Skeptics Guide to the Universe Forums

The Skeptics' Guide to the Universe => Podcast Episodes => Topic started by: Steven Novella on March 24, 2018, 07:08:13 AM

Title: Episode #663
Post by: Steven Novella on March 24, 2018, 07:08:13 AM
What's the Word: Vagility
News Items: NASA's Hammer, ESP on CBS, Free Speech
Who's That Noisy
Your Questions and E-mails: Meat Consumption
Science or Fiction
Title: Re: Episode #663
Post by: Quetzalcoatl on March 24, 2018, 08:24:41 AM
You are early today, wow!

And thank you for keeping up with the podcast! :)
Title: Re: Episode #663
Post by: 2397 on March 24, 2018, 01:25:15 PM
I would've thought cheese would be worse than milk, in terms of energy consumption/pollutants, since that requires further processing.

Poultry benefits from more inhumane conditions.

It's fair enough to take up the issue of per capita consumption, but don't ignore the issue of the number of capita. So far haven't heard birth control mentioned at all.

Or air travel.

Edit: According to this (https://climatefootnotes.com/2017/05/17/meat-vs-cheese/), cheese is basically why dairy is bad. Milk by itself is like tofu.

Quote
There are several reasons for the relatively large carbon footprint of cheese. First, one kilogram of cheese requires up to 10 kilograms of milk due to the maturing process that cheese usually undergoes.

(https://i.imgur.com/VSjPpdA.jpg)

Though those numbers aren't the same numbers/weighting Steve was talking about. Milk is a lot less calorie dense than cheese. The exact ratio depending on the types of milk and cheese.
Title: Re: Episode #663
Post by: Igor SMC on March 24, 2018, 04:09:38 PM
I don't know if it is happening to everybody, or just on my computer. I visited the SGU front page several times, but it was still showing the episode from last week. I had to press Ctrl+F5 to force a full refresh in order for it to show todays episode. It is the third week that I have to do this.... Is this happening to anyone else?

I'm using Chrome on Windows 10.
Title: Re: Episode #663
Post by: JohnM on March 24, 2018, 04:50:25 PM

Cara is absolutely right when she said that those of us who are meat eaters are in a way living unsustainably. It might not be in an anti-science way (though I'd argue it is if you accept the premise of anthropogenic cc) but I do think scepticism should start at home.

Also was it just me or has Steve shifted his position on anti biotics in animals a little? He seemed a bit more critical than previous discussion where I got the impression he viewed it as a non issue.

Title: Re: Episode #663 Vagility
Post by: wormguy on March 24, 2018, 05:14:23 PM
G'day,

Good Word-of-the-day, especially in a time of climate change challenging populations.  Cara posed 'sessile' as an antonym.  I always think it's interesting how different groups of scientists use words differently.  Polychaetologists might use only the adverb form. As in characterising a clade's movement characteristics as their vagility (as a taxon) or mobility (as individuals) with sessile on one end of the mobility spectrum and errant (regularly moving) on the other. Vagility is important within the climate change context because it refers to an entire taxon (or perhaps a population's) ability to move rather than the individual.  Hence you have errant sponges (sponges that can move) instead of the more common sponges which tend to be sessile.

Just FYI,
Brian in Wanaka, NZ
Title: Re: Episode #663
Post by: daniel1948 on March 24, 2018, 05:50:52 PM
Kudos to Cara for acknowledging that meat is an environmental disaster, and to Steve for acknowledging that Americans eat far more of it than is good for their health or the environment.

Next step: Acknowledging the unimaginable cruelty and barbarity of slaughtering billions (?) of animals that feel and suffer as much as we do, even if they lack the intellectual capacity to understand why we are so utterly heartless.

New Zealanders might raise their animals humanely, but in the U.S. most farm animals are raised in the most dreadful and miserable of conditions. And independent of their living conditions, killing them as soon as they've reached "optimal" growth is just unconscionable, unless you take the position that they have no feelings and do not suffer (it's patently obvious that they do) or that a magic man in the sky is the ultimate arbiter of right and wrong and has decreed that it's permissible for us to kill and eat them because he made them for that purpose.
Title: Re: Episode #663
Post by: daniel1948 on March 24, 2018, 05:51:45 PM
Percocet never did anything for me. Now, oxycodone was another matter.
Title: Re: Episode #663
Post by: dorbie on March 24, 2018, 10:28:23 PM
The guys who de-platformed Richard Dawkins at NECSS over politically incorrect comments related to elevatorgate enlighten us on declining free speech restrictions on college campus ::)
Title: Re: Episode #663
Post by: Sawyer on March 24, 2018, 11:37:38 PM
The guys who de-platformed Richard Dawkins at NECSS over politically incorrect comments related to elevatorgate enlighten us on declining free speech restrictions on college campus ::)

I can't tell if this is sarcasm or purposeful poisoning the well.

Anyway Steve was very clear on the massive limitations of this type of survey data.  I agree with his premise that college educated adults are more likely to second-guess a survey, thus artificially inflating their "tolerance" for opposing viewpoints.  I also don't know how anyone can dispute that *data* may be needed to identify real trends in changing free speech attitudes.  The typical "OMG look at these spoiled Berkeley kids!" news stories is largely what is driving the perception of anti-free speech trends, and frankly people should know better.
Title: Re: Episode #663
Post by: lonely moa on March 25, 2018, 02:07:04 PM
Methane from livestock does not come from farts.  It is a product of enteric digestion, therefore burps are the source.  This basic mistake (one of many) makes me feel that Cara and Steve know next to nothing about meat production, maybe nothing, really.  BTW, cobalt is one of the many minerals with which we dress our pastures; not unusual in my country. 

They might get Allan Savory on the show to discuss grazing. 

https://www.ted.com/talks/allan_savory_how_to_green_the_world_s_deserts_and_reverse_climate_change
Title: Re: Episode #663
Post by: CookieMustard on March 25, 2018, 05:42:05 PM
Thanks for the link to Savory's talk. I hadn't heard of him before. It was interesting but after digging around online for some other opinions, both pro and con, about his idea of controllled grazing it seems that it might not be as effective or efficient as he claims.  The results seem mixed but definitely worth looking into.
Title: Re: Episode #663
Post by: BAWRFRS on March 25, 2018, 05:56:02 PM
I had a couple quibbles regarding Steve's characterization of the free speech issue on college campuses.

He spoke of the need to have standards for who gets invited to speak on a college campus. That's well and good, but in a number of reported cases, the university had a policy allowing student groups to invite speakers of their choice, and then reneged based on either who the student group chose, or what threats came from those opposed to the views of the intended speaker. Or both. When this is a public university doing it, it's especially ... wait for it ... problematic.  ;)

Steve's usually excellent with nuance, and he did a mostly very good job here. It's true he did bring up limitations of the survey. But I think he was a little too ready to conclude that claims of a "free speech crisis" is overblown (does he think he's immune to confirmation bias?). One thing he talks about with scientific theories ought to apply here - a new theory needs to explain all the old data, and then some new stuff too. So if it's just confirmation bias, where did all these speech codes come from? Are they not generally new as of, say, the internet generation (let's say last 20 years for example).

As one with kids in college since 2013 and following happenings at my own alma mater, I find it hard to believe its not worse today for free speech than a decade or two ago. IMO, the Evergreen example is only exceptional in its extremity - not directionally, because that's where we've been headed, from what I can tell. The A&S dean of my school said in an open forum, "If you're not tolerant, you have to go." Tolerant of what? She didn't say. I can think of a lot of horrible things in the world about which any decent person would be intolerant. Who gets to decide when someone is intolerant? Can they just make the claim? Can it just be words spoken? No one knows. It's carte blanche to lower the boom on whatever idea is unpopular.

I do agree that universities need to be an environment conducive to mature, calm, and reasoned discussion. But sometimes, instead of saying person X can't speak, it may instead mean mean putting the heckler's veto (or worse) in check. If student groups are inviting unscholarly provocateurs (and I know - some of them do!) then maybe you have to either get better students, take the power to invite speakers away from ALL groups, or heck, let them wallow in their stupidity - ignore them! It cuts off the oxygen that feeds the flames of controversy and campus upheaval.

BTW, who is Steve referring to at 47:15?
Title: Re: Episode #663
Post by: bachfiend on March 25, 2018, 06:49:02 PM
Methane from livestock does not come from farts.  It is a product of enteric digestion, therefore burps are the source.  This basic mistake (one of many) makes me feel that Cara and Steve know next to nothing about meat production, maybe nothing, really.  BTW, cobalt is one of the many minerals with which we dress our pastures; not unusual in my country. 

They might get Allan Savory on the show to discuss grazing. 

https://www.ted.com/talks/allan_savory_how_to_green_the_world_s_deserts_and_reverse_climate_change

Methane from livestock comes from both burps and farts (I suspect it would be mainly from farts).  And it also comes from the decomposition of the resulting manure, which, as was noted, can be recovered and used as a valuable resource instead of being released to the atmosphere.

I might be wrong though.  I admit I know nothing about meat production.
Title: Re: Episode #663
Post by: lonely moa on March 26, 2018, 04:52:17 AM
Burps.

http://scienceline.ucsb.edu/getkey.php?key=2569

I know a bit about cattle, sheep and grazing.  Sort of part of how I make a living.
Title: Re: Episode #663
Post by: albator on March 26, 2018, 08:24:53 AM
I would've thought cheese would be worse than milk, in terms of energy consumption/pollutants, since that requires further processing.

Poultry benefits from more inhumane conditions.

It's fair enough to take up the issue of per capita consumption, but don't ignore the issue of the number of capita. So far haven't heard birth control mentioned at all.

Or air travel.

Edit: According to this (https://climatefootnotes.com/2017/05/17/meat-vs-cheese/), cheese is basically why dairy is bad. Milk by itself is like tofu.

Quote
There are several reasons for the relatively large carbon footprint of cheese. First, one kilogram of cheese requires up to 10 kilograms of milk due to the maturing process that cheese usually undergoes.

Though those numbers aren't the same numbers/weighting Steve was talking about. Milk is a lot less calorie dense than cheese. The exact ratio depending on the types of milk and cheese.

There are a lot more issues they didn't talked about, wanna list them all?

Like you said, you need between 5L and 10L of milk for 1kg of cheese because cow milk is nearly 90% water. So, I don't find your chart really insightfull.
From what I found, cheese produce between about 10%  (for thing like yogurt) and up to about 30%(for aged cheese) moreCO_2 per calorie.
And I would guess goat cheese does way better than cow milk in terms of CO_2 emission per calorie.

I don't know if it is happening to everybody, or just on my computer. I visited the SGU front page several times, but it was still showing the episode from last week. I had to press Ctrl+F5 to force a full refresh in order for it to show todays episode. It is the third week that I have to do this.... Is this happening to anyone else?

I'm using Chrome on Windows 10.

On the main page, I get:
Quote
cache-control: max-age=15552000, must-revalidate
Which means if your browser has a cached version younger than 180 days old, it won't check if it has been modified since.
So, it's 'normal'.




Title: Re: Episode #663
Post by: 2397 on March 26, 2018, 11:12:08 AM
There are a lot more issues they didn't talked about, wanna list them all?

As I've said before, I wouldn't mind if there was some kind of complete list of all common human activities and various types of consumption, with things like emissions per unit.

I picked up on it because they specifically talked about per capita consumption, and swapping things out, etc. Each child you create is another source of consumption and emissions. I think that's worth mentioning, especially when talking about population statistics.
Title: Re: Episode #663
Post by: lonely moa on March 26, 2018, 01:22:17 PM
Actually, NZ is a great study of how dairy farming (with cattle) has made a serious mess of both the economy and the environment; animal welfare issues with dairy farming are not really a negative issue IMO.
Title: Re: Episode #663
Post by: 2397 on March 26, 2018, 01:43:49 PM
Can't really stack cows in any case, though.
Title: Re: Episode #663
Post by: gebobs on March 26, 2018, 02:55:05 PM
Did I hear Evan call extrasensory perception ESPN? LOL
Title: Re: Episode #663
Post by: Armel P on March 27, 2018, 01:42:03 PM
I haven't been able to get this episode on the premium feed through Overcast. Is anyone else experiencing that? Did something change?
Title: Re: Episode #663
Post by: Zerowantuthri on March 27, 2018, 03:37:50 PM
He spoke of the need to have standards for who gets invited to speak on a college campus. That's well and good, but in a number of reported cases, the university had a policy allowing student groups to invite speakers of their choice, and then reneged based on either who the student group chose, or what threats came from those opposed to the views of the intended speaker. Or both. When this is a public university doing it, it's especially ... wait for it ... problematic.  ;)

When talking about free speech one thing needs to be noted up front:

- "Free speech" as a right (from the constitution) ONLY applies to the government restricting your speech.  This includes public universities since they are run by the government.

So Harvard (or whoever) not letting someone speak is not denying anyone of their right to free speech.

Same as the SGU not letting people post anything they want on these forums.  No "free speech" here either.  Only what the rogues deem appropriate.  Same as your living room.  It is entirely up to you to decide who can stand and speak there.

When it comes to a university deciding who to allow to speak they have a very difficult balance to strike.  It is not difficult to imagine some groups that are just too toxic to allow.  What if NAMBLA (North American Man/Boy Love Association) that advocates pederasty was invited to speak by some group at a university.  Should the university allow it?  If so why?  What if some men on campus who were raped when they were kids strenuously object to them being on campus?  Should the university listen to their students or tell those men to just deal with it?

As a result it is best if the university has bright lines drawn on how they decide who can or cannot speak at their campus.  Even then it can still be tricky (probably more so for a public university).

I am all for a university having a broad spectrum of speakers and for hard to hear or unpopular ideas being allowed.  Still, it is not hard to see how this can be a difficult issue to deal with.
Title: Re: Episode #663
Post by: Zerowantuthri on March 27, 2018, 03:45:46 PM
Next step: Acknowledging the unimaginable cruelty and barbarity of slaughtering billions (?) of animals that feel and suffer as much as we do, even if they lack the intellectual capacity to understand why we are so utterly heartless.

New Zealanders might raise their animals humanely, but in the U.S. most farm animals are raised in the most dreadful and miserable of conditions. And independent of their living conditions, killing them as soon as they've reached "optimal" growth is just unconscionable, unless you take the position that they have no feelings and do not suffer (it's patently obvious that they do) or that a magic man in the sky is the ultimate arbiter of right and wrong and has decreed that it's permissible for us to kill and eat them because he made them for that purpose.

A carnivores a problem for you?  If a lion kills a baby gazelle is that bad?  Should we work to stop that from happening?

What about omnivores like a bear?

I mean, if killing an animal is a "bad thing" then we should do something to stop all the carnivores in the animal kingdom right?  I'm pretty sure most animals dying by a predator suffer.

Also, I went to college in Iowa and knew many kids who grew up on farms and they'd laugh at all the vegetarians eating vegetables to save animals.  They said a field after the harvesters ran through was something like Armageddon.  All sorts of critters get munched up in the machinery.  Ground nesting birds, snakes, turtles, frogs among other things.  That doesn't even get into habitat destruction caused by farms.

Your salad has a lot more blood on it than you might suspect.
Title: Re: Episode #663
Post by: 2397 on March 27, 2018, 04:37:23 PM
Yeah, habitat loss is one of the major factors with farming. But meat production destroys more, because it requires significantly more land to feed the animals what they need to grow into food.
Title: Re: Episode #663
Post by: Zerowantuthri on March 27, 2018, 05:05:09 PM
Yeah, habitat loss is one of the major factors with farming. But meat production destroys more, because it requires significantly more land to feed the animals what they need to grow into food.

Sure but if the whole world went vegetarian you would probably hurt the developing world.  There are places in the world where grazing cattle is the only option.  The land cannot be converted for agriculture use.  Further, there are a lot of micronutrients necessary for good health that we can get in the developed world from a varied vegetable diet but which would be difficult to obtain in the developing world.

This would lead to weird results.  Either the developing world becomes the only place to eat meat or the developing world takes the opportunity to be the global producer of meat and we are back where we started (just moved the meat industry from one place to another).

That or you just let the people in the under developed areas of the world die.
Title: Re: Episode #663
Post by: arthwollipot on March 27, 2018, 05:30:50 PM
If the world went vegetarian, what would we do with all the animals?
Title: Re: Episode #663
Post by: PabloHoney on March 27, 2018, 05:51:39 PM
If the world went vegetarian, what would we do with all the animals?

Or more realistically, if lab-grown meat really took off. 

Good question. 
Here's one thing I found: https://www.thoughtco.com/what-will-happen-if-everyone-goes-vegan-127602 (https://www.thoughtco.com/what-will-happen-if-everyone-goes-vegan-127602)
"If a large number of people were to suddenly go vegan and there were too many cows, pigs and chickens, farmers would cut back abruptly on breeding, but the animals who are already here may be abandoned, slaughtered, or sent to sanctuaries. "
Title: Re: Episode #663
Post by: PabloHoney on March 27, 2018, 05:55:35 PM
I put a kielbasa in the tail pipe of my car and drove around for an hour or so too cook it.  My car has a gasket leak, so the 10w-30 fumes gave it a nice chocolaty flavor.
Title: Re: Episode #663
Post by: DevoutCatalyst on March 27, 2018, 05:57:14 PM
If the world went vegetarian, what would we do with all the animals?

Keep some around for old time's sake?

http://livestockconservancy.org/index.php/resources/internal/about-us (http://livestockconservancy.org/index.php/resources/internal/about-us)
Title: Re: Episode #663
Post by: bachfiend on March 27, 2018, 07:38:03 PM
Yeah, habitat loss is one of the major factors with farming. But meat production destroys more, because it requires significantly more land to feed the animals what they need to grow into food.

Sure but if the whole world went vegetarian you would probably hurt the developing world.  There are places in the world where grazing cattle is the only option.  The land cannot be converted for agriculture use.  Further, there are a lot of micronutrients necessary for good health that we can get in the developed world from a varied vegetable diet but which would be difficult to obtain in the developing world.

This would lead to weird results.  Either the developing world becomes the only place to eat meat or the developing world takes the opportunity to be the global producer of meat and we are back where we started (just moved the meat industry from one place to another).

That or you just let the people in the under developed areas of the world die.

Your point about some areas of the world not being suitable for agriculture was actually addressed in the podcast.  It was noted that there are some parts of the world that will continue to rely on meat because the available land is only suitable for grazing.

Did you miss that part?
Title: Re: Episode #663
Post by: CarbShark on March 27, 2018, 11:23:10 PM
Yeah, habitat loss is one of the major factors with farming. But meat production destroys more, because it requires significantly more land to feed the animals what they need to grow into food.
A common misconception. Most of the grazing land for cattle is undeveloped and very close to its natural state (and not suitable for cultivation and farming). Cattle often coexist with deer, elk, rabbits and other wildlife.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Episode #663
Post by: bachfiend on March 28, 2018, 03:10:51 AM
Yeah, habitat loss is one of the major factors with farming. But meat production destroys more, because it requires significantly more land to feed the animals what they need to grow into food.
A common misconception. Most of the grazing land for cattle is undeveloped and very close to its natural state (and not suitable for cultivation and farming). Cattle often coexist with deer, elk, rabbits and other wildlife.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yes, but a lot of the grazing land used for meat (and dairy) production is also suitable for agriculture.  You wouldn’t be able to have your high fat/low carbohydrate ketogenic diet were it not.  Domestic animals would hardly be able to stack on much fat if they were grazing on marginal land.
Title: Re: Episode #663
Post by: lonely moa on March 28, 2018, 04:06:26 AM
Good grazing is the best way humans have to sequester carbon.  No tree planting flashy science projects can compete with it.  Where and how the fuck did all that carbon released from the ground (yes, from the ground) get into the ground in the first place.  Ever wonder where the tens of metres of wonderful carbon rich topsoil in the great plains (and elsewhere) came from; think bison and mammoths.
Title: Re: Episode #663
Post by: gebobs on March 28, 2018, 08:18:20 AM
Yeah, habitat loss is one of the major factors with farming. But meat production destroys more, because it requires significantly more land to feed the animals what they need to grow into food.
A common misconception. Most of the grazing land for cattle is undeveloped and very close to its natural state (and not suitable for cultivation and farming). Cattle often coexist with deer, elk, rabbits and other wildlife.

It's not just grazing but land dedicated to crops for fodder.
Title: Re: Episode #663
Post by: Isranner on March 28, 2018, 09:43:38 AM
Yeah, habitat loss is one of the major factors with farming. But meat production destroys more, because it requires significantly more land to feed the animals what they need to grow into food.

Sure but if the whole world went vegetarian you would probably hurt the developing world.  There are places in the world where grazing cattle is the only option.  The land cannot be converted for agriculture use.  Further, there are a lot of micronutrients necessary for good health that we can get in the developed world from a varied vegetable diet but which would be difficult to obtain in the developing world.

