Author Topic: Beyond Burger 2.0  (Read 6412 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline CarbShark

  • Poster of Extraordinary Magnitude
  • **********
  • Posts: 12498
Re: Beyond Burger 2.0
« Reply #375 on: December 02, 2019, 08:22:52 PM »

Yes, it does have a larger carbon footprint than plant based foods. But there is no consensus as to how large the difference or how large the carbon footprint.

Do you have a source? Here's a figure from the linked article:

Quote
Producing beef, for example, uses 20 times the land and emits 20 times the emissions as growing beans, per gram of protein...

Do you have a link to a legit study that shows something significantly less? 17 or 18x would be in the same ball park. So I'm talking a study that says, say, 10x the emissions or even 15x the emissions as an example of a divergence in the consensus?

We've gone over this several times before.  The land use takes includes the grazing land for cattle that is not suitable or useful for any other purpose. The studies that have compared the CO2 between meat and veggies used a weighted scale, where they calculated every mode of transportation used for meat, but not for plant based.  Most of the CO2 attributed to meat comes from transporting feed, beef and meat.

Maybe the solution is to start using electric semi-trucks rather than once again changing the diets of hundreds of millions of people with little or no evidence to show it would be healthier (again).

You're fighting an uphill battle against the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

The Second Law? I thought that was ignored by Nutrition scientists!


Really?  We're the one's who figured out the thermic effect of food.

Well, with a little help and encouragement from those who promote the alternate theory of diet and nutrition.


In your dreams.  The thermic effect of food was discovered in the 19th century.

And consistently denied with the "a calorie is a calorie" trope from the mainstream until well into the 21st century.


No, CS.  For the umpteenth time, it goes without saying that a physiologic calorie of food contains, um, one physiologic calorie.  Thermic effect, on the other hand, which is a component of energy expenditures, differs from food to food.

So, while it is correct to say a calorie is a calorie in the very narrow, minimalist and irrelevant sense, to use that mantra in terms of diet and nutrition, where due to the thermic effect of food and other variables, calories from some foods have a greater effect on the body than calories from other foods, it is not correct to dismiss diet approaches using the calorie is a calorie trope, and that's something that the mainstream has done since at least the 70s.

It's not nearly as prevalent now, due to the arguments of those pursuing the alternate hypothesis.

Also, the discovery of the thermic effect of foods predates the mainstream diet-heart-hypothesis by decades, so proponents of that hypothesis cannot take credit for it. But can be blamed for ignoring it.

 
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: 2765
    • jt512
Re: Beyond Burger 2.0
« Reply #376 on: December 02, 2019, 08:34:15 PM »

Yes, it does have a larger carbon footprint than plant based foods. But there is no consensus as to how large the difference or how large the carbon footprint.

Do you have a source? Here's a figure from the linked article:

Quote
Producing beef, for example, uses 20 times the land and emits 20 times the emissions as growing beans, per gram of protein...

Do you have a link to a legit study that shows something significantly less? 17 or 18x would be in the same ball park. So I'm talking a study that says, say, 10x the emissions or even 15x the emissions as an example of a divergence in the consensus?

We've gone over this several times before.  The land use takes includes the grazing land for cattle that is not suitable or useful for any other purpose. The studies that have compared the CO2 between meat and veggies used a weighted scale, where they calculated every mode of transportation used for meat, but not for plant based.  Most of the CO2 attributed to meat comes from transporting feed, beef and meat.

Maybe the solution is to start using electric semi-trucks rather than once again changing the diets of hundreds of millions of people with little or no evidence to show it would be healthier (again).

You're fighting an uphill battle against the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

The Second Law? I thought that was ignored by Nutrition scientists!


Really?  We're the one's who figured out the thermic effect of food.

Well, with a little help and encouragement from those who promote the alternate theory of diet and nutrition.


In your dreams.  The thermic effect of food was discovered in the 19th century.

And consistently denied with the "a calorie is a calorie" trope from the mainstream until well into the 21st century.


No, CS.  For the umpteenth time, it goes without saying that a physiologic calorie of food contains, um, one physiologic calorie.  Thermic effect, on the other hand, which is a component of energy expenditures, differs from food to food.

So, while it is correct to say a calorie is a calorie in the very narrow, minimalist and irrelevant sense, to use that mantra in terms of diet and nutrition, where due to the thermic effect of food and other variables, calories from some foods have a greater effect on the body than calories from other foods, it is not correct to dismiss diet approaches using the calorie is a calorie trope, and that's something that the mainstream has done since at least the 70s.


No one is dismissing diet approaches using any such "trope."  It has been shown that high-fat diets, whether ketogenic or not, offer no significant "metabolic advantage" over any other diet.  Your diet does not "work" because of thermogenesis.  It just reduces your appetite.

Quote
It's not nearly as prevalent now, due to the arguments of those pursuing the alternate hypothesis.


It was never a prevalent argument.  It was you guys who claimed, ignorantly, that your diet had a "metabolic advantage." 

Quote
Also, the discovery of the thermic effect of foods predates the mainstream diet-heart-hypothesis by decades, so proponents of that hypothesis cannot take credit for it. But can be blamed for ignoring it.


