 on: March 21, 2019, 02:34:07 PM »

Levels of Evidence Supporting American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association and European Society of Cardiology Guidelines, 2008-2018. | Cardiology | JAMA | JAMA Network

Quote
Question  What proportion of recommendations in current American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association (ACC/AHA) and European Society of Cardiology (ESC) guidelines are supported by evidence from multiple randomized controlled trials (RCTs), and how has this changed over the past 10 years?

Findings  In this systematic review of 51 current guideline documents that included 6329 recommendations, 8.5% of recommendations in ACC/AHA guidelines and 14.3% of recommendations in ESC guidelines were classified as level of evidence A (supported by evidence from multiple RCTs), compared with 11.5% of recommendations in a systematic review of ACC/AHA guidelines conducted in 2009.

Meaning  Among recommendations in major cardiovascular society guidelines from 2008 to 2018, the proportion supported by evidence from RCTs remains small.

Taubes (and others) have pointed this out since the turn of the century.  Maybe this will push things along.  Lucky the salaries of the physicians at my local surgery aren't dependant on the pharmaceutical industry, I guess.
"Pull the goalie", Malcolm Gladwell.

Online CarbShark

  • Poster of Extraordinary Magnitude
  • **********
  • Posts: 11029
LCHF and healthy eating
« Reply #1539 on: March 26, 2019, 11:04:41 AM »
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6410335/

Quote
Strong and probably causal CHD-GL and GI RRs exist within populations. The RRs were remarkably higher across global exposures

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
and Donald Trump is President of the United States.

I'm not a doctor, I'm just someone who has done a ton of research into diet and nutrition.

Offline lonely moa

  • A rather tough old bird.
  • Stopped Going Outside
  • *******
  • Posts: 4864
Re: LCHF and healthy eating
« Reply #1540 on: March 26, 2019, 01:19:00 PM »
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6410335/

Quote
Strong and probably causal CHD-GL and GI RRs exist within populations. The RRs were remarkably higher across global exposures

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Not surprised. 
"Pull the goalie", Malcolm Gladwell.

Offline jt512

  • Frequent Poster
  • ******
  • Posts: 2397
    • jt512
Re: LCHF and healthy eating
« Reply #1541 on: March 26, 2019, 02:12:35 PM »
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6410335/

Quote
Strong and probably causal CHD-GL and GI RRs exist within populations. The RRs were remarkably higher across global exposures

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I disagree with the decision to drop the two studies with the lowest relative risks.
Ich verstehe nur Bahnhof.

Online CarbShark

  • Poster of Extraordinary Magnitude
  • **********
  • Posts: 11029
Re: LCHF and healthy eating
« Reply #1542 on: March 26, 2019, 03:14:40 PM »
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6410335/

Quote
Strong and probably causal CHD-GL and GI RRs exist within populations. The RRs were remarkably higher across global exposures

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I disagree with the decision to drop the two studies with the lowest relative risks.

Two studies? I thinks it's just one, an outlier. Seems reasonable.
and Donald Trump is President of the United States.

I'm not a doctor, I'm just someone who has done a ton of research into diet and nutrition.

Offline jt512

  • Frequent Poster
  • ******
  • Posts: 2397
    • jt512
Re: LCHF and healthy eating
« Reply #1543 on: March 26, 2019, 04:44:57 PM »
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6410335/

Quote
Strong and probably causal CHD-GL and GI RRs exist within populations. The RRs were remarkably higher across global exposures

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I disagree with the decision to drop the two studies with the lowest relative risks.

Two studies? I thinks it's just one, an outlier. Seems reasonable.

It was two studies (which was something like 20% of the total), but the number is unimportant.  It's the principle.  It would have been different if they had stated in their pre-registered protocol an objective criterion for handling outliers.  But the protocol is silent about this.  Thus, the decision appears to have been made after data had been observed.

They make a big point about of the consistency of the studies, but to say that the studies are consistent only after throwing out the inconsistent studies is ridiculous.

At a minimum, they should have presented the results with and without the outliers included, so that the reader could determine the effect of their decision to remove the outliers from the analysis.
Ich verstehe nur Bahnhof.

Online CarbShark

  • Poster of Extraordinary Magnitude
  • **********
  • Posts: 11029
Re: LCHF and healthy eating
« Reply #1544 on: April 09, 2019, 02:54:57 PM »


It looks like red meat and processed meat are not as bad as they thought.

Plus, the "low in whole grains" diet very likely mean "high in highly processed and refined grains."



Health effects of dietary risks in 195 countries, 1990–2017: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2017 - The Lancet


and Donald Trump is President of the United States.

I'm not a doctor, I'm just someone who has done a ton of research into diet and nutrition.

 

personate-rain