This would lead to weird results.  Either the developing world becomes the only place to eat meat or the developing world takes the opportunity to be the global producer of meat and we are back where we started (just moved the meat industry from one place to another).

That or you just let the people in the under developed areas of the world die.

Your point about some areas of the world not being suitable for agriculture was actually addressed in the podcast.  It was noted that there are some parts of the world that will continue to rely on meat because the available land is only suitable for grazing.

Did you miss that part?

That argument is such a huge red herring. What kind of developing countries are those so unsuitable for agriculture, countries like Mongolia and Greenland? How did they get to have the population they have now, consuming meat and more meat? Again, which developing countries are those whose populations live on meat, the Maasai Mara and the Kalahari desert?

If anything, a common trait shared by practically all developing countries is that the meat consumption per capita (and also the consumption of eggs and dairy) is much lower than that in developed economies. Where are they already getting all their plant food if presumably those regions are unsuitable to grow crops? Could they be getting all the food they don't produce but consume via long-distance trade? Why are those populations supposed to get all their food locally instead of importing a major part of it from some other region? Perhaps should they also produce their LED lights and cell phones locally?

Then there's also that widespread misconception that raising farm animals has no extra economic cost other than environmental. For starters, raising animals is a more labour-intensive activity than growing crops. About one out five workers in the world are employed in the meat and dairy industries.

In addition to all that large labour, animal farming also consumes a lot of energy and material resources (fresh water, land, animal feed, buildings, transportation) which otherwise could be used for other purposes. Finally, animal farms and meat distribution and consumption also represent a serious sanitary hazard (a source of epidemics and of food poisoning outbreaks, a mixing vessel for new pathogens, a source of atmospheric and water pollution, etc.) which detracts production capacity from the economy, thereby, contributing to make us all poorer (or less wealthy).
Title: Re: Episode #663
Post by: daniel1948 on March 28, 2018, 09:52:04 AM
...
Your salad has a lot more blood on it than you might suspect.

I worked on a dairy farm, and no, it's not "wholesale slaughter" of small animals. Some are killed, yes, but not all that many. Further, and most importantly, in the U.S. meat industry, where animals are fattened on corn, every ethical disadvantage of a vegetarian diet is multiplied tenfold for a meat diet because of the quantity of plant food fed to the animals.

...
Sure but if the whole world went vegetarian ...

This is a logical fallacy first because "What if...?" is not a valid argument, and second because the whole world is not going to go vegetarian. In the U.S. we have a massively barbaric system that breeds and raises animals in the most cruel ways possible and then takes their life from them, and does it in a way that's an environmental disaster. And though a couple of posters here disagree, we do all this so we can eat a diet that is unhealthy for us.

If Americans cut their meat consumption in half their health would benefit, the environment would benefit, and they'd be building their diet on only half as much cruelty.
Title: Re: Episode #663
Post by: CarbShark on March 28, 2018, 11:02:42 AM
Yeah, habitat loss is one of the major factors with farming. But meat production destroys more, because it requires significantly more land to feed the animals what they need to grow into food.
A common misconception. Most of the grazing land for cattle is undeveloped and very close to its natural state (and not suitable for cultivation and farming). Cattle often coexist with deer, elk, rabbits and other wildlife.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yes, but a lot of the grazing land used for meat (and dairy) production is also suitable for agriculture.  You wouldn’t be able to have your high fat/low carbohydrate ketogenic diet were it not.  Domestic animals would hardly be able to stack on much fat if they were grazing on marginal land.

Nope. Cattle are generally raised on marginal grazing land until they are a certain age. Then they’re sent to feedlots where they’re fattened up on grains. 

Cattle used for Grass fed beef are raised much the same way but are sent to lush pastures  for fattening up instead of feed lots.

Most of the land cattle are raised on is not suitable for growing crops.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Episode #663
Post by: Ah.hell on March 28, 2018, 12:04:04 PM
Nope. Cattle are generally raised on marginal grazing land until they are a certain age. Then they’re sent to feedlots where they’re fattened up on grains. 

Cattle used for Grass fed beef are raised much the same way but are sent to lush pastures  for fattening up instead of feed lots.

Most of the land cattle are raised on is not suitable for growing crops.
This confused and amused me the first time I say grass fed/pasture raised beef.  My cousins raised beef cattle as a result I thought all cattle was pasture raised, as you say, on land unsuited for crops.  They supplemented the grazing with hay, which was likely grown on decent crop land.    Much latter I learned about feed lots.   I assume most of my cousins cattle end their lives in a feed lot.
Title: Re: Episode #663
Post by: 2397 on March 28, 2018, 01:41:17 PM
If the world went vegetarian, what would we do with all the animals?

How long do animals kept for meat live? Once lab meat gets into mass production and can compete on price, they'll probably just breed fewer animals, and the numbers will go down as they cease to be profitable.

Hopefully we'll give large amounts of land back to wildlife, use it for carbon sequestration, etc. Rather than start building cities on it and void the benefits.

A common misconception. Most of the grazing land for cattle is undeveloped and very close to its natural state (and not suitable for cultivation and farming). Cattle often coexist with deer, elk, rabbits and other wildlife.

The cattle eat shrubs and prevent tree growth, as do sheep. When keeping farm animals, humans do things like get rid of predators and directly alter the land so that it's more suitable for the domesticated animals.

Coexisting with deer isn't the same as the land being in its natural state. Their existence changes the land and the ecosystem, even if it wasn't cleared first.

And indeed, you have to factor in everything else that goes into it, like using up better land elsewhere to grow food for our food.
Title: Re: Episode #663
Post by: Tim44 on March 28, 2018, 02:28:52 PM
Seems like a pointless discussion to be concerned about what will happen to the farm animals if we stop eating them.  They have been breed to be eaten and serve no other purpose.  It seems that every country we export our American diet too gets less healthy and more obese.

The tropical rainforests are being cleared almost solely for cattle grazing.  20% are gone at this point.  Eating less beef is a climate change problem we actually have personal control over, that will benefit the planet, our morals and our health.  No downsides other than changing your diet slightly.

I too am also curious what percentage of the earths population actually needs meat for survival calories.
Title: Re: Episode #663
Post by: bachfiend on March 28, 2018, 03:36:19 PM
Yeah, habitat loss is one of the major factors with farming. But meat production destroys more, because it requires significantly more land to feed the animals what they need to grow into food.
A common misconception. Most of the grazing land for cattle is undeveloped and very close to its natural state (and not suitable for cultivation and farming). Cattle often coexist with deer, elk, rabbits and other wildlife.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yes, but a lot of the grazing land used for meat (and dairy) production is also suitable for agriculture.  You wouldn’t be able to have your high fat/low carbohydrate ketogenic diet were it not.  Domestic animals would hardly be able to stack on much fat if they were grazing on marginal land.

Nope. Cattle are generally raised on marginal grazing land until they are a certain age. Then they’re sent to feedlots where they’re fattened up on grains. 

Cattle used for Grass fed beef are raised much the same way but are sent to lush pastures  for fattening up instead of feed lots.

Most of the land cattle are raised on is not suitable for growing crops.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

CarbShark,

Are you trying to prove my point?  I wrote ‘a lot of the grazing land used for meat (and dairy) production is also suitable for agriculture’, not ‘most of the land cattle are raised on is not suitable for growing crops.’  ‘A lot’ isn’t the same as ‘most.’
Title: Re: Episode #663
Post by: Ron Obvious on March 28, 2018, 04:34:23 PM
All the discussion about meat consumption, grazing and food production misses the giant elephant in the room: overpopulation.  As an early advocate for ZPG, I find it utterly frustrating that this topic appears be completely ignored.  All our problems with habitat loss, climate change, resource depletion, deforestation, and species extinction can be laid at the feet of overpopulation. But nobody wants to talk about it, apparently out of misguided deference to religion or a fear of appearing racist.

Frankly, I'd rather deal with overpopulation now rather than live in an overcrowded concrete hell, standing shoulder to shoulder with other people eating crickets.
Title: Re: Episode #663
Post by: daniel1948 on March 28, 2018, 05:32:47 PM
Hopefully we'll give large amounts of land back to wildlife, use it for carbon sequestration, etc. Rather than start building cities on it and void the benefits.

I think we can take it for granted that we'll keep building more and bigger cities as the population continues to explode.

All the discussion about meat consumption, grazing and food production misses the giant elephant in the room: overpopulation.  As an early advocate for ZPG, I find it utterly frustrating that this topic appears be completely ignored.  All our problems with habitat loss, climate change, resource depletion, deforestation, and species extinction can be laid at the feet of overpopulation. But nobody wants to talk about it, apparently out of misguided deference to religion or a fear of appearing racist.

Frankly, I'd rather deal with overpopulation now rather than live in an overcrowded concrete hell, standing shoulder to shoulder with other people eating crickets.

^ This!

I've long been an advocate for mandatory universal sterilization. What's so great about humans that we have to infest the galaxy and ruin other planets like we're on the verge of ruining this one? Let's just stop breeding and let the Earth get back to being a garden.
Title: Re: Episode #663
Post by: Tim44 on March 28, 2018, 06:47:03 PM
So you would have us reduce the population 50+%, just so we can lower the greenhouse gases from food production and continue excessive eating and meat consumption addiction.  Alternatively, Keep the population and just eat healthier.  Much easier sell in my book.
Title: Re: Episode #663
Post by: Ron Obvious on March 28, 2018, 07:28:28 PM
So you would have us reduce the population 50+%, just so we can lower the greenhouse gases from food production and continue excessive eating and meat consumption addiction.  Alternatively, Keep the population and just eat healthier.  Much easier sell in my book.

If you don't curb population growth you've solved exactly nothing. Only deferred the inevitable at best and severely deteriorated quality of life besides.  Because it isn't just agricultural lands we're talking about.  There's loss of habitat, overfishing of the oceans, and mineral resource depletion to name just a few.  A significant portion of the world's population today lives on 1 or 2 dollars a day. Raising their standard of living to even the poorest people in the west such as, say Appalachia, would so strain our resources that we'd require something like 4 to 8 earths to provide the resources. 

Since we'll have to curb our population growth at some point in any case, I'd rather do it as soon as possible while we still have some nature, wildlife, and quality of life left.
Title: Re: Episode #663
Post by: 2397 on March 28, 2018, 07:32:02 PM
I think preventing population growth needs to be as much a part of the discussion as any other environmental measure.

But even setting ethics aside, compulsion is unnecessary. Make things like sterilization a free procedure that's available to all adults, i.e. people capable of consenting to it, and there will be quite an uptake. Per now, there are people in their 20s who never want to have children who struggle to find someone to pay to perform the procedure. Being told they're too young, and should probably have some kids first.
Title: Re: Episode #663
Post by: daniel1948 on March 29, 2018, 09:20:16 AM
So you would have us reduce the population 50+%, just so we can lower the greenhouse gases from food production and continue excessive eating and meat consumption addiction.  Alternatively, Keep the population and just eat healthier.  Much easier sell in my book.

Not sure if this was directed to me, since it came right after my post and didn't reference any other post. But no, I don't advocate a 50% reduction in the population. I advocate that we have no more kids and slowly, peacefully, leave the planet to species that won't turn it into a garbage dump. If we continue on the path we're on today, in a couple of generations life will be so miserable and so brutal that it won't be worth living. We are condemning future generations to misery.
Title: Re: Episode #663
Post by: DevoutCatalyst on March 29, 2018, 11:01:23 AM
Not sure if this was directed to me, since it came right after my post and didn't reference any other post. But no, I don't advocate a 50% reduction in the population. I advocate that we have no more kids and slowly, peacefully, leave the planet to species that won't turn it into a garbage dump. If we continue on the path we're on today, in a couple of generations life will be so miserable and so brutal that it won't be worth living. We are condemning future generations to misery.
Have you read the book Better Never to Have Been: The Harm of Coming into Existence ?
Title: Re: Episode #663
Post by: Tim44 on March 29, 2018, 11:35:47 AM

Not sure if this was directed to me, since it came right after my post and didn't reference any other post. But no, I don't advocate a 50% reduction in the population. I advocate that we have no more kids and slowly, peacefully, leave the planet to species that won't turn it into a garbage dump. If we continue on the path we're on today, in a couple of generations life will be so miserable and so brutal that it won't be worth living. We are condemning future generations to misery.

I want more population, not less.  Americans should be the world leader in reducing environmental footprint.  Even if the world reduced our population 50% and everyone adopted a damaging lifestyle equal to Americans, fossil fuels and meat consumption, the earth would still be toast and the rain forests would still disappear.

I look forward to a future like the Star Trek universe.  This requires a lot of people to advance science.

The biggest hurdles I see right now are:
1. The world economy is set up as a race to reward those that consume the most resources.  I think everything should be priced based on the damage it does to the environment.  Government and news media corruption tie in here too.
2. Standard american diet is being adopted by more countries and meat consumption is at all time demand highs.  Eating more sustainable food is an easy personal choice, but the public needs the information, public schools, news.
3. Fossil fuels.  We are having a discussion and beginning to tax fossil fuels, but not moving fast enough.  At least, it is on peoples minds now and they are beginning to worry.  The US Republican party are the only organized deniers left in the world I believe.
4. Smart people are not praised in school.  We should be praising scientific achievement like sports.
Title: Re: Episode #663
Post by: lonely moa on March 29, 2018, 12:34:44 PM
Not sure if this was directed to me, since it came right after my post and didn't reference any other post. But no, I don't advocate a 50% reduction in the population. I advocate that we have no more kids and slowly, peacefully, leave the planet to species that won't turn it into a garbage dump. If we continue on the path we're on today, in a couple of generations life will be so miserable and so brutal that it won't be worth living. We are condemning future generations to misery.
Have you read the book Better Never to Have Been: The Harm of Coming into Existence ?

A world wide one child policy.  one child for every woman as a tradeable and well managed right.  One could transfer (sell, say) one's right of bear issue.  I suppose there will be some interesting twists, like multiple births and mandatory sterilisation of those that trade the right away. The human population realty needs to be 20% of what it is now (according to those that understand ecology, like E.O. Wilson) to sustainably continue a European level of existence.
Title: Re: Episode #663
Post by: lonely moa on March 29, 2018, 12:54:45 PM
Yeah, habitat loss is one of the major factors with farming. But meat production destroys more, because it requires significantly more land to feed the animals what they need to grow into food.
A common misconception. Most of the grazing land for cattle is undeveloped and very close to its natural state (and not suitable for cultivation and farming). Cattle often coexist with deer, elk, rabbits and other wildlife.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yes, but a lot of the grazing land used for meat (and dairy) production is also suitable for agriculture.  You wouldn’t be able to have your high fat/low carbohydrate ketogenic diet were it not.  Domestic animals would hardly be able to stack on much fat if they were grazing on marginal land.

Nope. Cattle are generally raised on marginal grazing land until they are a certain age. Then they’re sent to feedlots where they’re fattened up on grains. 

Cattle used for Grass fed beef are raised much the same way but are sent to lush pastures  for fattening up instead of feed lots.

Most of the land cattle are raised on is not suitable for growing crops.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

(https://i.imgur.com/M31Lma8.jpg)

Yearling calves on the lush pasture they were on on from before weaning. They will eat this way till they are killed. We used to crop but drifted into raising beef. We can kill them as rising two year olds this way.  The see no grain at all; no antibiotics or exogenous hormones either.  Nice premium as well.

Our much larger neighbouring properties raise sheep on land that is growing weeds after harvest (before replanting), growing grass or clover after the seed has been harvested (the crop grows back better for the next season because of it), or on cover crops that have been sown to maintain soil fertility after harvest of the summer crop.  Sheep and lambs are a great tool for arable farmers.

It would be nice if the Rogues would learn about sustainable agriculture before blurting out their biases.
Title: Re: Episode #663
Post by: esterin on March 29, 2018, 01:38:44 PM
 "We live in a forest", "a forest from all directions", "next week i am in the Amazon.."  and later supposedly being concerned of deforestation or land use away from nature due to grazing or organic - the hypocrisy was too difficult to hear, cringed all through the episode.
Title: Re: Episode #663
Post by: esterin on March 29, 2018, 01:47:11 PM
The following book makes an objective attempt at resource requirements calculation and viability for types of agriculture. When you cut the BS and propaganda it all looks very different.
"Meat: A Benign Extravagance", by Simon Fairlie

let's say we switch to mainly vegetarian, let's say (numbers are made up) this kind of agriculture can support  population of let's say 15 Billion instead of currently 8 billion - what you'll get is a population of 15 Billion, all those people would require not only the food - meat is actually a buffer and a protection against resource depletion.
Title: Re: Episode #663
Post by: esterin on March 29, 2018, 02:32:20 PM
It is not only poor southern countries as was said, most of Earth is best suited for grazing, elevation, hills and slopes, marginal rainfall semi-arid regions.
Transforming Iowa to corn and soy - we are basically eating fossil fuels, i.e. irrigation, pesticides, fertilizers and mechanization.

In Argentina's pampas, there's one man growing thousands and thousands of heads of cattle, he is basically doing nothing all day drinking Mate, all those quality calories are 100% for free, nothing else can be done with the land without substantial energy investments, no irrigation no pesticides no fertilizers are required or used, and the cattle lives idealic lives (obviously up until the judgment day) .
How can bio-engineered cultivated lab meat or soy (disgusting) can compete? it is calories for free.

US is different and a special case, there is plenty of heavily subsidized cheap soy and corn - hence heavy factory farming - it is a political issue not a problem with meat.
Title: Re: Episode #663
Post by: Tim44 on March 29, 2018, 02:43:30 PM
Unprocessed Fruits, Vegetables and Nuts will keep you most healthy.  For B12, drink untreated water, dirt or a B12 supplement.

(http://creationislove.com/wp-content/uploads/human-biology-indicates-our-optimal-food-diet-a-comparison-of-digestive-systems-for-frugivores-omnivores-carnivores-herbivores-hires.jpg)
Title: Re: Episode #663
Post by: 2397 on March 29, 2018, 03:10:22 PM
Humans are the most omni of the omnivores, because of our ability to process food before eating it.

Eating right is more about quantity than quality, at least for people who can afford to make the choices.
Title: Re: Episode #663
Post by: 2397 on March 29, 2018, 03:41:53 PM
I want more population, not less.  Americans should be the world leader in reducing environmental footprint.  Even if the world reduced our population 50% and everyone adopted a damaging lifestyle equal to Americans, fossil fuels and meat consumption, the earth would still be toast and the rain forests would still disappear.

I look forward to a future like the Star Trek universe.  This requires a lot of people to advance science.

The biggest hurdles I see right now are:
1. The world economy is set up as a race to reward those that consume the most resources.  I think everything should be priced based on the damage it does to the environment.  Government and news media corruption tie in here too.
2. Standard american diet is being adopted by more countries and meat consumption is at all time demand highs.  Eating more sustainable food is an easy personal choice, but the public needs the information, public schools, news.
3. Fossil fuels.  We are having a discussion and beginning to tax fossil fuels, but not moving fast enough.  At least, it is on peoples minds now and they are beginning to worry.  The US Republican party are the only organized deniers left in the world I believe.
4. Smart people are not praised in school.  We should be praising scientific achievement like sports.

I pretty much agree with you on all of it except on population growth.

If scientific research is the reason why you want a larger population, I don't think we're anywhere near close to making use of the population we already have. Most people in the world don't work on scientific or other kinds of research, and we're not maximizing funding for science. Raise those budgets, and work on eliminating poverty, as well as all menial tasks with automation, and then we'll see what we can do with the resources available.

Population growth for the sake of population growth is a good way to keep oligarchs in power, especially if they keep underfunding education, healthcare, and other welfare programs. The poor and powerless are easier to manipulate.
Title: Re: Episode #663
Post by: Tassie Dave on March 29, 2018, 04:04:27 PM
The human population realty needs to be 20% of what it is now

Us Southern Hemisphereans are only about 800 million people. So we are doing our part  ;)

Now if we can only get the Northerners to drop by 90%  ;D
Title: Re: Episode #663
Post by: 2397 on March 29, 2018, 04:13:57 PM
The human population realty needs to be 20% of what it is now

Us Southern Hemisphereans are only about 800 million people. So we are doing our part  ;)

Now if we can only get the Northerners to drop by 90%  ;D

With 32.7% of the Earth's landmass, or about 23.3% without Antarctica.

So yeah, including Antarctica you're at about 24.2% population density compared to the Northern Hemisphere, but have 60% too many people if we were trying to go for 80% reduction and everywhere being equal. And I guess we'll be able to move some more people to Antarctica eventually.
Title: Re: Episode #663
Post by: Tim44 on March 29, 2018, 04:25:29 PM

In Argentina's pampas, there's one man growing thousands and thousands of heads of cattle, he is basically doing nothing all day drinking Mate, all those quality calories are 100% for free, nothing else can be done with the land without substantial energy investments, no irrigation no pesticides no fertilizers are required or used, and the cattle lives idealic lives (obviously up until the judgment day) .
How can bio-engineered cultivated lab meat or soy (disgusting) can compete? it is calories for free.