No one is ignoring the "metabolic advantage" of your diet, because there isn't one.  You want a "metabolic advantage"?  Then eat as much protein and carbohydrate as you can, and as little fat.
Ich verstehe nur Bahnhof.

Offline bachfiend

  • Not Any Kind of Moderator
  • Frequent Poster
  • ******
  • Posts: 2471
Re: Beyond Burger 2.0
« Reply #377 on: December 02, 2019, 09:19:42 PM »

Yes, it does have a larger carbon footprint than plant based foods. But there is no consensus as to how large the difference or how large the carbon footprint.

Do you have a source? Here's a figure from the linked article:

Quote
Producing beef, for example, uses 20 times the land and emits 20 times the emissions as growing beans, per gram of protein...

Do you have a link to a legit study that shows something significantly less? 17 or 18x would be in the same ball park. So I'm talking a study that says, say, 10x the emissions or even 15x the emissions as an example of a divergence in the consensus?

We've gone over this several times before.  The land use takes includes the grazing land for cattle that is not suitable or useful for any other purpose. The studies that have compared the CO2 between meat and veggies used a weighted scale, where they calculated every mode of transportation used for meat, but not for plant based.  Most of the CO2 attributed to meat comes from transporting feed, beef and meat.

Maybe the solution is to start using electric semi-trucks rather than once again changing the diets of hundreds of millions of people with little or no evidence to show it would be healthier (again).

You're fighting an uphill battle against the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

The Second Law? I thought that was ignored by Nutrition scientists!


Really?  We're the one's who figured out the thermic effect of food.

Well, with a little help and encouragement from those who promote the alternate theory of diet and nutrition.


In your dreams.  The thermic effect of food was discovered in the 19th century.

And consistently denied with the "a calorie is a calorie" trope from the mainstream until well into the 21st century.


No, CS.  For the umpteenth time, it goes without saying that a physiologic calorie of food contains, um, one physiologic calorie.  Thermic effect, on the other hand, which is a component of energy expenditures, differs from food to food.

So, while it is correct to say a calorie is a calorie in the very narrow, minimalist and irrelevant sense, to use that mantra in terms of diet and nutrition, where due to the thermic effect of food and other variables, calories from some foods have a greater effect on the body than calories from other foods, it is not correct to dismiss diet approaches using the calorie is a calorie trope, and that's something that the mainstream has done since at least the 70s.

It's not nearly as prevalent now, due to the arguments of those pursuing the alternate hypothesis.

Also, the discovery of the thermic effect of foods predates the mainstream diet-heart-hypothesis by decades, so proponents of that hypothesis cannot take credit for it. But can be blamed for ignoring it.

It’s true that ‘calories from some foods have a greater effect on the body than calories than from other foods.’ 

Some foods are calorie dense, often processed foods high in simple sugars and fats, and it’s easy to consume excessive calories leading to weight gain before satiety kicks in.

The Dietary Guidelines advise against the consumption of such foods.  Which is lost in the blizzard of advertising of food manufacturers and fast food outlets.

The best strategy is to cook your own meals at home, using single ingredients, and ensuring you include adequate protein (which leads to satiety, not fats).  And ensuring the ingredients aren’t calorie dense.
Gebt ihr ihr ihr Buch zurück?

Offline CarbShark

  • Poster of Extraordinary Magnitude
  • **********
  • Posts: 12498
Beyond Burger 2.0
« Reply #378 on: December 02, 2019, 09:22:43 PM »

Yes, it does have a larger carbon footprint than plant based foods. But there is no consensus as to how large the difference or how large the carbon footprint.

Do you have a source? Here's a figure from the linked article:

Quote
Producing beef, for example, uses 20 times the land and emits 20 times the emissions as growing beans, per gram of protein...

Do you have a link to a legit study that shows something significantly less? 17 or 18x would be in the same ball park. So I'm talking a study that says, say, 10x the emissions or even 15x the emissions as an example of a divergence in the consensus?

We've gone over this several times before.  The land use takes includes the grazing land for cattle that is not suitable or useful for any other purpose. The studies that have compared the CO2 between meat and veggies used a weighted scale, where they calculated every mode of transportation used for meat, but not for plant based.  Most of the CO2 attributed to meat comes from transporting feed, beef and meat.

Maybe the solution is to start using electric semi-trucks rather than once again changing the diets of hundreds of millions of people with little or no evidence to show it would be healthier (again).

You're fighting an uphill battle against the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

The Second Law? I thought that was ignored by Nutrition scientists!


Really?  We're the one's who figured out the thermic effect of food.

Well, with a little help and encouragement from those who promote the alternate theory of diet and nutrition.


In your dreams.  The thermic effect of food was discovered in the 19th century.

And consistently denied with the "a calorie is a calorie" trope from the mainstream until well into the 21st century.


No, CS.  For the umpteenth time, it goes without saying that a physiologic calorie of food contains, um, one physiologic calorie.  Thermic effect, on the other hand, which is a component of energy expenditures, differs from food to food.