All we need is 3 million more of those Pampa dudes so we can have free calories, and the whole world can adopt the American diet.   ;D
Title: Re: Episode #663
Post by: CarbShark on March 29, 2018, 04:51:49 PM

In Argentina's pampas, there's one man growing thousands and thousands of heads of cattle, he is basically doing nothing all day drinking Mate, all those quality calories are 100% for free, nothing else can be done with the land without substantial energy investments, no irrigation no pesticides no fertilizers are required or used, and the cattle lives idealic lives (obviously up until the judgment day) .
How can bio-engineered cultivated lab meat or soy (disgusting) can compete? it is calories for free.


All we need is 3 million more of those Pampa dudes so we can have free calories, and the whole world can adopt the American diet.   ;D

You keep associating meat with the American diet. The American diet is more than 50% of calories from carbs, most of those from highly processed foods and with lots of sugar. You can't blame any of those issues on meat.

And, yes we are exporting our diet to the rest of the world along with obesity and related conditions.

Meat is not the problem. It is the solution.

Title: Re: Episode #663
Post by: Tim44 on March 29, 2018, 05:26:15 PM

In Argentina's pampas, there's one man growing thousands and thousands of heads of cattle, he is basically doing nothing all day drinking Mate, all those quality calories are 100% for free, nothing else can be done with the land without substantial energy investments, no irrigation no pesticides no fertilizers are required or used, and the cattle lives idealic lives (obviously up until the judgment day) .
How can bio-engineered cultivated lab meat or soy (disgusting) can compete? it is calories for free.


All we need is 3 million more of those Pampa dudes so we can have free calories, and the whole world can adopt the American diet.   ;D

You keep associating meat with the American diet. The American diet is more than 50% of calories from carbs, most of those from highly processed foods and with lots of sugar. You can't blame any of those issues on meat.

And, yes we are exporting our diet to the rest of the world along with obesity and related conditions.

Meat is not the problem. It is the solution.

High cholesterol, animal protein, refined carbs and refined oils are all linked to the top killers.   Fiber, whole grains, fruits, vegetables and nuts are the base for good health.
US eats the most refined carbs AND the most meat per person in the world.  I'm more concerned with the environmental disaster called meat being adopted.
Title: Re: Episode #663
Post by: esterin on March 29, 2018, 05:33:04 PM

All we need is 3 million more of those Pampa dudes so we can have free calories, and the whole world can adopt the American diet.   ;D

Argentina is the 5th  producer of beef , producing 5% of world beef, so only 20 such dudes are required.
Title: Re: Episode #663
Post by: daniel1948 on March 29, 2018, 05:41:55 PM
Not sure if this was directed to me, since it came right after my post and didn't reference any other post. But no, I don't advocate a 50% reduction in the population. I advocate that we have no more kids and slowly, peacefully, leave the planet to species that won't turn it into a garbage dump. If we continue on the path we're on today, in a couple of generations life will be so miserable and so brutal that it won't be worth living. We are condemning future generations to misery.
Have you read the book Better Never to Have Been: The Harm of Coming into Existence ?

Nope.

At the moment I'm kind of glad to have come into existence. Once I'm dead I won't care anymore and it will be all the same to me if I never existed.

I've never had any kids. I never wanted kids, but a bigger reason that I never did might be that I could never find anyone that wanted me.
Title: Re: Episode #663
Post by: Tim44 on March 29, 2018, 06:03:08 PM

All we need is 3 million more of those Pampa dudes so we can have free calories, and the whole world can adopt the American diet.   ;D

Argentina is the 5th  producer of beef , producing 5% of world beef, so only 20 such dudes are required.

Americans eat half a cow every year.  I highly doubt that 20 dudes could even feed America.  If everyone starts eating meat like Americans, instant game over.
Title: Re: Episode #663
Post by: 2397 on March 29, 2018, 06:11:44 PM

All we need is 3 million more of those Pampa dudes so we can have free calories, and the whole world can adopt the American diet.   ;D

Argentina is the 5th  producer of beef , producing 5% of world beef, so only 20 such dudes are required.

1 guy produces all of Argetina's beef?
Title: Re: Episode #663
Post by: esterin on March 29, 2018, 06:12:07 PM
High cholesterol, animal protein, refined carbs and refined oils are all linked to the top killers.   Fiber, whole grains, fruits, vegetables and nuts are the base for good health.
US eats the most refined carbs AND the most meat per person in the world.  I'm more concerned with the environmental disaster called meat being adopted.
1. The "Link" between cholesterol and any ill health was even dropped by USDA food guide, those are anti meat Jihadees, they had to drop it, because the scientific backing of this claim is embarrassing.
2. Never ever was any "link" with animal protein, nobody beside cooks like T.  C. Campbell thinks this has any support in science.
3. The cholesterol "link" was all from weak association studies, on mostly self selected groups, go to trials.gov and find a RCT that will support this nonsense, and it is not due to not trying, plenty were done  - in all of them the treatment group had more dead people, kind of embarrassing.
4. When not doing association studies on self selected vegetarians and Seventh day Adventists  in western countries which show minute differences (beside having many more health promoting behaviors and awareness), but rather on Indians that are mostly vegetarians by culture, the results are awful, 4 times heart disease and diabetes than general population (Indians in California), 7 times heart disease on studies in India between more vegetarian south to more animal eating north, 1.5 million people study of Indian railway workers, 17 times diff in animal fat consumption, 7 times the heart death, and 10 years diff in life expectancy for the meat eaters.
5. if the Vegetarian diet is less intensive many more people could be supported, i.e. many more people will exist  - switching to Vegetarian and having few Billions more people  - that would be "environmental disaster".
6. Meat eating is a buffer and a protection from population explosion as i said, more over as always in times of extreme hardship or some environmental disaster all cattle can be slaughtered and the land can be reassigned for crops - meat consumption is like an insurance for all humanity.
Title: Re: Episode #663
Post by: esterin on March 29, 2018, 06:14:48 PM

Americans eat half a cow every year.  I highly doubt that 20 dudes could even feed America.  If everyone starts eating meat like Americans, instant game over.
it's a metaphor
Title: Re: Episode #663
Post by: esterin on March 29, 2018, 07:12:58 PM
If everyone starts eating meat like Americans, instant game over.
It doesn't work like that, there are no instant changes in real life.
Prices, resources and populations are in a dynamic equilibrium, so looking forward for many decades and centuries into the future you have a choice, an equilibrium of 15-20 Billion people on a vegetarian diet or 6-8 Billion on a meat diet. 
Choose carefully.
Title: Re: Episode #663
Post by: bachfiend on March 29, 2018, 07:35:45 PM
High cholesterol, animal protein, refined carbs and refined oils are all linked to the top killers.   Fiber, whole grains, fruits, vegetables and nuts are the base for good health.
US eats the most refined carbs AND the most meat per person in the world.  I'm more concerned with the environmental disaster called meat being adopted.
1. The "Link" between cholesterol and any ill health was even dropped by USDA food guide, those are anti meat Jihadees, they had to drop it, because the scientific backing of this claim is embarrassing.
2. Never ever was any "link" with animal protein, nobody beside cooks like T.  C. Campbell thinks this has any support in science.
3. The cholesterol "link" was all from weak association studies, on mostly self selected groups, go to trials.gov and find a RCT that will support this nonsense, and it is not due to not trying, plenty were done  - in all of them the treatment group had more dead people, kind of embarrassing.
4. When not doing association studies on self selected vegetarians and Seventh day Adventists  in western countries which show minute differences (beside having many more health promoting behaviors and awareness), but rather on Indians that are mostly vegetarians by culture, the results are awful, 4 times heart disease and diabetes than general population (Indians in California), 7 times heart disease on studies in India between more vegetarian south to more animal eating north, 1.5 million people study of Indian railway workers, 17 times diff in animal fat consumption, 7 times the heart death, and 10 years diff in life expectancy for the meat eaters.
5. if the Vegetarian diet is less intensive many more people could be supported, i.e. many more people will exist  - switching to Vegetarian and having few Billions more people  - that would be "environmental disaster".
6. Meat eating is a buffer and a protection from population explosion as i said, more over as always in times of extreme hardship or some environmental disaster all cattle can be slaughtered and the land can be reassigned for crops - meat consumption is like an insurance for all humanity.

I’m a lacto-vegetarian on a high carbohydrate/low fat diet, but I argue that there’s a wide range of perfectly acceptable diets consistent with maintaining a healthy body weight and health (until, naturally, the person’s death - no one lives forever).

Provided the diet provides adequate - but not excessive - calories, and sufficient essential amino acids and fatty acids, minerals and vitamins, it doesn’t matter whether the calories are coming from carbohydrates, fats or protein (simple sugars, such as cane sugar should be avoided though).  They will all be burned each day.

It’s only when there’s excess calories that problems arise, with obesity.

I’m not certain what point you’re trying to make.  You seem to be saying that if the world’s population was entirely vegetarian, then the world’s population would be larger now.  That people eating meat has allowed fewer people being born, or more people dying, in the past.
Title: Re: Episode #663
Post by: CarbShark on March 29, 2018, 07:46:19 PM

In Argentina's pampas, there's one man growing thousands and thousands of heads of cattle, he is basically doing nothing all day drinking Mate, all those quality calories are 100% for free, nothing else can be done with the land without substantial energy investments, no irrigation no pesticides no fertilizers are required or used, and the cattle lives idealic lives (obviously up until the judgment day) .
How can bio-engineered cultivated lab meat or soy (disgusting) can compete? it is calories for free.


All we need is 3 million more of those Pampa dudes so we can have free calories, and the whole world can adopt the American diet.   ;D

You keep associating meat with the American diet. The American diet is more than 50% of calories from carbs, most of those from highly processed foods and with lots of sugar. You can't blame any of those issues on meat.

And, yes we are exporting our diet to the rest of the world along with obesity and related conditions.

Meat is not the problem. It is the solution.

Quote
High cholesterol, animal protein, refined carbs and refined oils are all linked to the top killers. 

Dietary cholesterol is harmless for all but a small number of people with rare conditions.

No evidence that Animal Protein is linked to any disease. There is epidemiological evidence based on very questionable data gathering (FFQs) that suggest that red meat and processed meat may be linked to some disease, but no plausible mechanism has been identified.

Refined carbs: Yes. CVD T2D maybe cancer

Refined oils: Depends. Some refined oils are transfats and those are indeed harmful; some refined oils are high in OM3 Fatty acids and those are fine; some refined oils are high in OM6FA and those are considered inflammatory. There's no science pointing any other issues with refined oils.

Quote
Fiber, whole grains, fruits, vegetables and nuts are the base for good health.

Whole grains are the unfiltered cigarettes of diet and nutrition. They are slightly better than refined grains.

Some veggies and some nuts are fine, but hardly "the base for good health." if that means what I think it means.

Quote
US eats the most refined carbs AND the most meat per person in the world.  I'm more concerned with the environmental disaster called meat being adopted.

The US eats the most food per capita in the world and a far higher proportion of carbs than the rest of the world. Not meat. (That would be Australia)
Title: Re: Episode #663
Post by: Tim44 on March 29, 2018, 08:31:17 PM

Dietary cholesterol is harmless for all but a small number of people with rare conditions.

No evidence that Animal Protein is linked to any disease. There is epidemiological evidence based on very questionable data gathering (FFQs) that suggest that red meat and processed meat may be linked to some disease, but no plausible mechanism has been identified.

Refined carbs: Yes. CVD T2D maybe cancer

Refined oils: Depends. Some refined oils are transfats and those are indeed harmful; some refined oils are high in OM3 Fatty acids and those are fine; some refined oils are high in OM6FA and those are considered inflammatory. There's no science pointing any other issues with refined oils.


Eggs will never be allowed advertised as "healthy", too much cholesterol.

"The study examined the dietary habits of more than 536,000 individuals and found those who consumed the highest amount of meat over a 16-year period had a 26 percent higher rate of death from cancer, type 2 diabetes, stroke, infections, Alzheimer's, and diseases of the kidneys, respiratory tract, and liver." https://www.riseofthevegan.com/blog/largest-study-to-show-link-between-meat-and-disease

Bigger carbon footprint and less healthy, I don't see the upside other than flavor.  Soda tastes good too, it's your health.  Meat tastes good after we cook it and try to make it taste like fruits and vegetables.



Title: Re: Episode #663
Post by: Tim44 on March 29, 2018, 09:01:38 PM
Quote

I’m a lacto-vegetarian on a high carbohydrate/low fat diet, but I argue that there’s a wide range of perfectly acceptable diets consistent with maintaining a healthy body weight and health (until, naturally, the person’s death - no one lives forever).

Provided the diet provides adequate - but not excessive - calories, and sufficient essential amino acids and fatty acids, minerals and vitamins, it doesn’t matter whether the calories are coming from carbohydrates, fats or protein (simple sugars, such as cane sugar should be avoided though).  They will all be burned each day.

It’s only when there’s excess calories that problems arise, with obesity.


Based solely on average BMI, these are the healthiest diets.

(https://sunwarrior.com/uploads/health_hub/article/2015/05/vegan-advantage-adventist-health-study.jpg)
Title: Re: Episode #663
Post by: CarbShark on March 29, 2018, 09:03:04 PM

Dietary cholesterol is harmless for all but a small number of people with rare conditions.

No evidence that Animal Protein is linked to any disease. There is epidemiological evidence based on very questionable data gathering (FFQs) that suggest that red meat and processed meat may be linked to some disease, but no plausible mechanism has been identified.

Refined carbs: Yes. CVD T2D maybe cancer

Refined oils: Depends. Some refined oils are transfats and those are indeed harmful; some refined oils are high in OM3 Fatty acids and those are fine; some refined oils are high in OM6FA and those are considered inflammatory. There's no science pointing any other issues with refined oils.


Eggs will never be allowed advertised as "healthy", too much cholesterol.

That is one of the myths that the mainstream adapted without science to support, and has not been supported by science. Dietary cholesterol is no longer a nutrient of concern.

And eggs, by the way, are one of the healthiest foods humans (and many other species) can eat.

Quote
"The study examined the dietary habits of more than 536,000 individuals and found those who consumed the highest amount of meat over a 16-year period had a 26 percent higher rate of death from cancer, type 2 diabetes, stroke, infections, Alzheimer's, and diseases of the kidneys, respiratory tract, and liver." https://www.riseofthevegan.com/blog/largest-study-to-show-link-between-meat-and-disease

Yes, this is one of the large epidemiological studies that is based on Food Frequency questionnaires where the value of the data is questionable due to the methodology.

No surprise a it's promoted on a vegan website.

Quote
Bigger carbon footprint and less healthy, I don't see the upside other than flavor.  Soda tastes good too, it's your health.  Meat tastes good after we cook it and try to make it taste like fruits and vegetables.


Meat is healthy. Few carbs; plenty of micronutrients that are more bio-available than those in fruits and veggies, and minimal glucose/insulin effect.

The myth of vegan diets somehow being more healthy is not supported by science.
Title: Re: Episode #663
Post by: Tim44 on March 29, 2018, 09:15:09 PM

That is one of the myths that the mainstream adapted without science to support, and has not been supported by science. Dietary cholesterol is no longer a nutrient of concern.

Yes, this is one of the large epidemiological studies that is based on Food Frequency questionnaires where the value of the data is questionable due to the methodology.

The myth of vegan diets somehow being more healthy is not supported by science.

I doubt even the China Study is large or thorough enough for you.  You seem pretty set on denying food science.

Ketogenic/Atkins is good for regaining the weight back, https://blog.zonediet.com/drsears/blog/harvard-explains-people-regain-weight-atkins-diet

Pick a diet you can live with.  I can live the rest of my life on a whole foods/plant based diet and have no regrets.  I see long lasting energy, lower BMI and lower carbon footprint in my future.
Title: Re: Episode #663
Post by: CarbShark on March 29, 2018, 09:18:39 PM
Quote


Based solely on average BMI, these are the healthiest diets.

(https://sunwarrior.com/uploads/health_hub/article/2015/05/vegan-advantage-adventist-health-study.jpg)

That is false. You cannot draw those conclusions from that study (The study author doesn't).

The study in question was only individual vegetarian diets to an average of all non-vegetarian diets. So diets like Paleo; LCHF K were lumped in with the standard American diet all categorized as Non-vegetarian.



https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2671114/
Title: Re: Episode #663
Post by: Tim44 on March 29, 2018, 09:58:22 PM

That is false. You cannot draw those conclusions from that study (The study author doesn't).

The study in question was only individual vegetarian diets to an average of all non-vegetarian diets. So diets like Paleo; LCHF K were lumped in with the standard American diet all categorized as Non-vegetarian.


https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2671114/

"Eating fiber and whole grains -- which you'd do on a plant-based diet -- has been associated with lower BMI, according to a 2009 article published in Public Health Nutrition."

"Very-low-carbohydrate diets are effective for short-term weight loss and for lowering your BMI, but their effects on long-term health are not so convincing. Most of the protein comes from animal sources, and research published in the Annals of Internal Medicine in 2012 concluded that a diet based primarily on animal proteins, instead of vegetable protein sources, may put you at a higher risk of death in the long term. Research from a 2007 article published in the European Journal of Clinical Nutrition came to the same conclusion." https://www.livestrong.com/article/202474-diets-to-lower-the-bmi/
Title: Re: Episode #663
Post by: bachfiend on March 29, 2018, 10:08:18 PM
Quote


Based solely on average BMI, these are the healthiest diets.

(https://sunwarrior.com/uploads/health_hub/article/2015/05/vegan-advantage-adventist-health-study.jpg)

That is false. You cannot draw those conclusions from that study (The study author doesn't).

The study in question was only individual vegetarian diets to an average of all non-vegetarian diets. So diets like Paleo; LCHF K were lumped in with the standard American diet all categorized as Non-vegetarian.



https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2671114/

So what are the figures for BMI and incidence of type 2 diabetes in populations which have been on low carbohydrate/high fat ketogenic diets for a sufficiently long time?

I’m a lacto-vegetarian (I’m also beginning to add an occasional egg for variety in ‘taste’, not that I notice it much - the taste of eggs is overwhelmed by the wide variety of extremely tasty vegetables I enjoy daily) and on a low fat/high carbohydrate diet.  My BMI is around 20 kg/m^2, so im a bit better than the average for ovolacto-vegetarians.

But as I’ve stated many times - no one diet is superior over all others.  Success in maintaining a healthy body weight depends more on persistence.  A good set of bathroom scales is more important than a set of kitchen scales.  I don’t count calories (or carbohydrates, proteins or fats).  But I avoid certain foods, such as ones containing sugar or high levels of fat (such as whole milk).

There’s no reason for avoiding bread, provided it doesn’t have added sugar.  My favourite bread - sourdough - is very low in simple sugars and fats.  It makes up 40% of my diet (as an estimate), and I manage to burn it off each day.
Title: Re: Episode #663
Post by: CarbShark on March 30, 2018, 12:06:01 AM

That is false. You cannot draw those conclusions from that study (The study author doesn't).

The study in question was only individual vegetarian diets to an average of all non-vegetarian diets. So diets like Paleo; LCHF K were lumped in with the standard American diet all categorized as Non-vegetarian.


https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2671114/

"Eating fiber and whole grains -- which you'd do on a plant-based diet -- has been associated with lower BMI, according to a 2009 article published in Public Health Nutrition."

"Very-low-carbohydrate diets are effective for short-term weight loss and for lowering your BMI, but their effects on long-term health are not so convincing. Most of the protein comes from animal sources, and research published in the Annals of Internal Medicine in 2012 concluded that a diet based primarily on animal proteins, instead of vegetable protein sources, may put you at a higher risk of death in the long term. Research from a 2007 article published in the European Journal of Clinical Nutrition came to the same conclusion." https://www.livestrong.com/article/202474-diets-to-lower-the-bmi/

The evidence for a whole grains is only in the context of comparison to a diet high in refined grains. 

There is no evidence whatsoever that eating whole grains is healthier than eating no grains at all.

Can you link to the actual studies rather than obviously biased articles referring to the studies? The livestrong article doesn't help.

I did pubmed  searches on AIM and EJCN for those years and didn't find those studies.

Title: Re: Episode #663
Post by: bachfiend on March 30, 2018, 01:55:43 AM

That is false. You cannot draw those conclusions from that study (The study author doesn't).

The study in question was only individual vegetarian diets to an average of all non-vegetarian diets. So diets like Paleo; LCHF K were lumped in with the standard American diet all categorized as Non-vegetarian.


https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2671114/

"Eating fiber and whole grains -- which you'd do on a plant-based diet -- has been associated with lower BMI, according to a 2009 article published in Public Health Nutrition."

"Very-low-carbohydrate diets are effective for short-term weight loss and for lowering your BMI, but their effects on long-term health are not so convincing. Most of the protein comes from animal sources, and research published in the Annals of Internal Medicine in 2012 concluded that a diet based primarily on animal proteins, instead of vegetable protein sources, may put you at a higher risk of death in the long term. Research from a 2007 article published in the European Journal of Clinical Nutrition came to the same conclusion." https://www.livestrong.com/article/202474-diets-to-lower-the-bmi/

The evidence for a whole grains is only in the context of comparison to a diet high in refined grains. 

There is no evidence whatsoever that eating whole grains is healthier than eating no grains at all.

Can you link to the actual studies rather than obviously biased articles referring to the studies? The livestrong article doesn't help.

I did pubmed  searches on AIM and EJCN for those years and didn't find those studies.

CarbShark,

And where is the data comparing BMI and the incidence of type 2 diabetes between populations on a high fat/low carbohydrate ketogenic  and other diets over the long term, not just months or even a year?

I have no doubt that you lost weight and improved your health on a high fat/low carbohydrate ketogenic diet.  I think that there’s a wide variety of diets that are acceptable and will result in weight loss and maintenance of a healthy body weight, given sufficient motivation (a good set of bathroom scales!)

Successful diets are ones that are easy(ish) to follow over years and decades.  Diets which require counting calories (or carbohydrates) are tedious to keep to.
Title: Re: Episode #663
Post by: lonely moa on March 30, 2018, 02:47:20 AM
For men of my age and older and all women, cholesterol is negatively correlated with overall mortality.  That  means that a relatively high number is a good thing and lowering one's number will not be beneficial for a long life. 
Title: Re: Episode #663
Post by: bachfiend on March 30, 2018, 03:35:08 AM
For men of my age and older and all women, cholesterol is negatively correlated with overall mortality.  That  means that a relatively high number is a good thing and lowering one's number will not be beneficial for a long life.

From what I have read, the reduced mortality in males over 50 and all females with higher cholesterol levels is due to reduced mortality from non-cardiovascular diseases.  It’s been explained as being due to chronic non-CV diseases suppressing cholesterol levels, so that people likely to die early depress the overall cholesterol levels.  People with ‘normal’ cholesterol blood levels contain a higher proportion of people with chronic diseases ‘destined’ to die early.

Regardless.  Giving statins reduces mortality no matter what the pretreatment lipid levels are.  There’s little use attempting to elevate blood cholesterol levels by dietary manipulation (even if it were possible) in order to reduce mortality.
Title: Re: Episode #663
Post by: lonely moa on March 30, 2018, 04:27:29 AM
For men of my age and older and all women, cholesterol is negatively correlated with overall mortality.  That  means that a relatively high number is a good thing and lowering one's number will not be beneficial for a long life.

From what I have read, the reduced mortality in males over 50 and all females with higher cholesterol levels is due to reduced mortality from non-cardiovascular diseases.  It’s been explained as being due to chronic non-CV diseases suppressing cholesterol levels, so that people likely to die early depress the overall cholesterol levels.  People with ‘normal’ cholesterol blood levels contain a higher proportion of people with chronic diseases ‘destined’ to die early.

Regardless.  Giving statins reduces mortality no matter what the pretreatment lipid levels are.  There’s little use attempting to elevate blood cholesterol levels by dietary manipulation (even if it were possible) in order to reduce mortality.

Statins are effective in men with established heart disease.  They are useless (or worse) for men without heart disease.  Studies have been on men... for all the reasons that studies are generally on men.

https://drmalcolmkendrick.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/mortality-and-cholesterol1.png?w=600&h=309
Title: Re: Episode #663
Post by: bachfiend on March 30, 2018, 05:45:29 AM
For men of my age and older and all women, cholesterol is negatively correlated with overall mortality.  That  means that a relatively high number is a good thing and lowering one's number will not be beneficial for a long life.

From what I have read, the reduced mortality in males over 50 and all females with higher cholesterol levels is due to reduced mortality from non-cardiovascular diseases.  It’s been explained as being due to chronic non-CV diseases suppressing cholesterol levels, so that people likely to die early depress the overall cholesterol levels.  People with ‘normal’ cholesterol blood levels contain a higher proportion of people with chronic diseases ‘destined’ to die early.

Regardless.  Giving statins reduces mortality no matter what the pretreatment lipid levels are.  There’s little use attempting to elevate blood cholesterol levels by dietary manipulation (even if it were possible) in order to reduce mortality.

Statins are effective in men with established heart disease.  They are useless (or worse) for men without heart disease.  Studies have been on men... for all the reasons that studies are generally on men.

https://drmalcolmkendrick.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/mortality-and-cholesterol1.png?w=600&h=309

The two graphs you’ve linked to don’t show what you’re claiming.  That statins don’t reduce mortality (actually, there’s not enough information on the graphs to know what they actually mean).
Title: Re: Episode #663
Post by: Tim44 on March 30, 2018, 06:52:00 AM
5. if the Vegetarian diet is less intensive many more people could be supported, i.e. many more people will exist  - switching to Vegetarian and having few Billions more people  - that would be "environmental disaster".
6. Meat eating is a buffer and a protection from population explosion as i said, more over as always in times of extreme hardship or some environmental disaster all cattle can be slaughtered and the land can be reassigned for crops - meat consumption is like an insurance for all humanity.

I have to revisit this "Meat buffer" idea you've been throwing around.  Is this something you've read in literature or your own idea?
The basic premise is "we need to consume all land resources, including the rain forests, to protect future generations from themselves".
It sounds like a sarcastic argument a vegan would bring up to prove a point, but you keep repeating it like it's to be taken seriously.

If truly serious, the illogical and self centered premise has opened my eyes to the mental lengths at which climate change and meat sustainability deniers are willing to go through in order to conduct business as usual.
Thank you for enlightening me on this.
Title: Re: Episode #663
Post by: CarbShark on March 30, 2018, 10:02:33 AM

6. Meat eating is a buffer and a protection from population explosion as i said, more over as always in times of extreme hardship or some environmental disaster all cattle can be slaughtered and the land can be reassigned for crops - meat consumption is like an insurance for all humanity.

I have to revisit this "Meat buffer" idea you've been throwing around.  Is this something you've read in literature or your own idea?

I think that meat buffer argument is some kind of Malthusian nonsense.


Title: Re: Episode #663
Post by: daniel1948 on March 30, 2018, 10:43:18 AM
For men of my age and older and all women, cholesterol is negatively correlated with overall mortality.  That  means that a relatively high number is a good thing and lowering one's number will not be beneficial for a long life. 

I have a friend in South Dakota who is a cardiac rehab nurse. She is both a working nurse and the director of the cardiac rehab clinic where she works. That is, she is not just an administrator. She works regular shifts as a nurse while also being the administrator of the clinic. According to her, the predictive factor for heart disease is the ratio of total cholesterol to HDL cholesterol. A lower number is better. So a high HDL number compensates for a high total number. A ratio of 3 or below is very good, and a ratio of 7 or above is very bad. So if your total is 300 but your HDL is 100 that's better than if your total is 150 but your HDL is 20. She doesn't care what your total is. She cares about the ratio.

Atorvastatin (generic Lipitor) has brought my HDL up and my ratio down. I have a genetic family history of bad cholesterol.
Title: Re: Episode #663
Post by: BBBlue on March 30, 2018, 11:08:35 AM
BTW, who is Steve referring to at 47:15?

In a comment on Steve's blog, I asserted that he was referring to Charles Murray, and he quickly replied that he wasn't talking about Murray, that he had made up a hypothetical. Unfortunately, his hypothetical bears a striking resemblance to the misrepresentations made by Murray haters and those who consider Murray to be a racist, and so I have a hunch that many who listened to that assumed Steve was talking about and criticizing Murray.
Title: Re: Episode #663
Post by: lonely moa on March 30, 2018, 02:23:46 PM
For men of my age and older and all women, cholesterol is negatively correlated with overall mortality.  That  means that a relatively high number is a good thing and lowering one's number will not be beneficial for a long life. 

I have a friend in South Dakota who is a cardiac rehab nurse. She is both a working nurse and the director of the cardiac rehab clinic where she works. That is, she is not just an administrator. She works regular shifts as a nurse while also being the administrator of the clinic. According to her, the predictive factor for heart disease is the ratio of total cholesterol to HDL cholesterol. A lower number is better. So a high HDL number compensates for a high total number. A ratio of 3 or below is very good, and a ratio of 7 or above is very bad. So if your total is 300 but your HDL is 100 that's better than if your total is 150 but your HDL is 20. She doesn't care what your total is. She cares about the ratio.

Atorvastatin (generic Lipitor) has brought my HDL up and my ratio down. I have a genetic family history of bad cholesterol.

LDL is a calculated number, not a measured one.  LDL that is large in size is good, LDL that is small in size is bad.  The total number given to the LDL is irrelevant without knowing the size (or particle number)*,  The HDL/triglyceride ratio is a surrogate for that.  As far as my experience goes with GP's and cardiologists, they look first at the HDL/total ratio and disregard the  total and the LDL numbers on their own.  My LDL is 3.7 mol/L which is higher than recommended (CHO 6.5, also higher than recommended) but my CHO/HDL is 2.7 (TG/HDL=.48) so I have never been offered any medication to lower my "cholesterol" or any dietary recommendations either (doctors here seem to know how little they know about nutrition).

*see Ron Krauss, the guy hat discovered HDL and LDL.
Title: Re: Episode #663
Post by: bachfiend on March 30, 2018, 04:58:23 PM
For men of my age and older and all women, cholesterol is negatively correlated with overall mortality.  That  means that a relatively high number is a good thing and lowering one's number will not be beneficial for a long life. 

I have a friend in South Dakota who is a cardiac rehab nurse. She is both a working nurse and the director of the cardiac rehab clinic where she works. That is, she is not just an administrator. She works regular shifts as a nurse while also being the administrator of the clinic. According to her, the predictive factor for heart disease is the ratio of total cholesterol to HDL cholesterol. A lower number is better. So a high HDL number compensates for a high total number. A ratio of 3 or below is very good, and a ratio of 7 or above is very bad. So if your total is 300 but your HDL is 100 that's better than if your total is 150 but your HDL is 20. She doesn't care what your total is. She cares about the ratio.

Atorvastatin (generic Lipitor) has brought my HDL up and my ratio down. I have a genetic family history of bad cholesterol.

LDL is a calculated number, not a measured one.  LDL that is large in size is good, LDL that is small in size is bad.  The total number given to the LDL is irrelevant without knowing the size (or particle number)*,  The HDL/triglyceride ratio is a surrogate for that.  As far as my experience goes with GP's and cardiologists, they look first at the HDL/total ratio and disregard the  total and the LDL numbers on their own.  My LDL is 6.5 mol/L which is higher than recommended (Cho 6.5, also higher than recommended) but my Chol/HDL is 2.7 (TG/HDL=.48) so I have never been offered any medication to lower my "cholesterol" or any dietary recommendations either (doctors here seem to know how little they know about nutrition).

*see Ron Krauss, the guy hat discovered HDL and LDL.

My GP, when I have my necessary thyroid function tests each year to monitor thyroxine replacement for my hypothyroidism (why I have hypothyroidism is unknown - it’s thought to be autoimmune despite the autoantibody screen being negative), adds a stack of other tests for unknown reasons.  The last serum lipids (I managed to discourage last year’s ones as being unnecessary) showed cholesterol 4.3 mol/l (<5.5), triglyceride 0.7 mol/l (<1.8), HDL cholesterol 1.8 mol/l (1.1-3.5), cholesterol/HDL 2.4 (<3.5), LDL cholesterol 2.2 mol/l (<3.5).

Needless to say, I’m not on statins.  Nor do I need to change my high carbohydrate/low fat diet.  The fasting blood sugar level is 4.5 mol/l (3.5-5.4) and the C reactive protein (a supposed marker of inflammation) <1 mg/l (<5), despite anti-carbohydrate activists insisting it causes insulin distress and generalised inflammation.

One thing that has me wondering about low carbohydrate/high fat diets.  Studies have shown that in people with obesity on such diets, their blood lipids improve, better than other obese people on other diets.  So the claim is that they have better cardiac risks.  Blood lipid studies are fasting - 10 to 12 hours after the previous fatty meal.  So they’re measuring the lowest not the highest blood lipids.  And if blood lipids have anything to do with cardiovascular disease, wouldn’t the highest levels be more important than the lowest?  And in a high fat diet, wouldn’t the highest blood lipids be greater than with other diets?
Title: Re: Episode #663
Post by: lonely moa on March 30, 2018, 08:08:53 PM
On a diet that is at least 60% fat, my blood glucose is 5-5.5 after about a 9 hour fast. It drops to 4.5-4.7 before my first meal at about noon.  The level never has a post-prandial spike, just a wee bump for less than a half hour.

I assume my body is making plenty of glucose from my fat whilst I am sleeping.  There was certainly plenty of glucose on tap for a morning run with the dogs; Strava thinks I used an extra 708 calories LOL.
Title: Re: Episode #663
Post by: CarbShark on March 30, 2018, 09:01:07 PM
One thing that has me wondering about low carbohydrate/high fat diets.  Studies have shown that in people with obesity on such diets, their blood lipids improve, better than other obese people on other diets.  So the claim is that they have better cardiac risks.  Blood lipid studies are fasting - 10 to 12 hours after the previous fatty meal.  So they’re measuring the lowest not the highest blood lipids.  And if blood lipids have anything to do with cardiovascular disease, wouldn’t the highest levels be more important than the lowest?  And in a high fat diet, wouldn’t the highest blood lipids be greater than with other diets?

They are merely a marker. A risk factor. And they measure fasting values because those are the values that correlate with CVD. If your fasting serum triglycerides are high, it's likely that your body is not doing a good job metabolizing them, and it probably indicates there are other issues. Circulating TGs are probably harmless.

LDL (the small dense particles) is different. Those actually cause damage and inflammation in blood vessels. The larger buoyant particles are actually protective. (On a typical HC diet LDL particles tend to be small/dense; on a LCHF Keto diet they tend to be large and buoyant)

So, no.
Title: Re: Episode #663
Post by: bachfiend on March 30, 2018, 11:12:45 PM
One thing that has me wondering about low carbohydrate/high fat diets.  Studies have shown that in people with obesity on such diets, their blood lipids improve, better than other obese people on other diets.  So the claim is that they have better cardiac risks.  Blood lipid studies are fasting - 10 to 12 hours after the previous fatty meal.  So they’re measuring the lowest not the highest blood lipids.  And if blood lipids have anything to do with cardiovascular disease, wouldn’t the highest levels be more important than the lowest?  And in a high fat diet, wouldn’t the highest blood lipids be greater than with other diets?

They are merely a marker. A risk factor. And they measure fasting values because those are the values that correlate with CVD. If your fasting serum triglycerides are high, it's likely that your body is not doing a good job metabolizing them, and it probably indicates there are other issues. Circulating TGs are probably harmless.

LDL (the small dense particles) is different. Those actually cause damage and inflammation in blood vessels. The larger buoyant particles are actually protective. (On a typical HC diet LDL particles tend to be small/dense; on a LCHF Keto diet they tend to be large and buoyant)

So, no.

References please for your claim that on a ‘typical’ high carbohydrate diet LDL particles tend to be small/dense and on a LCHF Ketogenic diet they tend to be large and buoyant.  There’s no ‘typical’ high carbohydrate diet.  The pattern of LDL size seems to be largely genetic, and the culprit in increasing the number of small/dense LDL particles seems to be simple sugars, such as cane sugar (which I agree should be avoided).

Activists for the LCHF Keto diet claim (not very plausibly) that complex carbohydrates in bread are rapidly digested (split into the monosaccharides) and absorbed, so they’re worse than sugar.  And that they’re rapidly (again implausibly) converted into triglycerides, to be transported in the various lipoprotein fractions, so post-prandial Lipid Levels should be important.  If you’re going to have a high LDL level, it’s going to be higher after the meal rather than after a prolonged period of fasting.

Fasting lipid profiles correlate with cardiovascular disease risk because they’re the ones that are measured in practice.

What is lacking are good (with adequate compliance) large (with hundreds of subjects at least) long-term (years, preferably decades) studies comparing highly specified diets looking at mortality and morbidity, not just proxies such as body weight or blood lipid profiles.Lumping a whole range of different diets as being ‘a typical’ one is nonsensical.

The study doesn’t exist.

I’ll repeat what I’ve been saying all along.  There’s a wide range of diets that are acceptable for maintenance of a healthy body weight (I wouldn’t include diets containing much simple sugars, including cane sugar and fruit juices).  There’s no adequate evidence to allow any particular diet to be proscribed as the ‘best.’

I’m perfectly happy with my high carbohydrate/low fat diet for 30+ years, but I don’t proselytise it to anyone else.  If you’ve had similar success with your LCHF Keto diet, then congratulations.  It wouldn’t surprise me in the least (see ‘there’s a wide range of diets that are acceptable...’)
Title: Re: Episode #663
Post by: esterin on March 31, 2018, 12:16:21 AM

5. if the Vegetarian diet is less intensive many more people could be supported, i.e. many more people will exist  - switching to Vegetarian and having few Billions more people  - that would be "environmental disaster".
6. Meat eating is a buffer and a protection from population explosion as i said, more over as always in times of extreme hardship or some environmental disaster all cattle can be slaughtered and the land can be reassigned for crops - meat consumption is like an insurance for all humanity.

I have to revisit this "Meat buffer" idea you've been throwing around.  Is this something you've read in literature or your own idea?
The basic premise is "we need to consume all land resources, including the rain forests, to protect future generations from themselves".
It sounds like a sarcastic argument a vegan would bring up to prove a point, but you keep repeating it like it's to be taken seriously.

If truly serious, the illogical and self centered premise has opened my eyes to the mental lengths at which climate change and meat sustainability deniers are willing to go through in order to conduct business as usual.
Thank you for enlightening me on this.

Just before I start, your's here is not a response, it is a foaming at the mouse tantrum.

Is it a problem throwing ideas around? and why does it matter where it is from? I don't remember I think I read bits and pieces, really can't recall, I think I read about tribes in New-Guinea that use pigs consciously and deliberately in exactly this way, maybe in some book of Jared Diamond.

The population and resources are in a dynamic equilibrium at some point of technology, environmental legislation, climate and political arrangements etc....
This is certainly how it was always up until now, look around you, are there any obvious untapped resources? are there any lush agricultural lands that are left unused? this experiment has run since the proverbial "creation" and the results are already in.
Is it become fashionable to deny reality? do you think all of humanity will magically change? I understand that you don't like it, but you shouldn't just throw a tantrum, if you want to discuss you have to use tools called arguments and evidences.

An example, national parks are also a buffer, this is obvious, if the worst hits, they'll be used up, since national parks were not used for currently existing humans they are buffers i.e. they are and extra, an insurance. Same logic applies for meat diets.
Again at any political and environmental regime there will be an equilibrium, let's say Brazil decides not to touch the rain forests (now reduced for Soy) , so they are removed from current resources and become buffers, if the meteor hits and nuclear winter reduces yields, the amazon will become the bread basket. In the same manner lands that are used now for grazing might find more efficient use, i.e. the buffer will be utilized to get us through the hard times until new point of population/resources will be achieved.

Again you do not have to consume all land resources (what is actually already almost "achieved"), I know it a complex idea in the middle of a tantrum, but at any point of environmental protection, political regime, economical situation and technology meat diets, because they are both a luxury of sorts but also a deep desire (i.e. not easily taken away) they will always be a buffer and an insurance.   

climate change and meat sustainability deniers
This is literally a parody of Godwin's law, just call me a Nazi and be done with it.

but you keep repeating it like it's to be taken seriously
Sure why not, it will be taken seriously unless you refute it with evidence and arguments, freaking out and having a bearkdown is not really convincing
Title: Re: Episode #663
Post by: esterin on March 31, 2018, 12:39:44 AM
5. if the Vegetarian diet is less intensive many more people could be supported, i.e. many more people will exist  - switching to Vegetarian and having few Billions more people  - that would be "environmental disaster".
6. Meat eating is a buffer and a protection from population explosion as i said, more over as always in times of extreme hardship or some environmental disaster all cattle can be slaughtered and the land can be reassigned for crops - meat consumption is like an insurance for all humanity.

I have to revisit this "Meat buffer" idea you've been throwing around.  Is this something you've read in literature or your own idea?
The basic premise is "we need to consume all land resources, including the rain forests, to protect future generations from themselves".
It sounds like a sarcastic argument a vegan would bring up to prove a point, but you keep repeating it like it's to be taken seriously.

If truly serious, the illogical and self centered premise has opened my eyes to the mental lengths at which climate change and meat sustainability deniers are willing to go through in order to conduct business as usual.
Thank you for enlightening me on this.