So, while it is correct to say a calorie is a calorie in the very narrow, minimalist and irrelevant sense, to use that mantra in terms of diet and nutrition, where due to the thermic effect of food and other variables, calories from some foods have a greater effect on the body than calories from other foods, it is not correct to dismiss diet approaches using the calorie is a calorie trope, and that's something that the mainstream has done since at least the 70s.


No one is dismissing diet approaches using any such "trope."  It has been shown that high-fat diets, whether ketogenic or not, offer no significant "metabolic advantage" over any other diet.  Your diet does not "work" because of thermogenesis.  It just reduces your appetite.

Quote
It's not nearly as prevalent now, due to the arguments of those pursuing the alternate hypothesis.


It was never a prevalent argument.  It was you guys who claimed, ignorantly, that your diet had a "metabolic advantage." 

Quote
Also, the discovery of the thermic effect of foods predates the mainstream diet-heart-hypothesis by decades, so proponents of that hypothesis cannot take credit for it. But can be blamed for ignoring it.


No one is ignoring the "metabolic advantage" of your diet, because there isn't one.  You want a "metabolic advantage"?  Then eat as much protein and carbohydrate as you can, and as little fat.
That doesn’t provide a metabolic advantage even with your definition of the term.

Atkins definition (and I think it was he who coined that term) is simply that carbs, especially sugar and other fast and simpler carbs, are metabolized differently than fat or protein, and due to their effect on insulin levels, and insulin’s role as the regulator is fat storage, consuming fewer carbs and more fact provides an advantage rooted in metabolism for those wanting to store less fat or release fat from storage.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
« Last Edit: December 02, 2019, 09:26:10 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 jt512

  • Frequent Poster
  • ******
  • Posts: 2765
    • jt512
Re: Beyond Burger 2.0
« Reply #379 on: December 02, 2019, 09:28:55 PM »

Yes, it does have a larger carbon footprint than plant based foods. But there is no consensus as to how large the difference or how large the carbon footprint.

Do you have a source? Here's a figure from the linked article:

Quote
Producing beef, for example, uses 20 times the land and emits 20 times the emissions as growing beans, per gram of protein...

Do you have a link to a legit study that shows something significantly less? 17 or 18x would be in the same ball park. So I'm talking a study that says, say, 10x the emissions or even 15x the emissions as an example of a divergence in the consensus?

We've gone over this several times before.  The land use takes includes the grazing land for cattle that is not suitable or useful for any other purpose. The studies that have compared the CO2 between meat and veggies used a weighted scale, where they calculated every mode of transportation used for meat, but not for plant based.  Most of the CO2 attributed to meat comes from transporting feed, beef and meat.

Maybe the solution is to start using electric semi-trucks rather than once again changing the diets of hundreds of millions of people with little or no evidence to show it would be healthier (again).

You're fighting an uphill battle against the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

The Second Law? I thought that was ignored by Nutrition scientists!


Really?  We're the one's who figured out the thermic effect of food.

Well, with a little help and encouragement from those who promote the alternate theory of diet and nutrition.


In your dreams.  The thermic effect of food was discovered in the 19th century.

And consistently denied with the "a calorie is a calorie" trope from the mainstream until well into the 21st century.


No, CS.  For the umpteenth time, it goes without saying that a physiologic calorie of food contains, um, one physiologic calorie.  Thermic effect, on the other hand, which is a component of energy expenditures, differs from food to food.

So, while it is correct to say a calorie is a calorie in the very narrow, minimalist and irrelevant sense, to use that mantra in terms of diet and nutrition, where due to the thermic effect of food and other variables, calories from some foods have a greater effect on the body than calories from other foods, it is not correct to dismiss diet approaches using the calorie is a calorie trope, and that's something that the mainstream has done since at least the 70s.


No one is dismissing diet approaches using any such "trope."  It has been shown that high-fat diets, whether ketogenic or not, offer no significant "metabolic advantage" over any other diet.  Your diet does not "work" because of thermogenesis.  It just reduces your appetite.

Quote
It's not nearly as prevalent now, due to the arguments of those pursuing the alternate hypothesis.


It was never a prevalent argument.  It was you guys who claimed, ignorantly, that your diet had a "metabolic advantage." 

Quote
Also, the discovery of the thermic effect of foods predates the mainstream diet-heart-hypothesis by decades, so proponents of that hypothesis cannot take credit for it. But can be blamed for ignoring it.


No one is ignoring the "metabolic advantage" of your diet, because there isn't one.  You want a "metabolic advantage"?  Then eat as much protein and carbohydrate as you can, and as little fat.
That doesn’t provide a metabolic advantage even with your definition of the term.


Yes it does.  Protein has roughly 8 times the thermic effect of fat.  Carbohydrate is intermediate.

Quote
Atkins definition (and I think it was he who coined that term) is simply that carbs, especially sugar and other fast and simpler carbs, are metabolized differently than fat or protein, and due to their effect on insulin levels, and insulin’s role as the regulator is fat storage, consuming fewer carbs and more fact provides an advantage rotes in metabolism for those wanting to store less fat or release fat from storage.


Once low-carb "experts" started listening to reason and reluctantly realized that that cannot affect energy balance, they eventually admitted that any "metabolic advantage" had to be due to thermogenesis.  Now we know that there is no practical thermogenic advantage either. 
Ich verstehe nur Bahnhof.