One point I did not sufficiently stressed, there is a difference between this and other types of buffers and other limits to population growth.
Political decisions like National parks and environmental legislation or China's 1 child policy or even fashions like marrying late and going to college and career first for women and other means that might limit growth - are all week and transitory.
We saw many times they were reversed, Trump erodes National parks, China stopped the 1 child policy, even marrying late and women going to college in Afghanistan for example during the Communist phase in the 60s, 70s were abolished by the Mujahideen (US backed).
In Israel now huge trend of large families thus reversing the previous trends, there are many other examples, they are all very soft limits.
In contrast, meat eating is deeply entrenched, this is a buffer that will survive long term, a buffer that can be relied upon to endure, can't imagine people giving up on this without a fight, unless have to.
Title: Re: Episode #663
Post by: Tim44 on March 31, 2018, 09:02:57 AM
Are there dramatic photos of clogged artery reversal from any other diets than plant based?  If so please provide links.
https://plantspace.org/cardiovascular-disease/

I also googled “heart disease reversal”, and the only results were plant based diets.
Title: Re: Episode #663
Post by: Tim44 on March 31, 2018, 10:37:51 AM

can't imagine people giving up on this without a fight, unless have to.

Last desperate cries to a debate.  Say no more...
Title: Re: Episode #663
Post by: lonely moa on March 31, 2018, 03:28:27 PM
Again

Quote
Globally, more than 60% of carbon has been lost from soils. The estimate is a 66% loss across Australia. Soils contain at least three times the carbon that is found in the atmosphere. So regenerating soils and returning carbon offers vast potential as a carbon sink. /quote]

From  ABC "Science Show"  http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/scienceshow/soil-carbon-‘a-saviour’-in-locking-up-carbon/8460928#transcript

All about good grazing. 

Title: Re: Episode #663
Post by: CarbShark on March 31, 2018, 04:09:13 PM
Are there dramatic photos of clogged artery reversal from any other diets than plant based?  If so please provide links.
https://plantspace.org/cardiovascular-disease/

From the study referenced:
Quote
Foods prohibited. Initially the inter- vention avoided all added oils and processed foods that contain oils,  sh, meat, fowl, dairy products, avocado, nuts, and excess salt.

Pa- tients were also asked to avoid sugary foods (sucrose, fructose, and drinks containing them, re ned carbohydrates, fruit juices, syr- ups, and molasses).
Subsequently, we also excluded ca eine and fructose.

Quote

I also googled “heart disease reversal”, and the only results were plant based diets.

That is not evidence


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Episode #663
Post by: bachfiend on March 31, 2018, 07:13:03 PM
Are there dramatic photos of clogged artery reversal from any other diets than plant based?  If so please provide links.
https://plantspace.org/cardiovascular-disease/

From the study referenced:
Quote
Foods prohibited. Initially the inter- vention avoided all added oils and processed foods that contain oils,  sh, meat, fowl, dairy products, avocado, nuts, and excess salt.

Pa- tients were also asked to avoid sugary foods (sucrose, fructose, and drinks containing them, re ned carbohydrates, fruit juices, syr- ups, and molasses).
Subsequently, we also excluded ca eine and fructose.

Quote

I also googled “heart disease reversal”, and the only results were plant based diets.

That is not evidence


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

CarbShark,

So would you care to provide evidence that a high fat/low carbohydrate ketogenic diet provides better protection against cardiovascular disease in the real world?  Other than hypothetical suppositions about the size of low density lipoprotein particles?
Title: Re: Episode #663
Post by: Tim44 on March 31, 2018, 07:52:15 PM
Are there dramatic photos of clogged artery reversal from any other diets than plant based?  If so please provide links.
https://plantspace.org/cardiovascular-disease/

From the study referenced:
Quote
Foods prohibited. Initially the inter- vention avoided all added oils and processed foods that contain oils,  sh, meat, fowl, dairy products, avocado, nuts, and excess salt.

Pa- tients were also asked to avoid sugary foods (sucrose, fructose, and drinks containing them, re ned carbohydrates, fruit juices, syr- ups, and molasses).
Subsequently, we also excluded ca eine and fructose.

Quote

I also googled “heart disease reversal”, and the only results were plant based diets.

That is not evidence


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Here is discussion of the only study comparing blood flow to heart muscles of low carb vs high carb.
https://nutritionfacts.org/2015/05/19/low-carb-diets-and-coronary-blood-flow/

Quote
There has only been one study ever done measuring actual blood flow to the heart muscles of people eating low-carb diets. Dr. Richard Fleming, an accomplished nuclear cardiologist, enrolled 26 people into a comprehensive study of the effects of diet on cardiac function using the latest in nuclear imaging technology–so-called SPECT scans, enabling him to actually directly measure the blood flow within the coronary arteries.

He then put them all on a healthy vegetarian diet, and a year later the scans were repeated. By that time, however, ten of the patients had jumped ship onto the low carb bandwagon. At first I bet he was disappointed, but surely soon realized he had an unparalleled research opportunity dropped into his lap. Here he had extensive imaging of ten people before and after following a low carb diet and 16 following a high carb diet. What would their hearts look like at the end of the year? We can talk about risk factors all we want, but compared to the veg group, did the coronary heart disease of the patients following the Atkins-like diets improve, worsen, or stay the same?

Those sticking to the vegetarian diet showed a reversal of their heart disease as expected. Their partially clogged arteries literally got cleaned out. They had 20% less atherosclerotic plaque in their arteries at the end of the year than at the beginning. What happened to those who abandoned the treatment diet, and switched over to the low-carb diet? Their condition significantly worsened. 40% to 50% more artery clogging at the end of the year.
Title: Re: Episode #663
Post by: bachfiend on March 31, 2018, 09:33:45 PM
Are there dramatic photos of clogged artery reversal from any other diets than plant based?  If so please provide links.
https://plantspace.org/cardiovascular-disease/

From the study referenced:
Quote
Foods prohibited. Initially the inter- vention avoided all added oils and processed foods that contain oils,  sh, meat, fowl, dairy products, avocado, nuts, and excess salt.

Pa- tients were also asked to avoid sugary foods (sucrose, fructose, and drinks containing them, re ned carbohydrates, fruit juices, syr- ups, and molasses).
Subsequently, we also excluded ca eine and fructose.

Quote

I also googled “heart disease reversal”, and the only results were plant based diets.

That is not evidence


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Here is discussion of the only study comparing blood flow to heart muscles of low carb vs high carb.
https://nutritionfacts.org/2015/05/19/low-carb-diets-and-coronary-blood-flow/

Quote
There has only been one study ever done measuring actual blood flow to the heart muscles of people eating low-carb diets. Dr. Richard Fleming, an accomplished nuclear cardiologist, enrolled 26 people into a comprehensive study of the effects of diet on cardiac function using the latest in nuclear imaging technology–so-called SPECT scans, enabling him to actually directly measure the blood flow within the coronary arteries.

He then put them all on a healthy vegetarian diet, and a year later the scans were repeated. By that time, however, ten of the patients had jumped ship onto the low carb bandwagon. At first I bet he was disappointed, but surely soon realized he had an unparalleled research opportunity dropped into his lap. Here he had extensive imaging of ten people before and after following a low carb diet and 16 following a high carb diet. What would their hearts look like at the end of the year? We can talk about risk factors all we want, but compared to the veg group, did the coronary heart disease of the patients following the Atkins-like diets improve, worsen, or stay the same?

Those sticking to the vegetarian diet showed a reversal of their heart disease as expected. Their partially clogged arteries literally got cleaned out. They had 20% less atherosclerotic plaque in their arteries at the end of the year than at the beginning. What happened to those who abandoned the treatment diet, and switched over to the low-carb diet? Their condition significantly worsened. 40% to 50% more artery clogging at the end of the year.

I’ll get in before CarbShark gets in.  The abstract of the article is very poor.  I can’t work out what the diet was in the test group was.  The 10 subjects who jumped ship went onto a high protein diet, not CarbShark’s favourite high fat/low carbohydrate ketogenic diet (and I think that it’s known that high protein diets aren’t a good idea, particularly in people with borderline kidney problems since it can accelerate the onset of kidney failure).  The full article is behind a firewall, and I don’t want to pay $40 for access.

Title: Re: Episode #663
Post by: lonely moa on April 01, 2018, 12:04:24 AM
And there is the good doctor Baker who has eaten nothing but meat for the last 15 months, great blood work, setting world records for indoor rowing,, deadlifts sets of 500#, and sounds mentally sharp. I thought at first he was a one-off, but there appears to be thousands, and 700 in the cohort he is in, testing the diet.

4 and a half pounds of steak a day, at two sittings sounds a lot, but he isn't bored with the diet. 
Title: Re: Episode #663
Post by: bachfiend on April 01, 2018, 03:30:11 AM
And there is the good doctor Baker who has eaten nothing but meat for the last 15 months, great blood work, setting world records for indoor rowing,, deadlifts sets of 500#, and sounds mentally sharp. I thought at first he was a one-off, but there appears to be thousands, and 700 in the cohort he is in, testing the diet.

4 and a half pounds of steak a day, at two sittings sounds a lot, but he isn't bored with the diet.

Well, a diet containing only meat (or fish) doesn’t seem to have harmed the Inuit.  As I’ve been saying all along, there’s a wide range of perfectly acceptable diets.  There’s no good evidence for one particular diet over all the others.

That said, the Inuit have evolved for thousands to adapt to their diet.  And 15 months isn’t long to be on a particular diet and to know its long term effects.
Title: Re: Episode #663
Post by: lonely moa on April 01, 2018, 05:25:03 AM
And there is the good doctor Baker who has eaten nothing but meat for the last 15 months, great blood work, setting world records for indoor rowing,, deadlifts sets of 500#, and sounds mentally sharp. I thought at first he was a one-off, but there appears to be thousands, and 700 in the cohort he is in, testing the diet.

4 and a half pounds of steak a day, at two sittings sounds a lot, but he isn't bored with the diet.

Well, a diet containing only meat (or fish) doesn’t seem to have harmed the Inuit.  As I’ve been saying all along, there’s a wide range of perfectly acceptable diets.  There’s no good evidence for one particular diet over all the others.

That said, the Inuit have evolved for thousands to adapt to their diet.  And 15 months isn’t long to be on a particular diet and to know its long term effects.

I'd think the Innuit didn't adapt to the diet, I'd think tha twas the diet they had been eating for thousands of years before they crossed the Berring strait.
Title: Re: Episode #663
Post by: bachfiend on April 01, 2018, 06:39:42 AM
And there is the good doctor Baker who has eaten nothing but meat for the last 15 months, great blood work, setting world records for indoor rowing,, deadlifts sets of 500#, and sounds mentally sharp. I thought at first he was a one-off, but there appears to be thousands, and 700 in the cohort he is in, testing the diet.

4 and a half pounds of steak a day, at two sittings sounds a lot, but he isn't bored with the diet.

Well, a diet containing only meat (or fish) doesn’t seem to have harmed the Inuit.  As I’ve been saying all along, there’s a wide range of perfectly acceptable diets.  There’s no good evidence for one particular diet over all the others.

That said, the Inuit have evolved for thousands to adapt to their diet.  And 15 months isn’t long to be on a particular diet and to know its long term effects.

I'd think the Innuit didn't adapt to the diet, I'd think tha twas the diet they had been eating for thousands of years before they crossed the Berring strait.

Any evidence for your ‘thunk’?  Anyway, the ancestors of the Inuit had to have adapted to eating a diet of meat.  Who do you think created the mountains of mammoth bones in Northern Siberia?
Title: Re: Episode #663
Post by: werecow on April 01, 2018, 07:05:14 AM
It almost works for me, but not quite:

(http://www.illusionsindex.org/images/illusions/skipping-pylon/Pylons2016.gif)

On a related note, has anyone had this thing where you are lying in bed with your eyes closed and you hear a sudden noise and you see a flash of light? I've been wondering if that's a neurological thing happening inside the brain or if it's perhaps just from the change in pressure on the eye (and by extension the cells in the retina) by your eyelids as you startle.
Title: Re: Episode #663
Post by: Tim44 on April 01, 2018, 08:36:56 AM
And there is the good doctor Baker who has eaten nothing but meat for the last 15 months, great blood work, setting world records for indoor rowing,, deadlifts sets of 500#, and sounds mentally sharp. I thought at first he was a one-off, but there appears to be thousands, and 700 in the cohort he is in, testing the diet.

4 and a half pounds of steak a day, at two sittings sounds a lot, but he isn't bored with the diet.

Well, a diet containing only meat (or fish) doesn’t seem to have harmed the Inuit.  As I’ve been saying all along, there’s a wide range of perfectly acceptable diets.  There’s no good evidence for one particular diet over all the others.

That said, the Inuit have evolved for thousands to adapt to their diet.  And 15 months isn’t long to be on a particular diet and to know its long term effects.


The Inuit have been shown to have very clogged arteries.  Study after study and the AHA have been dogging the Atkins diet as detrimental to your health for decades now.  If you want to risk your health on a slightly tweaked new fad low carb diet it is your choice.  But just be aware that you are burying your head in the sand, not practicing good skepticism.

Steve is a medical professional and one of the best skeptics around, he is transitioning to a plant based diet. 
Title: Re: Episode #663
Post by: Tim44 on April 01, 2018, 08:38:53 AM
It almost works for me, but not quite:

(http://www.illusionsindex.org/images/illusions/skipping-pylon/Pylons2016.gif)

On a related note, has anyone had this thing where you are lying in bed with your eyes closed and you hear a sudden noise and you see a flash of light? I've been wondering if that's a neurological thing happening inside the brain or if it's perhaps just from the change in pressure on the eye (and by extension the cells in the retina) by your eyelids as you startle.

I do feel a phantom vibration in my eardrums from that gif but hear no noise.  My mind imagines the noise every time.
Title: Re: Episode #663
Post by: werecow on April 01, 2018, 08:59:19 AM
It almost works for me, but not quite:

(http://www.illusionsindex.org/images/illusions/skipping-pylon/Pylons2016.gif)

On a related note, has anyone had this thing where you are lying in bed with your eyes closed and you hear a sudden noise and you see a flash of light? I've been wondering if that's a neurological thing happening inside the brain or if it's perhaps just from the change in pressure on the eye (and by extension the cells in the retina) by your eyelids as you startle.

I do feel a phantom vibration in my eardrums from that gif but hear no noise.  My mind imagines the noise every time.

Yup, pretty much the same for me. I doubt it's the case for me but a thought just occurred to me: I wonder if for some people there might even be some physical thing going on where when the image shakes your face twitches involuntarily (the phantom noise I "hear" reminds me a bit of the rumbling sound I get in my ears during yawning).
Title: Re: Episode #663
Post by: daniel1948 on April 01, 2018, 08:59:30 AM
It almost works for me, but not quite:

(http://www.illusionsindex.org/images/illusions/skipping-pylon/Pylons2016.gif)

On a related note, has anyone had this thing where you are lying in bed with your eyes closed and you hear a sudden noise and you see a flash of light? I've been wondering if that's a neurological thing happening inside the brain or if it's perhaps just from the change in pressure on the eye (and by extension the cells in the retina) by your eyelids as you startle.

I do feel a phantom vibration in my eardrums from that gif but hear no noise.  My mind imagines the noise every time.

Oh, is that the one that some people hear a noise when they watch it? I hear nothing but the ambient noises here and the slight hissing of my intermittent tinnitus. I imagine that there would be a noise as the land shakes, but I don't hear it.
Title: Re: Episode #663
Post by: Ron Obvious on April 01, 2018, 10:31:52 AM
It almost works for me, but not quite:

(http://www.illusionsindex.org/images/illusions/skipping-pylon/Pylons2016.gif)

I don't hear it, but I do seem to slightly feel it.
Title: Re: Episode #663
Post by: Sawyer on April 01, 2018, 11:57:53 AM

On a related note, has anyone had this thing where you are lying in bed with your eyes closed and you hear a sudden noise and you see a flash of light? I've been wondering if that's a neurological thing happening inside the brain or if it's perhaps just from the change in pressure on the eye (and by extension the cells in the retina) by your eyelids as you startle.

No noise, but yes on the flash of light.  I think this only started happening to me around the time I turned 30. 

Having a cell phone in the room makes it worse because I have to get up to check if a text message was the source of the light, only to find it was nothing.
Title: Re: Episode #663
Post by: daniel1948 on April 01, 2018, 12:06:10 PM
I have been awakened from sleep by the sound of a phone ringing when the phone was physically disconnected from the wall so that it could not wake me up. Dreams can sometimes be very convincing. These days, it's happened when the cell phone was turned off. Basically, I "hear" something in a dream so convincing that it wakes me up and I'm convinced it was real. This does not happen often. Maybe once a year. I have to get up to make sure I didn't leave the phone on by mistake.
Title: Re: Episode #663
Post by: DevoutCatalyst on April 01, 2018, 12:12:26 PM
(http://www.illusionsindex.org/images/illusions/skipping-pylon/Pylons2016.gif)
Galloping transmission lines are a thing. Next time you observe overhead transmission lines see if you can spot the countermeasures.

http://www.tdee.ulg.ac.be/doc-30.html (http://www.tdee.ulg.ac.be/doc-30.html)
Title: Re: Episode #663
Post by: werecow on April 01, 2018, 12:25:24 PM
It almost works for me, but not quite:

(http://www.illusionsindex.org/images/illusions/skipping-pylon/Pylons2016.gif)

I don't hear it, but I do seem to slightly feel it.

What I find interesting is how this reminds me of multimodal learning and pattern completion in artificial neural networks. One of the classical applications of neural networks is to take a noisy sample, for instance an image with either a lot of static noise or some missing parts, and try to restore the original sample as well as possible. For instance:

(http://davidstutz.de/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/sharma_2.png)

(https://ars.els-cdn.com/content/image/1-s2.0-S0167865515001476-fx1.jpg)

(http://bamos.github.io/data/2016-08-09/content-aware-1.jpg)

In a multimodal context, the network can do the same kind of thing, but it can use different modalities (e.g. audio, video, touch, text) as context for each other. For example, think of a network that learns to associate the word "ball" with a circular object in a scene. If it is then presented with a scene with a partially obscured ball, it might not at first recognize the object from just the image alone, but when someone says "find the ball", the network may have enough information to "fill in" the missing properties and identify the object as a ball. I think something similar is happening in the brain here, where there are closely associated clusters of neurons for different modalities in the brain (in this case, networks for detecting thumping sound with visual shaking and feeling tremors and maybe the associated motor action needed to compensate for these things). Activation in one of these clusters spreads to the other areas and activates them slightly, "filling in" the other modalities in a kind of ghostly way. There must be some other part of the network that has to be activated for it to be really vivid, though, because it is clearly not the same for me as actually hearing the sound. My guess is for some people the activation is strong enough for it to spread further down to those more remote parts of the brain, but not for other people.
Title: Re: Episode #663
Post by: Tim44 on April 01, 2018, 12:30:32 PM
It almost works for me, but not quite:

(http://www.illusionsindex.org/images/illusions/skipping-pylon/Pylons2016.gif)

On a related note, has anyone had this thing where you are lying in bed with your eyes closed and you hear a sudden noise and you see a flash of light? I've been wondering if that's a neurological thing happening inside the brain or if it's perhaps just from the change in pressure on the eye (and by extension the cells in the retina) by your eyelids as you startle.



Yup, pretty much the same for me. I doubt it's the case for me but a thought just occurred to me: I wonder if for some people there might even be some physical thing going on where when the image shakes your face twitches involuntarily (the phantom noise I "hear" reminds me a bit of the rumbling sound I get in my ears during yawning).

I think the eardrum sensation from the picture shaking.  The mind could be triggered into thinking it needs to check its equilibrium.
Title: Re: Episode #663
Post by: bachfiend on April 01, 2018, 03:52:35 PM
And there is the good doctor Baker who has eaten nothing but meat for the last 15 months, great blood work, setting world records for indoor rowing,, deadlifts sets of 500#, and sounds mentally sharp. I thought at first he was a one-off, but there appears to be thousands, and 700 in the cohort he is in, testing the diet.

4 and a half pounds of steak a day, at two sittings sounds a lot, but he isn't bored with the diet.

Well, a diet containing only meat (or fish) doesn’t seem to have harmed the Inuit.  As I’ve been saying all along, there’s a wide range of perfectly acceptable diets.  There’s no good evidence for one particular diet over all the others.

That said, the Inuit have evolved for thousands to adapt to their diet.  And 15 months isn’t long to be on a particular diet and to know its long term effects.


The Inuit have been shown to have very clogged arteries.  Study after study and the AHA have been dogging the Atkins diet as detrimental to your health for decades now.  If you want to risk your health on a slightly tweaked new fad low carb diet it is your choice.  But just be aware that you are burying your head in the sand, not practicing good skepticism.

Steve is a medical professional and one of the best skeptics around, he is transitioning to a plant based diet.

Studies in the Inuit are confounded by the fact that their traditional diet has been altered by the addition of sugar and cigarettes.

Not that I’m recommending a high meat or a high fat diet.  I’ve been on a high carbohydrate/low fat lacto-vegetarian diet for 40 years, and I’m completely happy with it.