Offline CarbShark

  • Poster of Extraordinary Magnitude
  • **********
  • Posts: 12498
Re: Beyond Burger 2.0
« Reply #380 on: December 02, 2019, 09:34:34 PM »

Yes, it does have a larger carbon footprint than plant based foods. But there is no consensus as to how large the difference or how large the carbon footprint.

Do you have a source? Here's a figure from the linked article:

Quote
Producing beef, for example, uses 20 times the land and emits 20 times the emissions as growing beans, per gram of protein...

Do you have a link to a legit study that shows something significantly less? 17 or 18x would be in the same ball park. So I'm talking a study that says, say, 10x the emissions or even 15x the emissions as an example of a divergence in the consensus?

We've gone over this several times before.  The land use takes includes the grazing land for cattle that is not suitable or useful for any other purpose. The studies that have compared the CO2 between meat and veggies used a weighted scale, where they calculated every mode of transportation used for meat, but not for plant based.  Most of the CO2 attributed to meat comes from transporting feed, beef and meat.

Maybe the solution is to start using electric semi-trucks rather than once again changing the diets of hundreds of millions of people with little or no evidence to show it would be healthier (again).

You're fighting an uphill battle against the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

The Second Law? I thought that was ignored by Nutrition scientists!


Really?  We're the one's who figured out the thermic effect of food.

Well, with a little help and encouragement from those who promote the alternate theory of diet and nutrition.


In your dreams.  The thermic effect of food was discovered in the 19th century.

And consistently denied with the "a calorie is a calorie" trope from the mainstream until well into the 21st century.


No, CS.  For the umpteenth time, it goes without saying that a physiologic calorie of food contains, um, one physiologic calorie.  Thermic effect, on the other hand, which is a component of energy expenditures, differs from food to food.

So, while it is correct to say a calorie is a calorie in the very narrow, minimalist and irrelevant sense, to use that mantra in terms of diet and nutrition, where due to the thermic effect of food and other variables, calories from some foods have a greater effect on the body than calories from other foods, it is not correct to dismiss diet approaches using the calorie is a calorie trope, and that's something that the mainstream has done since at least the 70s.


No one is dismissing diet approaches using any such "trope."  It has been shown that high-fat diets, whether ketogenic or not, offer no significant "metabolic advantage" over any other diet.  Your diet does not "work" because of thermogenesis.  It just reduces your appetite.

Quote
It's not nearly as prevalent now, due to the arguments of those pursuing the alternate hypothesis.


It was never a prevalent argument.  It was you guys who claimed, ignorantly, that your diet had a "metabolic advantage." 

Quote
Also, the discovery of the thermic effect of foods predates the mainstream diet-heart-hypothesis by decades, so proponents of that hypothesis cannot take credit for it. But can be blamed for ignoring it.


No one is ignoring the "metabolic advantage" of your diet, because there isn't one.  You want a "metabolic advantage"?  Then eat as much protein and carbohydrate as you can, and as little fat.
That doesn’t provide a metabolic advantage even with your definition of the term.


Yes it does.  Protein has roughly 8 times the thermic effect of fat.  Carbohydrate is intermediate.

Quote
Atkins definition (and I think it was he who coined that term) is simply that carbs, especially sugar and other fast and simpler carbs, are metabolized differently than fat or protein, and due to their effect on insulin levels, and insulin’s role as the regulator is fat storage, consuming fewer carbs and more fact provides an advantage rotes in metabolism for those wanting to store less fat or release fat from storage.


Once low-carb "experts" started listening to reason and reluctantly realized that that cannot affect energy balance, they eventually admitted that any "metabolic advantage" had to be due to thermogenesis.  Now we know that there is no practical thermogenic advantage either.
Low carb experts have changed their views that consuming fewer simple carbs has an effect on fat storage that is advantageous for weight loss. Many no longer use the term metabolic advantage, but that is more due to the term being misunderstood thanything else.


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 jt512

  • Frequent Poster
  • ******
  • Posts: 2765
    • jt512
Re: Beyond Burger 2.0
« Reply #381 on: December 02, 2019, 09:37:41 PM »

Yes, it does have a larger carbon footprint than plant based foods. But there is no consensus as to how large the difference or how large the carbon footprint.

Do you have a source? Here's a figure from the linked article:

Quote
Producing beef, for example, uses 20 times the land and emits 20 times the emissions as growing beans, per gram of protein...

Do you have a link to a legit study that shows something significantly less? 17 or 18x would be in the same ball park. So I'm talking a study that says, say, 10x the emissions or even 15x the emissions as an example of a divergence in the consensus?

We've gone over this several times before.  The land use takes includes the grazing land for cattle that is not suitable or useful for any other purpose. The studies that have compared the CO2 between meat and veggies used a weighted scale, where they calculated every mode of transportation used for meat, but not for plant based.  Most of the CO2 attributed to meat comes from transporting feed, beef and meat.

Maybe the solution is to start using electric semi-trucks rather than once again changing the diets of hundreds of millions of people with little or no evidence to show it would be healthier (again).

You're fighting an uphill battle against the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

The Second Law? I thought that was ignored by Nutrition scientists!


Really?  We're the one's who figured out the thermic effect of food.

Well, with a little help and encouragement from those who promote the alternate theory of diet and nutrition.


In your dreams.  The thermic effect of food was discovered in the 19th century.

And consistently denied with the "a calorie is a calorie" trope from the mainstream until well into the 21st century.


No, CS.  For the umpteenth time, it goes without saying that a physiologic calorie of food contains, um, one physiologic calorie.  Thermic effect, on the other hand, which is a component of energy expenditures, differs from food to food.

So, while it is correct to say a calorie is a calorie in the very narrow, minimalist and irrelevant sense, to use that mantra in terms of diet and nutrition, where due to the thermic effect of food and other variables, calories from some foods have a greater effect on the body than calories from other foods, it is not correct to dismiss diet approaches using the calorie is a calorie trope, and that's something that the mainstream has done since at least the 70s.


No one is dismissing diet approaches using any such "trope."  It has been shown that high-fat diets, whether ketogenic or not, offer no significant "metabolic advantage" over any other diet.  Your diet does not "work" because of thermogenesis.  It just reduces your appetite.

Quote
It's not nearly as prevalent now, due to the arguments of those pursuing the alternate hypothesis.


It was never a prevalent argument.  It was you guys who claimed, ignorantly, that your diet had a "metabolic advantage." 

Quote
Also, the discovery of the thermic effect of foods predates the mainstream diet-heart-hypothesis by decades, so proponents of that hypothesis cannot take credit for it. But can be blamed for ignoring it.


No one is ignoring the "metabolic advantage" of your diet, because there isn't one.  You want a "metabolic advantage"?  Then eat as much protein and carbohydrate as you can, and as little fat.
That doesn’t provide a metabolic advantage even with your definition of the term.


Yes it does.  Protein has roughly 8 times the thermic effect of fat.  Carbohydrate is intermediate.

Quote
Atkins definition (and I think it was he who coined that term) is simply that carbs, especially sugar and other fast and simpler carbs, are metabolized differently than fat or protein, and due to their effect on insulin levels, and insulin’s role as the regulator is fat storage, consuming fewer carbs and more fact provides an advantage rotes in metabolism for those wanting to store less fat or release fat from storage.


Once low-carb "experts" started listening to reason and reluctantly realized that that cannot affect energy balance, they eventually admitted that any "metabolic advantage" had to be due to thermogenesis.  Now we know that there is no practical thermogenic advantage either.
Low carb experts have changed their views that consuming fewer simple carbs has an effect on fat storage that is advantageous for weight loss. Many no longer use the term metabolic advantage, but that is more due to the term being misunderstood thanything else.


I don't know whether you mean that low-carb "experts" currently do or do not think that sugar intake affects energy balance independent of calorie intake.  If they do, then they are still wrong.
Ich verstehe nur Bahnhof.

Offline CarbShark

  • Poster of Extraordinary Magnitude
  • **********
  • Posts: 12498
Re: Beyond Burger 2.0
« Reply #382 on: December 02, 2019, 09:42:03 PM »

Yes, it does have a larger carbon footprint than plant based foods. But there is no consensus as to how large the difference or how large the carbon footprint.

Do you have a source? Here's a figure from the linked article:

Quote
Producing beef, for example, uses 20 times the land and emits 20 times the emissions as growing beans, per gram of protein...

Do you have a link to a legit study that shows something significantly less? 17 or 18x would be in the same ball park. So I'm talking a study that says, say, 10x the emissions or even 15x the emissions as an example of a divergence in the consensus?

We've gone over this several times before.  The land use takes includes the grazing land for cattle that is not suitable or useful for any other purpose. The studies that have compared the CO2 between meat and veggies used a weighted scale, where they calculated every mode of transportation used for meat, but not for plant based.  Most of the CO2 attributed to meat comes from transporting feed, beef and meat.

Maybe the solution is to start using electric semi-trucks rather than once again changing the diets of hundreds of millions of people with little or no evidence to show it would be healthier (again).

You're fighting an uphill battle against the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

The Second Law? I thought that was ignored by Nutrition scientists!


Really?  We're the one's who figured out the thermic effect of food.

Well, with a little help and encouragement from those who promote the alternate theory of diet and nutrition.


In your dreams.  The thermic effect of food was discovered in the 19th century.

And consistently denied with the "a calorie is a calorie" trope from the mainstream until well into the 21st century.


No, CS.  For the umpteenth time, it goes without saying that a physiologic calorie of food contains, um, one physiologic calorie.  Thermic effect, on the other hand, which is a component of energy expenditures, differs from food to food.

So, while it is correct to say a calorie is a calorie in the very narrow, minimalist and irrelevant sense, to use that mantra in terms of diet and nutrition, where due to the thermic effect of food and other variables, calories from some foods have a greater effect on the body than calories from other foods, it is not correct to dismiss diet approaches using the calorie is a calorie trope, and that's something that the mainstream has done since at least the 70s.