I’ve been pushing back claims from CarbShark and others that a high fat/low carbohydrate ketogenic diets are ‘best’ - I consider that there’s a wide range of acceptable diets provided they supply sufficient but not excessive calories, and adequate essential amino acids and fatty acids, and adequate minerals and vitamins.  And don’t include more than a minimum amount of alcohol and simple sugars such as cane sugar.  And no tobacco.

I’m still waiting for CarbShark to provide evidence for his claim that high carbohydrate diets cause the fraction of smaller low density lipoprotein particles to increase over the larger/buoyant ones (the smaller ones are supposed to be able to penetrate the gaps between endothelial cells more easily than the larger ones and ‘clog’ arteries - which as an anatomical pathologist I don’t find a convincing argument anyway, I just want to know if there’s any evidence for the first step of the argument; I haven’t been able to find any).
Title: Episode #663
Post by: CarbShark on April 02, 2018, 12:30:05 AM
As I said before if you want to discuss the issue further ask your questions in any is the LCHF diet threads.


Here’s one ...
Title: Re: Episode #663
Post by: bachfiend on April 02, 2018, 02:29:37 AM
As I said before if you want to discuss the issue further ask your questions in any is the LCHF diet threads.


Here’s one ...

One of your usual useless comments.
Title: Re: Episode #663
Post by: esterin on April 02, 2018, 03:57:48 AM

can't imagine people giving up on this without a fight, unless have to.

Last desperate cries to a debate.  Say no more...
Typical, no arguments no evidence, just evasions
Title: Re: Episode #663
Post by: esterin on April 02, 2018, 04:02:28 AM
Steve is a medical professional and one of the best skeptics around, he is transitioning to a plant based diet.
We have a nomination for worst skeptic quotes of 2018
Title: Re: Episode #663
Post by: Tim44 on April 02, 2018, 07:28:59 AM
Steve is a medical professional and one of the best skeptics around, he is transitioning to a plant based diet.
We have a nomination for worst skeptic quotes of 2018

The butt hurt is real.  It tends to happen when none of your arguments are backed by science. #meatbuffer


The two opposing trains of thought I’ve seen in this thread are, disregard all previous food science because it is flawed, and ruin the environment to protect the future from themselves. /straw man
Title: Re: Episode #663
Post by: bachfiend on April 02, 2018, 07:44:09 PM

can't imagine people giving up on this without a fight, unless have to.

Last desperate cries to a debate.  Say no more...
Typical, no arguments no evidence, just evasions

If I understand you, your argument is that by eating meat, having national parks and foregoing clearing rain forests to use for agriculture, the current global population would be higher than it actually is today.  That by eating meat, having national parks and not clearing rain forests there’s a buffer which could be exploited if the production of food should ever go into a permanent decline for some reason or another, be it global warming or a meteorite impact.

I think your reference to something you read in a book by Jared Diamond was in ‘Collapse’, chapter 9 ‘opposite paths to success’.  Diamond discusses the case of Tikopia, a tiny South Pacific Island with around 1,200 people.  Around 1600, according to oral tradition, they decided to kill off all their pigs, since the pigs were competing with the inhabitants, raiding and destroying their vegetable crops.  And they were expensive, requiring 10 kg of vegetables to produce 1 kg of pork, which was a luxury status food for the chieftains.  Around this time, a large bay became blocked by the formation of a sandbar causing it to become a brackish lake killing off the contained shellfish and fish, which were a major part of their diet.  So it’s possible that a natural disaster could have precipitated their decision to get rid of their pigs.  Eating pork was a ‘buffer’ against natural disaster.  Although, they’d already been practicing 7 methods of population control for centuries before the natural disaster.  Eating pork wasn’t one of them.

Tikopia, with its small population, is a viable example of your claim that humans could be faced with a crisis and make a rational decision to obviate.  Everyone in a small population would know each other and be aware of the impending problem and be aware of the need to find a solution.

If there were ever a long-lasting crisis in global food supply in the future, for your argument to apply it would be necessary for everyone - from transnational organisations, national governments, right down to individuals - to be aware of the problem and equally vulnerable to the crisis.  And to have enough time to take action and the ability to find the right actions.

Well, we know how that’s worked with global warming, which is a currently recognised problem.  And which is being denied by a wide range of actors - ranging from governments, to corporations and individuals - some of whom think that global warming would be a good thing.

I suspect that if there’s a future crisis in food production, all that would happen is that rich countries and rich individuals would just bid up the price of food, and the poor would go without.  Countries such as America wouldn’t forego their meat diets to be able to feed starving sub-Saharan Africa, for example.

And anyway.  National parks are there mainly because they weren’t considered to be suitable agricultural land in the 19th century, so they were available to be declared national parks in the 20th century.  Turning them into agricultural land in this or future centuries would take a lot of work, in time and money.  And the soil of rainforests isn’t particularly fertile.  Clearing forests for crops would take a lot of work, and the soil would take a lot of preparation to be able to produce sustainable crops.
Title: Re: Episode #663
Post by: esterin on April 03, 2018, 02:00:48 AM
Steve is a medical professional and one of the best skeptics around, he is transitioning to a plant based diet.
We have a nomination for worst skeptic quotes of 2018

The butt hurt is real.  It tends to happen when none of your arguments are backed by science. #meatbuffer


The two opposing trains of thought I’ve seen in this thread are, disregard all previous food science because it is flawed, and ruin the environment to protect the future from themselves. /straw man
"butt hurt" ? seriously are you 12? isn't there forums on snapchat or music.ly where you can express your exceptional debating skills?

I don't even present your arguments ....how can I miss-represent them? you understand what a straw man is, right? it doesn't mean that you think that my argument is stupid.

I do not disregard "all previous science", the opposite, I am discussing "all previous science" in minute detail, even the obvious contradicting observations, one such, would be for example that all experiments failed to support any of the conclusions.....this process is not kind to the conclusions of "all previous science".

The rest is just a dishonest straw men of a point I already explained to you in detail, i.e. you deliberately misrepresent my argument (just wanted to make it loud and clear for you, since you are fuzzy on the definition of straw man).
Title: Re: Episode #663
Post by: esterin on April 03, 2018, 03:52:52 AM
If I understand you, your argument is that by eating meat, having national parks and foregoing clearing rain forests to use for agriculture, the current global population would be higher than it actually is today.  That by eating meat, having national parks and not clearing rain forests there’s a buffer which could be exploited if the production of food should ever go into a permanent decline for some reason or another, be it global warming or a meteorite impact.
Yes, but this just an obvious fact, if there are some resources we do not utilize for some reason, a political reasons in those examples, they are "extra" by definition, I do not think there is anything to object here.

I think your reference to something you read in a book by Jared Diamond was in ‘Collapse’, chapter 9 ‘opposite paths to success’.  Diamond discusses the case of Tikopia, a tiny South Pacific Island with around 1,200 people.  Around 1600, according to oral tradition, they decided to kill off all their pigs, since the pigs were competing with the inhabitants, raiding and destroying their vegetable crops.  And they were expensive, requiring 10 kg of vegetables to produce 1 kg of pork, which was a luxury status food for the chieftains.  Around this time, a large bay became blocked by the formation of a sandbar causing it to become a brackish lake killing off the contained shellfish and fish, which were a major part of their diet.  So it’s possible that a natural disaster could have precipitated their decision to get rid of their pigs.  Eating pork was a ‘buffer’ against natural disaster.  Although, they’d already been practicing 7 methods of population control for centuries before the natural disaster.  Eating pork wasn’t one of them.
I think you are correct about the Jared Diamond book, as i mentioned in previous replies, I was not sure, but it sounds correct.
But the exact details of that specific story is not important, i make a larger point.

Tikopia, with its small population, is a viable example of your claim that humans could be faced with a crisis and make a rational decision to obviate.  Everyone in a small population would know each other and be aware of the impending problem and be aware of the need to find a solution.

If there were ever a long-lasting crisis in global food supply in the future, for your argument to apply it would be necessary for everyone - from transnational organisations, national governments, right down to individuals - to be aware of the problem and equally vulnerable to the crisis.  And to have enough time to take action and the ability to find the right actions.
I disagree completely here, this basically the difference between a command economy like USSR and free markets, a price pressure due to  some calamity will cause gradually some to avoid luxury (luxury in the sense it is not 100% required for that person at that time, in comparison to some other thing he requires more, I don't mean golden urinals or Tesla's and iphones), it will be as always gradual and uneven (and undoubtedly unfair) but will save many.

Well, we know how that’s worked with global warming, which is a currently recognised problem.  And which is being denied by a wide range of actors - ranging from governments, to corporations and individuals - some of whom think that global warming would be a good thing.
It seems to me as a completely different issue, again for food prices to rise there is no need for agreement, there is no need for all to regard it as a menace or anything, it is enough to have scarcity for prices to rise, it is basically unavoidable.
For example as crisis will intensify, people would invade national parks first to hunt than to grow potatoes as happened in central park in the 20's, 30's or as in North Korea in 90's, fines and police will not deter people eventually, it'll be chaotic and unruly.
The important  thing is that extra resources has to exist, otherwise there is nothing to exploit.

I suspect that if there’s a future crisis in food production, all that would happen is that rich countries and rich individuals would just bid up the price of food, and the poor would go without.  Countries such as America wouldn’t forego their meat diets to be able to feed starving sub-Saharan Africa, for example.
As i said nobody thinks, certainly not me that it'll be fair or pretty, but what you imply is that there is no relation between food prices around the world, and that there are hermetically sealed borders.
Some will obviously be hit harder, it also depends of the type of crisis, large waves of migrations will equalize populations relieving pressures, it happened numerous times in the past, we know how it happens, it is common in history.

And anyway.  National parks are there mainly because they weren’t considered to be suitable agricultural land in the 19th century, so they were available to be declared national parks in the 20th century.  Turning them into agricultural land in this or future centuries would take a lot of work, in time and money.  And the soil of rainforests isn’t particularly fertile.  Clearing forests for crops would take a lot of work, and the soil would take a lot of preparation to be able to produce sustainable crops.
I agree but those are additional i.e. extra resources and only the obvious examples, meat consumption is I think the largest buffer and the most resilient to political manipulation - most robust, how we engineers like them.
It is also depends on the type of crisis, if nuclear winter due to huge meteor and nothing grows for years - we are done, if something gradual and not as extreme than some additional resources will help, again most important that there should be buffers.

Looking at the long run a species will fill all available niches, this is also true for men, there is a dynamic equilibrium between population and resources - this is I think shouldn't be controversial, as I said before enough experiments were run since "creation" to prove it.
Anti Malthusians say that the limit is unclear, i think it is true, but whatever it is at any political and technological point we should not strive to remove the buffers we already have, those are  limits to growth we impose on ourselves voluntarily due to our preferences and beliefs.
The opposite will be something like China's 1 child policy or worse, beside being ineffectual in the long run, it was indeed reversed on a political whim, it will also be much more cruel and much more unfair and violent, also much more hard to impose on an armed population - as it should be.

I would ask you, what do you propose? do you have alternatives? let's say we all denounce ​meat like the Indians (and become diabetic, I don't mean more diabetic, I mean almost all of them are diabetics or pre from their 20s and 30s, it is simply incredible, then start having stents and cathetarizations at 40s as a norm as in Californian high-tech Indians today who are vegetarians not by self selection - you would assume this population would be prime target to "Nutrition Science", but you would be mistaken, it's just too embarrassing, they are basically comply perfectly to guidelines), let's take the mentioned conversion ratios (which are ideological and dishonest, but still) we now able to support let's say 20 Billions, how do you prevent it becoming 20 Billion in the long run? what will happen then in case of a crisis?
Let's say some nations as many do now, have deeply entrenched religious reasons to procreate and would undoubtedly fight to the last men for this.
Again consider that even in places that are not keen on procreation today might change ideology maybe as a response to treats of rapidly procreating neighbors, as it always happens, what do you propose?

Just to keep the discussion real, relying on "we all come together and decide that we all will limit growth" etc... is, as you pointed out previously on the matter of global warming - will never happen, so should not even be considered. 
Title: Re: Episode #663
Post by: werecow on April 03, 2018, 07:42:16 AM
I disagree completely here, this basically the difference between a command economy like USSR and free markets, a price pressure due to  some calamity will cause gradually some to avoid luxury (luxury in the sense it is not 100% required for that person at that time, in comparison to some other thing he requires more, I don't mean golden urinals or Tesla's and iphones), it will be as always gradual and uneven (and undoubtedly unfair) but will save many.

The problem with these types of market driven "solutions" to giant global-scale disasters is that they are feedback processes, which tend to act much too late (i.e.: they are a reaction to an already existing crisis, not a preventive measure - unless forced on the market by governments). We would like to prevent the calamity from occurring, not to have prices go up as the result of an already occurring calamity. For example for climate change, I think we may well be already too late to prevent some really bad things from happening, but still the market hasn't caught up to that fact, because climate change has a kind of built-in delay of several decades.
Title: Re: Episode #663
Post by: bachfiend on April 03, 2018, 07:43:34 AM
esterin,

I admit that I don’t have solutions.  I’m just arguing that you don’t have solutions either.

I agree that with a food shortage, prices will rise, but the effect of the price rises will fall disproportionately on the poor.  It might be possible to introduce a ration card system within a country to distribute the pain equally, but it would be difficult if not impossible to do something similar with poor countries.  I don’t think that mass migration will be a problem (or a solution).  Starving populations due to famines tend to just stay (and starve).

Are you serious when you claim that vegetarian diets lead to diabetes?  There’s a negative correlation between diabetes and vegetarian diets (it’s lowest in vegans, next lowest in lacto-vegetarian, then pisco-vegetarians (which to me, as a lacto-vegetarian, sounds like an oxymoron), then in semi-vegetarians (ditto) and highest in non-vegetarians.  Admittedly, the incidence of diabetes is high in Indians, but that’s due to lifestyle changes with changing diet and the increasing incidence of obesity in rural populations following moving to the city.  Indians seem predisposed to diabetes at lower BMIs and predisposed to complications of diabetes at an earlier age.

Obviously the answer would be to limit global population.  I just don’t see a way of having it happen, not without an authoritarian one-world government.  As with global warming, some individuals and some governments won’t see the need.  The part of the American population which is heavily armed wouldn’t take it lying down.
Title: Re: Episode #663
Post by: esterin on April 05, 2018, 01:54:39 PM
I disagree completely here, this basically the difference between a command economy like USSR and free markets, a price pressure due to  some calamity will cause gradually some to avoid luxury (luxury in the sense it is not 100% required for that person at that time, in comparison to some other thing he requires more, I don't mean golden urinals or Tesla's and iphones), it will be as always gradual and uneven (and undoubtedly unfair) but will save many.

The problem with these types of market driven "solutions" to giant global-scale disasters is that they are feedback processes, which tend to act much too late (i.e.: they are a reaction to an already existing crisis, not a preventive measure - unless forced on the market by governments). We would like to prevent the calamity from occurring, not to have prices go up as the result of an already occurring calamity. For example for climate change, I think we may well be already too late to prevent some really bad things from happening, but still the market hasn't caught up to that fact, because climate change has a kind of built-in delay of several decades.
It is not a suggested market driven solution, it is how it'll behave in reality, a crisis will cause scarcity, scarcity will cause prices to go up, price increases will cause people to avoid for example meat diets and reduce consumption, land will be reassigned to more efficient modes of production, it'll be gradual, uneven and unfair -no doubt there, but it might save people from worse.
The solution I propose is not the prices/markets etc, it is just an explanation of the mechanism of how the buffers will be put into avoiding starvation...the solution itself is having buffers and not getting rid of them.
In the great depression people grew potatoes in Central park, google it - Central park is an example of a buffer, it is luxury which found a better more efficient use in a crisis.
it will either be enough to avoid a catastrophy or not , which depends on the extent of the crisis.
I am just saying, that it is important to have the buffers, if we transition now from meat diets, the population will undoubtedly increase, when crisis comes there will be no longer any luxury to avoid we will already be working on maximum efficiency....literally no fats to trim....i.e. no buffers, all the resources will already be assigned to already living and consuming people.
Title: Re: Episode #663
Post by: CarbShark on April 05, 2018, 02:08:23 PM
It is not a suggested market driven solution, it is how it'll behave in reality, a crisis will cause scarcity, scarcity will cause prices to go up, price increases will cause people to avoid for example meat diets and reduce consumption, land will be reassigned to more efficient modes of production, it'll be gradual, uneven and unfair -no doubt there, but it might save people from worse.

The problem I have with this Malthusian theory is there is no plausible mechanism and no evidence in human history to suggest it might happen.

Quote

The solution I propose is not the prices/markets etc, it is just an explanation of the mechanism of how the buffers will be put into avoiding starvation...the solution itself is having buffers and not getting rid of them.

In your view the "buffers" are some kind of potential for additional food production during a crisis, right? Foods are commodities. They are grown and marketed for profit. When growing and marketing a food becomes more profitable, more of that food will be grown and marketed. When it becomes less profitable less will be grown and marketed.

The controls of supply and demand for food are pretty much the most basic and fundamental aspect of free market economies. And they are completely independent of the process by which humans choose to reproduce.

Poverty, food shortages and scarcity have never been shown to reduce population growth in humans. If anything the opposite.

Quote
In the great depression people grew potatoes in Central park, google it - Central park is an example of a buffer, it is luxury which found a better more efficient use in a crisis.

The issue with food during the depression that there was such an abundant supply that prices dropped so far it was no longer profitable to grow and market foods.

Quote
I am just saying, that it is important to have the buffers, if we transition now from meat diets, the population will undoubtedly increase

This is a claim that is wholly unsupported by evidence. By what mechanism do you imagine that transitioning from a meat/plant based diet to a plant based diet would increase the population?

This is nonsensical.
 
Title: Re: Episode #663
Post by: esterin on April 05, 2018, 02:57:34 PM
esterin,

I admit that I don’t have solutions.  I’m just arguing that you don’t have solutions either.

I agree that with a food shortage, prices will rise, but the effect of the price rises will fall disproportionately on the poor.  It might be possible to introduce a ration card system within a country to distribute the pain equally, but it would be difficult if not impossible to do something similar with poor countries.  I don’t think that mass migration will be a problem (or a solution).  Starving populations due to famines tend to just stay (and starve).
I do not think this is true, i said it'll not be fair but it doesn't mean there is no influence between one place to another in prices and population movements.
In history many waves of migration were caused by economical pressure, including the current in Europe and obviously the once that ended Rome, many more.
i think it is a matter of circumstances, in any case i didn't said it is full proof perfect solution, such a solution doesn't exist, i think that what you mean when you say "I admit that I don’t have solutions", we will never have a perfect one, it doesn't mean we can just dismantle the imperfect solution to population growth that we have now and accelerate growth.

Are you serious when you claim that vegetarian diets lead to diabetes?  There’s a negative correlation between diabetes and vegetarian diets (it’s lowest in vegans, next lowest in lacto-vegetarian, then pisco-vegetarians (which to me, as a lacto-vegetarian, sounds like an oxymoron), then in semi-vegetarians (ditto) and highest in non-vegetarians.  Admittedly, the incidence of diabetes is high in Indians, but that’s due to lifestyle changes with changing diet and the increasing incidence of obesity in rural populations following moving to the city.  Indians seem predisposed to diabetes at lower BMIs and predisposed to complications of diabetes at an earlier age.
I am, and i have real data.
What you quote is observations on self selected western vegetarians, those population have many more other health promoting behaviors (health insurance, knowledge, exercise, much less smoking...etc) that are not easy i.e. impossible to statistically extract from the data, and hence a small residue effect of benefit exist in being a western vegetarian - vegetarians and meat eaters are very different populations in the west hence due to inability to compensate for all those behaviors there are small effects- you can"t draw conclusions from those studies.

On the other hand let's look at Hindi populations which are Vegetarians by tradition not self selection, FAO, UN agricultural agency estimates that 66% of Hndi population are strict vegetarians and most of the rest are less strict, this is also my experience working with many Indian engineers.
I can bring many obvious studies that prove my point, but just a few stats and observation will be more illuminating:
by 2020 (UN estimation) most of world Diabetics will be Hindi (now it is just a little less than half), Indian population is huge but is less than fifth of world population - so to say there is negative correlation between diabetics and vegetarianism  - when 1/5 of population has 1/2 of diabetics....is weird.
All my team mates, relatively young who are Indian engineers, have diabetics - 100% of them, just an example a guy next to my cube, 15 years younger (his 30s) than me just back from heart cathetarization and stent, he is lucky to be alive according to Dr.s he had 100% blockage.
-Less known is that for diabetics and pre-diabetics the largest risk is heart disease, half of diabetics die from heart disease, half of all heart patients are diabetics or pre.
This is the situation for most Indians it is just crazy sad and completely disproportional. 
Compare this numbers to the minute difference found in studies of western vegetarians - and we can't hear enough of those and nothing about the largest vegetarian experiment in history...India, Indians in California 4 times heart disease and diabetes that the General population (of fat Americans).
And it is not a new thing, during the Raj, English Dr.s noted the prevalence of diabetes in Indian population who are not poor, and the relative absence in meat eating areas and in the English population in India
One study, by Melhotra, comparing 1.5 Million workers of the Indian rail company who are relatively the same socioeconomic status and their health status known due to company insurance. They are dispersed through the sub continent, all gradients of differences exist between the relatively animal eating north and extremely vegetarian south. there is 17 times more animal fats between the 2 most extreme groups - and also 7 times the heart disease and diabetes, more than 10 years difference in life expectancy, you'll never hear of this study but you'll hear endlessly of RR of 1.07 for western populations.