No one is dismissing diet approaches using any such "trope."  It has been shown that high-fat diets, whether ketogenic or not, offer no significant "metabolic advantage" over any other diet.  Your diet does not "work" because of thermogenesis.  It just reduces your appetite.

Quote
It's not nearly as prevalent now, due to the arguments of those pursuing the alternate hypothesis.


It was never a prevalent argument.  It was you guys who claimed, ignorantly, that your diet had a "metabolic advantage." 

Quote
Also, the discovery of the thermic effect of foods predates the mainstream diet-heart-hypothesis by decades, so proponents of that hypothesis cannot take credit for it. But can be blamed for ignoring it.


No one is ignoring the "metabolic advantage" of your diet, because there isn't one.  You want a "metabolic advantage"?  Then eat as much protein and carbohydrate as you can, and as little fat.
That doesn’t provide a metabolic advantage even with your definition of the term.


Yes it does.  Protein has roughly 8 times the thermic effect of fat.  Carbohydrate is intermediate.

Quote
Atkins definition (and I think it was he who coined that term) is simply that carbs, especially sugar and other fast and simpler carbs, are metabolized differently than fat or protein, and due to their effect on insulin levels, and insulin’s role as the regulator is fat storage, consuming fewer carbs and more fact provides an advantage rotes in metabolism for those wanting to store less fat or release fat from storage.


Once low-carb "experts" started listening to reason and reluctantly realized that that cannot affect energy balance, they eventually admitted that any "metabolic advantage" had to be due to thermogenesis.  Now we know that there is no practical thermogenic advantage either.
Low carb experts have changed their views that consuming fewer simple carbs has an effect on fat storage that is advantageous for weight loss. Many no longer use the term metabolic advantage, but that is more due to the term being misunderstood thanything else.


I don't know whether you mean that low-carb "experts" currently do or do not think that sugar intake affects energy balance independent of calorie intake.  If they do, then they are still wrong.

This is a discussion we should move to the LC topic.


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 jt512

  • Frequent Poster
  • ******
  • Posts: 2765
    • jt512
Re: Beyond Burger 2.0
« Reply #383 on: December 02, 2019, 09:44:27 PM »

Yes, it does have a larger carbon footprint than plant based foods. But there is no consensus as to how large the difference or how large the carbon footprint.

Do you have a source? Here's a figure from the linked article:

Quote
Producing beef, for example, uses 20 times the land and emits 20 times the emissions as growing beans, per gram of protein...

Do you have a link to a legit study that shows something significantly less? 17 or 18x would be in the same ball park. So I'm talking a study that says, say, 10x the emissions or even 15x the emissions as an example of a divergence in the consensus?

We've gone over this several times before.  The land use takes includes the grazing land for cattle that is not suitable or useful for any other purpose. The studies that have compared the CO2 between meat and veggies used a weighted scale, where they calculated every mode of transportation used for meat, but not for plant based.  Most of the CO2 attributed to meat comes from transporting feed, beef and meat.

Maybe the solution is to start using electric semi-trucks rather than once again changing the diets of hundreds of millions of people with little or no evidence to show it would be healthier (again).

You're fighting an uphill battle against the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

The Second Law? I thought that was ignored by Nutrition scientists!


Really?  We're the one's who figured out the thermic effect of food.

Well, with a little help and encouragement from those who promote the alternate theory of diet and nutrition.


In your dreams.  The thermic effect of food was discovered in the 19th century.

And consistently denied with the "a calorie is a calorie" trope from the mainstream until well into the 21st century.


No, CS.  For the umpteenth time, it goes without saying that a physiologic calorie of food contains, um, one physiologic calorie.  Thermic effect, on the other hand, which is a component of energy expenditures, differs from food to food.

So, while it is correct to say a calorie is a calorie in the very narrow, minimalist and irrelevant sense, to use that mantra in terms of diet and nutrition, where due to the thermic effect of food and other variables, calories from some foods have a greater effect on the body than calories from other foods, it is not correct to dismiss diet approaches using the calorie is a calorie trope, and that's something that the mainstream has done since at least the 70s.


No one is dismissing diet approaches using any such "trope."  It has been shown that high-fat diets, whether ketogenic or not, offer no significant "metabolic advantage" over any other diet.  Your diet does not "work" because of thermogenesis.  It just reduces your appetite.

Quote
It's not nearly as prevalent now, due to the arguments of those pursuing the alternate hypothesis.


It was never a prevalent argument.  It was you guys who claimed, ignorantly, that your diet had a "metabolic advantage." 

Quote
Also, the discovery of the thermic effect of foods predates the mainstream diet-heart-hypothesis by decades, so proponents of that hypothesis cannot take credit for it. But can be blamed for ignoring it.


No one is ignoring the "metabolic advantage" of your diet, because there isn't one.  You want a "metabolic advantage"?  Then eat as much protein and carbohydrate as you can, and as little fat.
That doesn’t provide a metabolic advantage even with your definition of the term.


Yes it does.  Protein has roughly 8 times the thermic effect of fat.  Carbohydrate is intermediate.

Quote
Atkins definition (and I think it was he who coined that term) is simply that carbs, especially sugar and other fast and simpler carbs, are metabolized differently than fat or protein, and due to their effect on insulin levels, and insulin’s role as the regulator is fat storage, consuming fewer carbs and more fact provides an advantage rotes in metabolism for those wanting to store less fat or release fat from storage.