Indians seem predisposed to diabetes at lower BMIs and predisposed to complications of diabetes at an earlier age.
This is not an explanation, this is just stating that there are more diabetes in India....i.e....let's disregard their nutrition.
India is a subcontinent, it is not an island of genetically pure distinct peoples, since Alexander the great up until the Moguls and British (they call them: "britishers") there was plenty of mixing, in those parts of Asia, only Indians suffer so.
In California study of other Asian closely related ethnic populations shows no great difference from the norm, it is only mainly the Hindi and whoever live in areas traditionally vegetarian even if not Hindi but mostly traditionally vegetarians that suffer disproportionally, and as i showed there are vast differences inside India between different areas in consumption of foods from animal sources and subsequently huge difference in health and longevity.
The "Indians are just special"  argument is just to avoid the obvious implications of this lifestyle, this is just special pleading.

(http://news.newamericamedia.org/directory/getdata.asp?about_id=0a8691f1162ef4792205ab10bef812e8-5)

Obviously the answer would be to limit global population.  I just don’t see a way of having it happen, not without an authoritarian one-world government.  As with global warming, some individuals and some governments won’t see the need.  The part of the American population which is heavily armed wouldn’t take it lying down.
Well i think i presented an obvious factor that will limit growth, people like their meat (as i am) unless we have to, we will not stop, and it indeed limits the growth of the population in a peaceful way.
Every argument you had or anyone else were about using the buffers in times of crisis, we can discuss this, but i do not think anyone disputes that reduction of available resources limits the growth of the population - dismantling those limits will increase the population. 

The part of the American population which is heavily armed wouldn’t take it lying down.
Hopefully you are correct, we had in the past experience with regimes that strove for "authoritarian one-world government", Americans, and many others helped to defeat them twice hopefully the same will happen also the next time around.

Title: Re: Episode #663
Post by: bachfiend on April 05, 2018, 03:54:29 PM
esterin,

Regarding the incidence of diabetes in vegetarians, you don’t understand your data.  If vegetarianism leads to diabetes, then in Western populations the incidence of diabetes should correlate with vegetarian diet.  It doesn’t - it correlates with obesity.  In India, if diabetes correlates with vegetarian diets, then it should have been much higher in the past too.  But it wasn’t.  Diabetes in Indians correlates with obesity too, at lower BMIs than in the West, and increasing urbanisation (diabetes in Indian populations wasn’t a problem in the past because of the vegetarian diet and the much lower incidence of obesity, so a genetic predisposition to diabetes wasn’t punished by natural selection - and the Indian population is now suffering from their increasingly affluent lifestyle change).

I still think your idea that eating meat is a buffer against increasing population is naive.  Meat eating occurs in affluent populations, because it’s expensive.  Affluent populations tend to have fewer children than poor populations (because historically, they know that their children are much more likely to survive to adulthood).  Poor populations tend to have more children (because historically, they expect more of their offspring to die in childhood) - and they also have a much lower consumption of meat.

So the causative chain is that affluence leads to lower population growth and increasing meat consumption, not increasing meat consumptionmtion leading to lower population growth.

And if there’s a future food crisis, the rich will still be able to get their food by bidding its price up (including meat).  The poor won’t be able to.  As Jared Diamond noted in ‘Collapse’, generally the rich (and powerful) will have the privilege of starving last - he wasn’t able to find many exceptions.
Title: Re: Episode #663
Post by: esterin on April 05, 2018, 04:02:14 PM
The problem I have with this Malthusian theory is there is no plausible mechanism and no evidence in human history to suggest it might happen.
Resource limiting growth is not a "theory" it is an obvious observation, Malthusian theory, is that there is a difference in rate of growth of resource vs. population and hence there is a tragedy of eternal mismatch between the rates, and hence constant suffering. 
The Anti Malthusians say that it is untrue that the resource grow only linearly, while the population grows exponentially, they have a belief in human ingenuity and since as number of humans grow exponentially the ingenuity i.e. technology, efficiency and hence the resources also grows exponentially.
it is only a comment on the relative growth of resources, I have my views, really not relevant to this discussion.
Neither Malthusians nor anti Malthusians have any doubt that scarcity of resources will limit growth, this is not a contention point between those beliefs.

In your view the "buffers" are some kind of potential for additional food production during a crisis, right? Foods are commodities. They are grown and marketed for profit. When growing and marketing a food becomes more profitable, more of that food will be grown and marketed. When it becomes less profitable less will be grown and marketed.

The controls of supply and demand for food are pretty much the most basic and fundamental aspect of free market economies. And they are completely independent of the process by which humans choose to reproduce.

Poverty, food shortages and scarcity have never been shown to reduce population growth in humans. If anything the opposite.

Really? i guess Ireland's population just rose and rose during the potato famine? i guess Europe's population wasn't stagnant when yields were stagnant in middle ages and never rose when yields increased?
Look around you, humans are everywhere, don't look at short term, in the long run they multiply and fill all niches.
if you mean that it is more complex than that, this is obvious, for microbes in a petri-dish it is simple, humans have much more other things that influence them, but to deny it it is weird, long term is clear.
For example Ghengis Khan had 1000-2000 kids, because he had the the resources, he never lacked the drive, i think what confuses you is current short term fashions, look at the long run and history, it'll be obvious.   

The issue with food during the depression that there was such an abundant supply that prices dropped so far it was no longer profitable to grow and market foods.
No, You are confusing the cause of the depression which is immaterial to our discussion, to the reality of the depression for those peoples in NY during the 20s and 30s, for actual people, they had extreme scarcity which caused them to consume any buffers they had, they sold extraneous property, grew gardens in central park, prostituted themselves etc...this is the part of the example that is relevant to the discussion.

This is a claim that is wholly unsupported by evidence. By what mechanism do you imagine that transitioning from a meat/plant based diet to a plant based diet would increase the population?
This is nonsensical.
I described it in length, again, drop in prices will and allow readily available freed resources which, in the long run cause population growth as it happened in the past in all cases up until the current 7-8 billion.

What do you mean "unsupported by evidence", let's look at any other organism, do you deny it is evident for any other mammal for example? doesn't it true that introducing a mammal into a pristine environment without any competition and readily available prey, will cause population explosion. Will you deny this?
So there are "some evidence", right?

Do you really prescribe to the belief of the utter uniqueness of men apart from all the "creation"?

I would argue that all traits exist on a spectrum between man and animal, man behavior is much more complex, yet looking in a historical long run view the trend is obvious. When man invades new environments rife with resources, he quickly goes to populate them - just an obvious historical observation.

Title: Re: Episode #663
Post by: esterin on April 05, 2018, 04:44:15 PM
esterin,

Regarding the incidence of diabetes in vegetarians, you don’t understand your data.  If vegetarianism leads to diabetes, then in Western populations the incidence of diabetes should correlate with vegetarian diet.  It doesn’t - it correlates with obesity.  In India, if diabetes correlates with vegetarian diets, then it should have been much higher in the past too.  But it wasn’t.  Diabetes in Indians correlates with obesity too, at lower BMIs than in the West, and increasing urbanisation (diabetes in Indian populations wasn’t a problem in the past because of the vegetarian diet and the much lower incidence of obesity, so a genetic predisposition to diabetes wasn’t punished by natural selection - and the Indian population is now suffering from their increasingly affluent lifestyle change).
No, as i explained those studies  are not valid because of self selection and methodological problems and the inability to compensate for other causes, it doesn't mean in western population there is no correlation, it means that the correlation is not measured correctly.
Note for example the LOOK-AHEAD study, largest and most expensive to reverse diabetes, working from the premise that reducing animal products will reduce diabetes, it was stopped after 10 years due to "no results", if your premise is incorrect, you'll get no results.
Literally i.e. exactly all the experiments predicated on this premise (i.e. not observational) came back negative.

I still think your idea that eating meat is a buffer against increasing population is naive.  Meat eating occurs in affluent populations, because it’s expensive.  Affluent populations tend to have fewer children than poor populations (because historically, they know that their children are much more likely to survive to adulthood).  Poor populations tend to have more children (because historically, they expect more of their offspring to die in childhood) - and they also have a much lower consumption of meat.
Few things, your premise is not correct, not all affluent population tend to have less children, my society is is now reversing this trend big time, as i said men behavior is more complex, you have to look at long term, all you do is have 1 data point of the current condition and fashion in some countries, looking historically the trend is obvious.
Why do you think this is the cause? i.e. "much more likely to survive...", any proof? again i am not trying to nit pick, but you have to not introduce all kind of assumptions that can't even be tested. i for example had kids until i  was afraid of the ability to provide, college etc...i for example can argue that the resource that are required for each child became more substantial for the current level of "subsistence" and hence rates dropped.......which is my point that the limiting factor are resources.
So let's make it much cheaper to have kids, let's see if it wouldn't increase population.

So the causative chain is that affluence leads to lower population growth and increasing meat consumption, not increasing meat consumptionmtion leading to lower population growth.
Exactly, affluence, like eating meat (just an example) limits growth, I can feed 4 kids on meat or 12 on soy, in addition i have to put them through college, school, sport classes.....it is just too expensive for me to have 8 kids this days.
And causative chain has no importance here, meat requires resources that prevent population increase, affluence is not a magical fairy dust that limits population, it is because an affluent human, a meat eating human, and a human i have to finance through college etc... requires more resources hence the population just like the size of my family is limited.

And if there’s a future food crisis, the rich will still be able to get their food by bidding its price up (including meat).  The poor won’t be able to.  As Jared Diamond noted in ‘Collapse’, generally the rich (and powerful) will have the privilege of starving last - he wasn’t able to find many exceptions.
This is obvious, will never dispute this, I everywhere stated it will not be fair, you come back to this, it is disturbing also in my eyes,  fairness is important but this will certainly not be equal or fair, such equal solution do not exist. Most unequal societies were  supposedly equal  NK, USSR and China, where 40Millions starved to death but the party elite lived completely normal lives. Mao had no huge house and cloths like US rich, but in terms of that society the gap between dying of starvation with all your village and almost living normal lives is much greater than the diff between a rich in US and his worker, the type of car and size of house were different but it is really not the same thing like starving with all your kids.

it is also not so definite as you say, i.e. rich  are rich and continue without any interruption and the poor just starve, as i wrote, prices, population movements, and even revolutions as always in history caused more equalization.
The worst situation of disconnect between populations might happen in a totalitarian country like what happened in North Korea in the 90s, USSR in the 20s and China in the 60s.
In real life, prices will rise some people who are marginally affluent will forgo meat, it'll free some resources, if crisis will intensify more and more will leave the affluent camp into the poor and reduce consumption and substitute luxury for just food, and it'll free more resources etc... up until either recovery or total starvation, still since the option to transition to more efficient modes of production existed less starved - i.e. buffers are needed.
In addition Revolution might happen as in many other times in history, and resources will be redistributed more equally, or not....but the point is you have to have the buffers, otherwise all just starve.
Title: Re: Episode #663
Post by: daniel1948 on April 05, 2018, 06:39:46 PM
... a crisis will cause scarcity, scarcity will cause prices to go up, price increases will cause people to avoid for example meat diets and reduce consumption, land will be reassigned to more efficient modes of production, it'll be gradual, uneven and unfair -no doubt there, but it might save people from worse.

Except that most of the world's population cannot afford to eat more than a very small amount of meat. So any crisis that makes food more expensive will cause mass starvation and probably riots and civil wars, not a reallocation of land from livestock to plants.

Title: Re: Episode #663
Post by: bachfiend on April 05, 2018, 07:08:52 PM
esterin,

The LOOK-AHEAD study was examining the effect of the intervention of weight reduction (by reducing calorie intake) and increased physical activity in a population of overweight people with already diagnosed type-2 diabetes in preventing future cardiovascular mortality such as myocardial infarction or strokes.  It wasn’t to see whether the diabetes could be reversed.  Or diabetes prevented (obviously, since they were already diabetic).

The participants were encouraged to increase fruit and vegetable in their diets, which, because they also had to reduce their calorie intake, meant they had to reduce their intake of other food items (if they were following the advice) meaning that their intake of animal products would decrease.

It says absolutely nothing regarding the propensity of vegetarian to diabetes.

Your Indian work colleagues and their diabetes - what are their diets?  And their BMIs?  The risk factors for type 2 diabetes are obesity and excessive sugar consumption (personally, I regard any sugar consumption as excessive).  Vegetarians tend to have a lower BMI, and a owner incidence of type 2 diabetes, but not invariably.  I’ve been a vegetarian for 40 years, but only got control of a weight problem over the past 30 years going from 85+ kg (and a BMI of over 27) to a body weight of 64 kg (and a BMI of 20).

People usually don’t have the choice of eating meat OR having children.  No one is ever that rational and future planning.  People decide  (or not decide - it just happens) to have children, and then they have to allocate their resources to provide for their families, including whether they can afford to buy meat or not.

Do you know of anyone who said they aren’t going to have children because they want to eat meat?  Really?  Or that they’re going to forgo eating meat so they can have more children?  Really?
Title: Re: Episode #663
Post by: esterin on April 05, 2018, 08:45:30 PM
... a crisis will cause scarcity, scarcity will cause prices to go up, price increases will cause people to avoid for example meat diets and reduce consumption, land will be reassigned to more efficient modes of production, it'll be gradual, uneven and unfair -no doubt there, but it might save people from worse.

Except that most of the world's population cannot afford to eat more than a very small amount of meat. So any crisis that makes food more expensive will cause mass starvation and probably riots and civil wars, not a reallocation of land from livestock to plants.

Again, are you looking for an 100% equitable solution? i really don't think you'll find one, but you are welcome to present it, i'll be happy to critique it.

You assume there is no resource sharing, so you condemn this solution as only for rich countries (besides that you do not have anything else, so just condemning in not productive). You can't just for example disregard the current waves of migrations in the mid-east and Africa into Europe due to the crisis in Lybia, Syria and Iraq and say there are no mechanisms for resource sharing, you have a live example. As they migrate they lower prices of resources in Syria and raise them in Germany.

The real problem will be if crisis comes they migrate - but there are no buffers anywhere at all, when we are at max capacity.

You say: the poorer nations will only benefit marginally since their current meat consumption is low - OK i agree, but you must agree that "a little" is better than nothing, and for part of the world is better than for no one.

Unless you are a saint that donate all your income beside your mere subsistence on strictly grain/soy/potato diets (yes Avocado, nuts, tomatoes, Kinoa Iphones and cars, Internet, Skeptical podcasts and forums are all luxuries as much as beef and probably more than chicken) to the Houthis in Yemen that starve right now, at this moment, than i think your condemnation from the stance of morality is not a little bit hypocritical.

Frequently I get irritated from this discussion , angry vegans spew their moral outrage just before driving home in their Prius to their suburban home in the hills or forests of California, just before flying to the Amazon for bio tourism.....as if meat is the only luxury we allow ourselves, everything you do beyond subsistence requires resources, most of those, unlike meat are completely redundant and have absolutely no positive value for humans.

Unless you are willing to forgo all your luxuries, you have no right to ask anyone else to forgo theirs, it's like Steven Novella talks how he like to live in a large house in a forest from all sides and than in the same segment to critically measure how other peoples luxuries cause deforestation.....this is cringe worthy to the extreme, it was hard to listen to.

Any way you look at it, irrespective of who benefits most, having smaller population, voluntarily, is better for everybody.

Again, best book on agriculture and real conversion ratios:
"Meat: A Benign Extravagance" by Simon Fairlie
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/9251480-meat
 (https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/9251480-meat)
Title: Re: Episode #663
Post by: esterin on April 05, 2018, 09:28:28 PM
esterin,

The LOOK-AHEAD study was examining the effect of the intervention of weight reduction (by reducing calorie intake) and increased physical activity in a population of overweight people with already diagnosed type-2 diabetes in preventing future cardiovascular mortality such as myocardial infarction or strokes.  It wasn’t to see whether the diabetes could be reversed.  Or diabetes prevented (obviously, since they were already diabetic).

The participants were encouraged to increase fruit and vegetable in their diets, which, because they also had to reduce their calorie intake, meant they had to reduce their intake of other food items (if they were following the advice) meaning that their intake of animal products would decrease.

It says absolutely nothing regarding the propensity of vegetarian to diabetes.
Why doesn't it say about about vegetarianism for diabetes? they also reduced sat-fat i.e. animal products and encouraged to forgo animal products for fruits and vegetables, in addition the reduced smoking and increased physical activity - and yet no effect.
Since physical activity and reducing smoking is proven to be beneficial, the only counterweight can be the other variable in this multi intervention trial - i.e. the reduction in animal products in favor of plants and "healthy grains".

Your Indian work colleagues and their diabetes - what are their diets?  And their BMIs?  The risk factors for type 2 diabetes are obesity and excessive sugar consumption (personally, I regard any sugar consumption as excessive).  Vegetarians tend to have a lower BMI, and a owner incidence of type 2 diabetes, but not invariably.  I’ve been a vegetarian for 40 years, but only got control of a weight problem over the past 30 years going from 85+ kg (and a BMI of over 27) to a body weight of 64 kg (and a BMI of 20).
First I also regard any sugar as poison - it serves me well, weight, BP, blood lipids, blood sugar, energy etc...changed me completely, just don't tell a nutrition scientist, for him it's just calories.

My Indian coworkers do not look fat, and their BMI is relatively low but they are skinny-fat, because they do not have a muscle in their body, really they are weak to the extreme, i can out bench 2 of them together 15 years younger than me - which agrees well with the cannibalization of muscle tissue due to low protein.

I agree they consume a lot of sugar and grains - which is a vegetarian diet, yet it is exactly the point, the western vegetarians like you are extremely aware and have many more healthful behaviors and lo and behold the observational studies show some small marginal effect in comparison to general population but the experiments show nothing - this completely agrees with my interpretation.

So the only way to know, is to look at non self selected populations, only then you can evaluate the benefits of veg diet for all, you probably can have a relatively good health on veg diet if you are knowledgeable and aware and have time and resources, still you might have a better outcomes by avoiding sugar and grains and consuming mostly meat.

People usually don’t have the choice of eating meat OR having children.  No one is ever that rational and future planning.  People decide  (or not decide - it just happens) to have children, and then they have to allocate their resources to provide for their families, including whether they can afford to buy meat or not.

Do you know of anyone who said they aren’t going to have children because they want to eat meat?  Really?  Or that they’re going to forgo eating meat so they can have more children?  Really?
you present it as a parody, which misses the point, it is not meat vs. kids, like this, it is your living standard vs. having one more kid.
I have a budget and i calculate, so i had the first kid, i felt i could comfortably have more so i did more, when i felt that I can't maintain the living standard i am accustomed to, and noticed i save nothing for the future, you discuss it with your wife and decide that we are already over extended, and we have to think of the future, and classes and college etc.... so didn't you had this discussion with your wife? talking with people i know many do that, hard to believe that people do not discuss it after their teens.
But your budget is according to your consumption, it is much higher for meat than just on grain diets, kids also consume....a lot, it is substantially more expensive in other countries outside US, in US i think many subsidies so you feel it much less.
Title: Re: Episode #663
Post by: bachfiend on April 05, 2018, 11:55:37 PM
esterin,

If western vegetarians were doing something that not only negates the greatly increased risk of type 2 diabetes you believe that not eating meat causes (and even makes the risk lower than in meat eaters), then why isn’t this generally known?  Why aren’t meat eaters doing this too, so the incidence of type 2 diabetes in the general population is lower than that than in vegetarians, which is actually very low?

The risk factors for type 2 diabetes is obesity.  And excessive consumption of simple sugars.  Being a vegetarian doesn’t prevent obesity or consuming excessive sugars, as your Indian work colleagues show.  Eating increased protein doesn’t cause muscle growth - for that you need physical activity.  I suspect your flaccid Indian work colleagues are just too sedentary.

You don’t need an enormous amount of protein in the diet - just enough to cover the daily losses from protein breakdown and resynthesis, growth, formation of new muscle due to increased physical activity or during convalescence from a debilitating illness.  Any excess is just burned or converted to fat.