Once low-carb "experts" started listening to reason and reluctantly realized that that cannot affect energy balance, they eventually admitted that any "metabolic advantage" had to be due to thermogenesis.  Now we know that there is no practical thermogenic advantage either.
Low carb experts have changed their views that consuming fewer simple carbs has an effect on fat storage that is advantageous for weight loss. Many no longer use the term metabolic advantage, but that is more due to the term being misunderstood thanything else.


I don't know whether you mean that low-carb "experts" currently do or do not think that sugar intake affects energy balance independent of calorie intake.  If they do, then they are still wrong.

This is a discussion we should move to the LC topic.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


It is a discussion we should end, because we've had it a dozen times before.
Ich verstehe nur Bahnhof.

Offline bachfiend

  • Not Any Kind of Moderator
  • Frequent Poster
  • ******
  • Posts: 2471
Re: Beyond Burger 2.0
« Reply #384 on: December 02, 2019, 09:48:23 PM »

Yes, it does have a larger carbon footprint than plant based foods. But there is no consensus as to how large the difference or how large the carbon footprint.

Do you have a source? Here's a figure from the linked article:

Quote
Producing beef, for example, uses 20 times the land and emits 20 times the emissions as growing beans, per gram of protein...

Do you have a link to a legit study that shows something significantly less? 17 or 18x would be in the same ball park. So I'm talking a study that says, say, 10x the emissions or even 15x the emissions as an example of a divergence in the consensus?

We've gone over this several times before.  The land use takes includes the grazing land for cattle that is not suitable or useful for any other purpose. The studies that have compared the CO2 between meat and veggies used a weighted scale, where they calculated every mode of transportation used for meat, but not for plant based.  Most of the CO2 attributed to meat comes from transporting feed, beef and meat.

Maybe the solution is to start using electric semi-trucks rather than once again changing the diets of hundreds of millions of people with little or no evidence to show it would be healthier (again).

You're fighting an uphill battle against the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

The Second Law? I thought that was ignored by Nutrition scientists!


Really?  We're the one's who figured out the thermic effect of food.

Well, with a little help and encouragement from those who promote the alternate theory of diet and nutrition.


In your dreams.  The thermic effect of food was discovered in the 19th century.

And consistently denied with the "a calorie is a calorie" trope from the mainstream until well into the 21st century.


No, CS.  For the umpteenth time, it goes without saying that a physiologic calorie of food contains, um, one physiologic calorie.  Thermic effect, on the other hand, which is a component of energy expenditures, differs from food to food.

So, while it is correct to say a calorie is a calorie in the very narrow, minimalist and irrelevant sense, to use that mantra in terms of diet and nutrition, where due to the thermic effect of food and other variables, calories from some foods have a greater effect on the body than calories from other foods, it is not correct to dismiss diet approaches using the calorie is a calorie trope, and that's something that the mainstream has done since at least the 70s.


No one is dismissing diet approaches using any such "trope."  It has been shown that high-fat diets, whether ketogenic or not, offer no significant "metabolic advantage" over any other diet.  Your diet does not "work" because of thermogenesis.  It just reduces your appetite.

Quote
It's not nearly as prevalent now, due to the arguments of those pursuing the alternate hypothesis.


It was never a prevalent argument.  It was you guys who claimed, ignorantly, that your diet had a "metabolic advantage." 

Quote
Also, the discovery of the thermic effect of foods predates the mainstream diet-heart-hypothesis by decades, so proponents of that hypothesis cannot take credit for it. But can be blamed for ignoring it.


No one is ignoring the "metabolic advantage" of your diet, because there isn't one.  You want a "metabolic advantage"?  Then eat as much protein and carbohydrate as you can, and as little fat.
That doesn’t provide a metabolic advantage even with your definition of the term.


Yes it does.  Protein has roughly 8 times the thermic effect of fat.  Carbohydrate is intermediate.

Quote
Atkins definition (and I think it was he who coined that term) is simply that carbs, especially sugar and other fast and simpler carbs, are metabolized differently than fat or protein, and due to their effect on insulin levels, and insulin’s role as the regulator is fat storage, consuming fewer carbs and more fact provides an advantage rotes in metabolism for those wanting to store less fat or release fat from storage.


Once low-carb "experts" started listening to reason and reluctantly realized that that cannot affect energy balance, they eventually admitted that any "metabolic advantage" had to be due to thermogenesis.  Now we know that there is no practical thermogenic advantage either.
Low carb experts have changed their views that consuming fewer simple carbs has an effect on fat storage that is advantageous for weight loss. Many no longer use the term metabolic advantage, but that is more due to the term being misunderstood thanything else.


I don't know whether you mean that low-carb "experts" currently do or do not think that sugar intake affects energy balance independent of calorie intake.  If they do, then they are still wrong.

This is a discussion we should move to the LC topic.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

So why don’t you, instead of cluttering up this thread?  And perhaps you should start another thread to propagandist your false beliefs about feedlots.
Gebt ihr ihr ihr Buch zurück?

Offline mindme

  • Reef Tank Owner
  • *********
  • Posts: 8872
    • http://www.yrad.com/cs
Re: Beyond Burger 2.0
« Reply #385 on: December 03, 2019, 08:41:26 AM »

Yes, it does have a larger carbon footprint than plant based foods. But there is no consensus as to how large the difference or how large the carbon footprint.

Do you have a source? Here's a figure from the linked article:

Quote
Producing beef, for example, uses 20 times the land and emits 20 times the emissions as growing beans, per gram of protein...

Do you have a link to a legit study that shows something significantly less? 17 or 18x would be in the same ball park. So I'm talking a study that says, say, 10x the emissions or even 15x the emissions as an example of a divergence in the consensus?

We've gone over this several times before.  The land use takes includes the grazing land for cattle that is not suitable or useful for any other purpose. The studies that have compared the CO2 between meat and veggies used a weighted scale, where they calculated every mode of transportation used for meat, but not for plant based.  Most of the CO2 attributed to meat comes from transporting feed, beef and meat.

Maybe the solution is to start using electric semi-trucks rather than once again changing the diets of hundreds of millions of people with little or no evidence to show it would be healthier (again).

So, no link? Just an assertion?
"Because the world needs more Mark Crislip."

Conspiracy Skeptic Podcast
Korean Podcast
Michael Goudeau, Vegas Comedy Entertainer Available for Trade Shows

Offline mindme

  • Reef Tank Owner
  • *********
  • Posts: 8872
    • http://www.yrad.com/cs
Re: Beyond Burger 2.0
« Reply #386 on: December 03, 2019, 08:45:00 AM »

The problem with Beyond and Impossible is that (based on what people are saying above) it tastes like meat, so eating it you will never ween yourself of the desire for meat, and apparently it's not really much (or any) better for you than meat.

I do not WANT to end my enjoyment of meat. I would like a meat with a much lower carbon footprint, however.
"Because the world needs more Mark Crislip."

Conspiracy Skeptic Podcast
Korean Podcast
Michael Goudeau, Vegas Comedy Entertainer Available for Trade Shows

Offline daniel1948

  • Happy Man in a Boat
  • Reef Tank Owner
  • *********
  • Posts: 9576
  • I'd rather be paddling
Re: Beyond Burger 2.0
« Reply #387 on: December 03, 2019, 09:03:58 AM »
Somehow you're concluding that the food people eat is based totally on habit, to which I respond bullshit.

This is an odd comment, coming from someone who insists that if people simply stop eating sweet foods they will lose the desire for them.


The problem with Beyond and Impossible is that (based on what people are saying above) it tastes like meat, so eating it you will never ween yourself of the desire for meat, and apparently it's not really much (or any) better for you than meat.

I do not WANT to end my enjoyment of meat. I would like a meat with a much lower carbon footprint, however.

I was responding to comments about being "unable" to quit eating meat. I specifically said that if people don't want to quit eating meat I won't criticize them for their choice.
Daniel
----------------
"Anyone who has ever looked into the glazed eyes of a soldier dying on the battlefield will think long and hard before starting a war."
-- Otto von Bismarck

Offline mindme

  • Reef Tank Owner
  • *********
  • Posts: 8872
    • http://www.yrad.com/cs
Re: Beyond Burger 2.0
« Reply #388 on: December 03, 2019, 09:17:53 AM »


The problem with Beyond and Impossible is that (based on what people are saying above) it tastes like meat, so eating it you will never ween yourself of the desire for meat, and apparently it's not really much (or any) better for you than meat.

I do not WANT to end my enjoyment of meat. I would like a meat with a much lower carbon footprint, however.

I was responding to comments about being "unable" to quit eating meat. I specifically said that if people don't want to quit eating meat I won't criticize them for their choice.

Fair enough. There are, of course, many people who don't want to drive a car to work. They would prefer a subway or reliable train. But there are huge numbers of people that simply won't give up their cars. For those, you might look at a less bad solution, like electric cars. Meat is in the same category. There are a few billion people I think who would like a meat that's less bad for the environment and less bad for cows and chickens but would be happy if it was at least as unhealthy as normal meat.
"Because the world needs more Mark Crislip."

Conspiracy Skeptic Podcast
Korean Podcast
Michael Goudeau, Vegas Comedy Entertainer Available for Trade Shows

Offline CarbShark

  • Poster of Extraordinary Magnitude
  • **********
  • Posts: 12498
Re: Beyond Burger 2.0
« Reply #389 on: December 03, 2019, 10:52:49 AM »
Somehow you're concluding that the food people eat is based totally on habit, to which I respond bullshit.

This is an odd comment, coming from someone who insists that if people simply stop eating sweet foods they will lose the desire for them.

Not at all odd. Sugar is just one part of the diet. I believe sugar is an addiction, not a habit.

But your comment was that %100 of food choices are based on habit and that is bullshit.

Quote
I was responding to comments about being "unable" to quit eating meat. I specifically said that if people don't want to quit eating meat I won't criticize them for their choice.

Who made that comment ?  Your message was in response to a discussion about the laws of thermodynamics.


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.