Title: Re: Episode #663
Post by: werecow on April 06, 2018, 05:40:02 AM
Unless you are willing to forgo all your luxuries, you have no right to ask anyone else to forgo theirs, it's like Steven Novella talks how he like to live in a large house in a forest from all sides and than in the same segment to critically measure how other peoples luxuries cause deforestation.....this is cringe worthy to the extreme, it was hard to listen to.

Look here. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque)
Title: Re: Episode #663
Post by: 2397 on April 06, 2018, 07:24:47 AM
Frequently I get irritated from this discussion , angry vegans spew their moral outrage just before driving home in their Prius to their suburban home in the hills or forests of California, just before flying to the Amazon for bio tourism.....as if meat is the only luxury we allow ourselves, everything you do beyond subsistence requires resources, most of those, unlike meat are completely redundant and have absolutely no positive value for humans.

I agree with you on this point, that we shouldn't give up one thing and forget about all the other things that we might be doing that still have a major environmental impact.

But it doesn't have to be all or nothing, a little bit here and there from different people contributes to overall reductions. And there are win-win policies, giving people more choices so that more people can choose what's more environmentally friendly, because it's a choice they'll make when it's available.

The diet debate I could care less about. But not a lot less.
Title: Re: Episode #663
Post by: esterin on April 06, 2018, 12:23:26 PM
Frequently I get irritated from this discussion , angry vegans spew their moral outrage just before driving home in their Prius to their suburban home in the hills or forests of California, just before flying to the Amazon for bio tourism.....as if meat is the only luxury we allow ourselves, everything you do beyond subsistence requires resources, most of those, unlike meat are completely redundant and have absolutely no positive value for humans.

I agree with you on this point, that we shouldn't give up one thing and forget about all the other things that we might be doing that still have a major environmental impact.

But it doesn't have to be all or nothing, a little bit here and there from different people contributes to overall reductions. And there are win-win policies, giving people more choices so that more people can choose what's more environmentally friendly, because it's a choice they'll make when it's available.

The diet debate I could care less about. But not a lot less.
i am not pointing a way to do anything, my point is that they are hypocrites to the extreme, they are happy to discuss reducing only my luxuries avoiding a discussion of  their luxuries, resources are resources.
Title: Re: Episode #663
Post by: esterin on April 06, 2018, 12:36:52 PM
Unless you are willing to forgo all your luxuries, you have no right to ask anyone else to forgo theirs, it's like Steven Novella talks how he like to live in a large house in a forest from all sides and than in the same segment to critically measure how other peoples luxuries cause deforestation.....this is cringe worthy to the extreme, it was hard to listen to.

Look here. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque)
i am just pointing out the huge hypocrisy, it is not actually a real logical fallacy, there is nothing fallacious pointing this out.

Just as a general comment, very frequently, specifically here, the "logical fallacy" specifically the informal ones are used to avoid of actually addressing the issue.
I addressed the issues in extreme length only with arguments and evidence, i do not avoid real discussion, you on the other hand just post a link that is somehow supposed to close the discussion as if anything of value was communicated through this link.

In addition hypocrisy in this case is actually a way to mislead and shift the discussion, the real motive of many or most is veganism and animal rights , and they shift the discussion to resources, because they know most just don't care of veganism.
pointing the hypocrisy is actually important here to unmask the real motivations. 
Title: Re: Episode #663
Post by: esterin on April 06, 2018, 01:58:37 PM
esterin,

If western vegetarians were doing something that not only negates the greatly increased risk of type 2 diabetes you believe that not eating meat causes (and even makes the risk lower than in meat eaters), then why isn’t this generally known?  Why aren’t meat eaters doing this too, so the incidence of type 2 diabetes in the general population is lower than that than in vegetarians, which is actually very low?
No, No and No, it is comparing different populations, it is just bad methodology.

in an experiment only 1 variable should vary, bad data is bad data, you should avoid at any cost getting conclusions from bad data, take an advice from an engineer on lab work.

If we compare people who give a crap about health, like northern and southern indians  meat eaters live 10 years more, 7 times less heart disease, only animal consumption differs.

If you compare meat eaters who do not give a crap about health, more smoking, more sugar, only physical activity is watching TV., more alcohol....etc to you, no smoking, no sugar, physical activity... and get small benefit - many variables vary - you can't conclude.

So if your aim is to isolate the "meat eating effect", and you actually compare health conscious westerners who eat and not eat meat, you'll get the same result as the north/south indians i.e. higher life expectancy, much less diabetes and heart disease...

The risk factors for type 2 diabetes is obesity.  And excessive consumption of simple sugars.  Being a vegetarian doesn’t prevent obesity or consuming excessive sugars, as your Indian work colleagues show.  Eating increased protein doesn’t cause muscle growth - for that you need physical activity.  I suspect your flaccid Indian work colleagues are just too sedentary.

You don’t need an enormous amount of protein in the diet - just enough to cover the daily losses from protein breakdown and resynthesis, growth, formation of new muscle due to increased physical activity or during convalescence from a debilitating illness.  Any excess is just burned or converted to fat.
You do not know that obesity causes diabetes, it is an unproven hypothesis, I think that obesity and diabetes both are caused by excessive sugar/carbs consumption, since there is diabetes in people who are not obese, but eat simple carbs and sugars, it is quite common.
What you never have is diabetes in people who do not eat simple carbs and sugars, best of those diets will be a meat diet.
I can atest from personal experience that on ketogenic diet blood sugar just drops, i.e. eating a predominantly meat diet will prevent or reverse type 2diabetes.
It was also tested i saw articles, i am not going to look for them now but type 2 diabetics on ketogenic diet, quickly reverse  diabetes.

How much protein? nutritionists and scientists who work from theories  just spread misconceptions and harm people - this is amply documented.
The only ones who know a bit about nutrition are body builders who meticulously document and experiment and actually get real results (BTW, this is common, a practitioner discovers an effect by tinkering, and then an academic will write it up in journal with theoretic flouring and will get the credit)
Body builders recommend more protein, from experimenting with all meat diet myself it is easier to loose weight and you are not hungry, sometime even not eating for a day, but most calories have to be from fat, still protein is very high on such diet, i felt best on it, but it is hard to maintain in practice due to cooking only for myself and at work etc...
Title: Re: Episode #663
Post by: daniel1948 on April 06, 2018, 03:35:28 PM
... my point is that they are hypocrites to the extreme, ...

We are all hypocrites. And I include myself in that. If you have a shred of human decency and live an American middle-class lifestyle, you are a hypocrite. If you are a Christian and own more than the clothes on your back you are a hypocrite. If you oppose taxes but use any government services you are a hypocrite.

Some people live closer to their ideals than others, but we're all hypocrites.
Title: Re: Episode #663
Post by: bachfiend on April 06, 2018, 03:59:58 PM
esterin,

If western vegetarians were doing something that not only negates the greatly increased risk of type 2 diabetes you believe that not eating meat causes (and even makes the risk lower than in meat eaters), then why isn’t this generally known?  Why aren’t meat eaters doing this too, so the incidence of type 2 diabetes in the general population is lower than that than in vegetarians, which is actually very low?
No, No and No, it is comparing different populations, it is just bad methodology.

in an experiment only 1 variable should vary, bad data is bad data, you should avoid at any cost getting conclusions from bad data, take an advice from an engineer on lab work.

If we compare people who give a crap about health, like northern and southern indians  meat eaters live 10 years more, 7 times less heart disease, only animal consumption differs.

If you compare meat eaters who do not give a crap about health, more smoking, more sugar, only physical activity is watching TV., more alcohol....etc to you, no smoking, no sugar, physical activity... and get small benefit - many variables vary - you can't conclude.

So if your aim is to isolate the "meat eating effect", and you actually compare health conscious westerners who eat and not eat meat, you'll get the same result as the north/south indians i.e. higher life expectancy, much less diabetes and heart disease...

The risk factors for type 2 diabetes is obesity.  And excessive consumption of simple sugars.  Being a vegetarian doesn’t prevent obesity or consuming excessive sugars, as your Indian work colleagues show.  Eating increased protein doesn’t cause muscle growth - for that you need physical activity.  I suspect your flaccid Indian work colleagues are just too sedentary.

You don’t need an enormous amount of protein in the diet - just enough to cover the daily losses from protein breakdown and resynthesis, growth, formation of new muscle due to increased physical activity or during convalescence from a debilitating illness.  Any excess is just burned or converted to fat.
You do not know that obesity causes diabetes, it is an unproven hypothesis, I think that obesity and diabetes both are caused by excessive sugar/carbs consumption, since there is diabetes in people who are not obese, but eat simple carbs and sugars, it is quite common.
What you never have is diabetes in people who do not eat simple carbs and sugars, best of those diets will be a meat diet.
I can atest from personal experience that on ketogenic diet blood sugar just drops, i.e. eating a predominantly meat diet will prevent or reverse type 2diabetes.
It was also tested i saw articles, i am not going to look for them now but type 2 diabetics on ketogenic diet, quickly reverse  diabetes.

How much protein? nutritionists and scientists who work from theories  just spread misconceptions and harm people - this is amply documented.
The only ones who know a bit about nutrition are body builders who meticulously document and experiment and actually get real results (BTW, this is common, a practitioner discovers an effect by tinkering, and then an academic will write it up in journal with theoretic flouring and will get the credit)
Body builders recommend more protein, from experimenting with all meat diet myself it is easier to loose weight and you are not hungry, sometime even not eating for a day, but most calories have to be from fat, still protein is very high on such diet, i felt best on it, but it is hard to maintain in practice due to cooking only for myself and at work etc...

The incidence of type 2 diabetes in vegetarians:

The figures are (in a large population of Seventh Day Adventists); for a BMI > 30 - vegans 8.0%, lacto-ovo vegetarians 9.4%, pesco-vegetarians 9.4%, semi-vegetarians 11.4%, nonvegetarians 13.8% (there are fat vegetarians).  For a BMI<30 - vegans 2.0%, lacto-ovo vegetarians 2.1%, pesco-vegetarians 3.3%, semi-vegetarians 3.7%, nonvegetarians 4.6%.

So, type 2 diabetes in lower in vegetarians, the less animal protein in the diet the greater the reduction.  But being overweight greatly increases the incidence of type 2 diabetes (as I’ve stated).  Being a vegan with a normal, or almost normal, BMI halves the incidence of diabetes.  But being fat (and there are fat vegans) multiplies the risk of diabetes 4-fold.

It’s possible to be a vegetarian and be fat and very unhealthy.  It’s so obvious, I don’t know why I have to mention it.

And I’m not claiming that a vegetarian diet, or a high carbohydrate/low fat diet, is the ‘best’ diet.  There are a wide range of perfectly acceptable diets, including high fat/low carbohydrate ketogenic diets.  If you’re happy with your diet, then good for you.
Title: Re: Episode #663
Post by: esterin on April 06, 2018, 07:59:03 PM
... my point is that they are hypocrites to the extreme, ...

We are all hypocrites. And I include myself in that. If you have a shred of human decency and live an American middle-class lifestyle, you are a hypocrite. If you are a Christian and own more than the clothes on your back you are a hypocrite. If you oppose taxes but use any government services you are a hypocrite.

Some people live closer to their ideals than others, but we're all hypocrites.
I don't think it's true, this is like original sin, if you are human you can't ever be free of it, it is too dark.
I think you are only a hypocrite if you constantly criticize others doing something you also do.
It is all Peter Singer's ideology, i don't subscribe to it, i think there are hierarchies of caring and sacrificing, it starts with your kids, family, social circle, country etc you owe less down the hierarchy.
Title: Re: Episode #663
Post by: esterin on April 06, 2018, 08:39:16 PM
The incidence of type 2 diabetes in vegetarians:

The figures are (in a large population of Seventh Day Adventists); for a BMI > 30 - vegans 8.0%, lacto-ovo vegetarians 9.4%, pesco-vegetarians 9.4%, semi-vegetarians 11.4%, nonvegetarians 13.8% (there are fat vegetarians).  For a BMI<30 - vegans 2.0%, lacto-ovo vegetarians 2.1%, pesco-vegetarians 3.3%, semi-vegetarians 3.7%, nonvegetarians 4.6%.

So, type 2 diabetes in lower in vegetarians, the less animal protein in the diet the greater the reduction.  But being overweight greatly increases the incidence of type 2 diabetes (as I’ve stated).  Being a vegan with a normal, or almost normal, BMI halves the incidence of diabetes.  But being fat (and there are fat vegans) multiplies the risk of diabetes 4-fold.

It’s possible to be a vegetarian and be fat and very unhealthy.  It’s so obvious, I don’t know why I have to mention it.

And I’m not claiming that a vegetarian diet, or a high carbohydrate/low fat diet, is the ‘best’ diet.  There are a wide range of perfectly acceptable diets, including high fat/low carbohydrate ketogenic diets.  If you’re happy with your diet, then good for you.
This is bad data, this is exactly the comparisons of self selected comparisons with small effects I argued you shouldn't conclude from if you want to isolate the effect of meat vs plants in the diet .

The "Seventh Day Adventists" are not the same population as "nonvegetarians" for the general population, that why when they do multi variate regression to remove influence of other variables, they have only few variables that thy know off, usually socioeconomic status, smoking, age BMI etc... but the difference between those populations are much deeper, "Seventh Day Adventists" are completely different in their behavior and health consciousness from the general non-veg population - it is impossible to conclude from these numbers anything.

Quote from: wiki link=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seventh-day_Adventist_Church
Health and diet[edit]
Since the 1860s when the church began, wholeness and health have been an emphasis of the Adventist church. Adventists are known for presenting a "health message" that recommends vegetarianism and advocate adherence to the kosher laws in Leviticus 11, the observance of which means abstinence from pork, shellfish, and other animals proscribed as "unclean". The church discourages its members from consuming alcoholic beverages, tobacco or illegal drugs (compare Christianity and alcohol). In addition, some Adventists avoid coffee, tea, cola, and other beverages containing caffeine.

When observational studies began to be used in public medicine, to establish causes of diseases, the most celebrated instance was identifieing smoking as the cause of lung cancer, rules were developed to guard against misuse of observational studies:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bradford_Hill_criteria (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bradford_Hill_criteria)
Most important of them, is that if you want to infer cause and effect the effect size has to be very large, i.e. much larger than any conceivable difference between populations.
So to establish smoking - lung cancer connection, the effect size is 2,000% i.e. you are 20 times more likely to get lung cancer if you are smoking - hence it is shown to high degree of confidence.
if the effect size is as small in observational study - you are not allowed i.e. you'll be mistaken to conclude that the measured difference in those populations is due to the animal product consumption and not other variable.
BTW, the California study of Indian vs. Asians and Northern vs Southern Indians - does have large effects and hence allows us to say with confidence that vegetarianism causes heart disease.

It’s possible to be a vegetarian and be fat and very unhealthy.  It’s so obvious, I don’t know why I have to mention it.
It is an issue of relative effect, the diets are in opposition, calories are roughly constant, hence eating more meat causes eating less plants.
I tis important to understand which path is better one relative to another.

And I’m not claiming that a vegetarian diet, or a high carbohydrate/low fat diet, is the ‘best’ diet.  There are a wide range of perfectly acceptable diets, including high fat/low carbohydrate ketogenic diets.  If you’re happy with your diet, then good for you.
All diets are perfectly acceptable in this sense, anyone should do what he deems is good for him, I just want to compare and understand what is better one vs. the other, seems to me important.
Title: Re: Episode #663
Post by: bachfiend on April 06, 2018, 08:46:40 PM
... my point is that they are hypocrites to the extreme, ...

We are all hypocrites. And I include myself in that. If you have a shred of human decency and live an American middle-class lifestyle, you are a hypocrite. If you are a Christian and own more than the clothes on your back you are a hypocrite. If you oppose taxes but use any government services you are a hypocrite.

Some people live closer to their ideals than others, but we're all hypocrites.
I don't think it's true, this is like original sin, if you are human you can't ever be free of it, it is too dark.
I think you are only a hypocrite if you constantly criticize others doing something you also do.
It is all Peter Singer's ideology, i don't subscribe to it, i think there are hierarchies of caring and sacrificing, it starts with your kids, family, social circle, country etc you owe less down the hierarchy.

I think you can also criticise another person for doing something you do, and not be a hypocrite, if the other person is doing something in conflict with his core beliefs.  As an example, in Australia we had a Deputy Prime Minister - a devout Christian - who campaigned in our recent plebiscite  to allow same sex marriage, opposing it on the basis of ‘the sanctity of marriage between a man and a woman.’  It later turned out that he was having an affair with one of his staff members, who became pregnant, and his marriage  (from which he had 4 daughters) broke up.  He got a lot of criticism, possibly from people who might have also had extramarital affairs too (for all we know) - who wouldn’t be hypocrites because they weren’t criticising him for having an extramarital affair, but for claiming to have higher moral standards, and then breaching them.

As an example closer to home - I’m deeply concerned about human-induced global warming, but in two weeks I’m flying from Perth to Paris (a pretty long flight).  Am I hypocrite?  Possibly.  I argue I’m not - the plane was going from Perth to Paris anyway, and it would emit just as much CO2 whether I’m on the plane or not.  And this year I had installed 3 6kW solar systems on 2 rental properties and my own house which in total would generate an average of 60kW.hr/day of electricity over the entire year, which would prevent an enormous amount of CO2 being emitted from coal power plants.  Which is my carbon onset for the flight.
Title: Re: Episode #663
Post by: werecow on April 06, 2018, 09:27:36 PM
Unless you are willing to forgo all your luxuries, you have no right to ask anyone else to forgo theirs, it's like Steven Novella talks how he like to live in a large house in a forest from all sides and than in the same segment to critically measure how other peoples luxuries cause deforestation.....this is cringe worthy to the extreme, it was hard to listen to.

Look here. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque)
i am just pointing out the huge hypocrisy, it is not actually a real logical fallacy, there is nothing fallacious pointing this out.
It is if you're doing it in response to the actual argument that Steve et al. were making, which as far as I can tell is valid regardless of their own behavior.

Taking the broader view, I am of the opinion that we are going to have a very hard time making people give up their luxuries preventively. The percentage of people who will wake up tomorrow thinking "I better not game so much because my GPU is sucking up a lot of energy and it contributes to climate change because I get my energy from a coal fired power plant" is probably depressingly small. I know I am a carnivore and I really do feel like I need my meat (I eat more of it than average and anecdotally I don't seem to do particularly well on a vegetarian diet), and I consider myself fairly well informed on, and concerned with, at least the climate change aspect of all this. When it comes to ecological issues and technology I think we will have to come up with alternatives that are better or at least as good as the existing ones. Otherwise I fear we really will enter that age of Malthusian catastrophism, and given how that logic operates I think that will actually be rather nightmarish. I am now exclusively powered by wind energy and when the time of eco-friendly lab-grown meat comes, I will subscribe to that paradigm, but until that time I will continue to contribute to our delicious collective downfall.
Title: Re: Episode #663
Post by: bachfiend on April 06, 2018, 10:09:59 PM
esterin,

You’re the one who is claiming that if we’re forced to all go on a vegetarian diet due to some future catastrophic food shortage, then we’ll all get type 2 diabetes and develop cardiovascular disease requiring coronary artery stents in the 20s or 30s.

I’m claiming that there’s very little difference between the various possible diets, and that diet - relatively speaking - isn’t as important as other factors, such as obesity, lack of physical activity, overconsumption of simple sugars and alcohol, and smoking.

Regarding vegetarian diets and cardiovascular disease and vegetarian diets; a recent large prospective study of nurses and health professionals showed a slight reduction in those on a vegetarian diet including ‘healthy’ vegetarian items and a slight increase in those on a vegetarian diet including ‘unhealthy’ vegetarian items (‘unhealthy’ includes potatoes, which I include, as a small part of my diet).

As I’ve said all the way along - little difference.

The Indian studies are deeply flawed.  The Indian population has undergone enormous changes in the 20th century, with increasing urbanisation and prosperity.  They’re suffering from all the diseases of affluence.  Claiming that their suffering from the diseases of their recent economic success is due to their longstanding vegetarian diet is just silly.

Or to put it another way.  The Indians have been on a vegetarian diet for hundreds, perhaps thousands of years.  And then recently they became urbanised, got affluent and developed high rates of type 2 diabetes and heart disease, as shown by your colleague requiring coronary artery stents.

What it demonstrates is the lethal effects of the ‘modern’ lifestyle, not the vegetarian diet.
Title: Re: Episode #663
Post by: daniel1948 on April 07, 2018, 09:11:57 AM
... my point is that they are hypocrites to the extreme, ...

We are all hypocrites. And I include myself in that. If you have a shred of human decency and live an American middle-class lifestyle, you are a hypocrite. If you are a Christian and own more than the clothes on your back you are a hypocrite. If you oppose taxes but use any government services you are a hypocrite.

Some people live closer to their ideals than others, but we're all hypocrites.
I don't think it's true, this is like original sin, if you are human you can't ever be free of it, it is too dark.
I think you are only a hypocrite if you constantly criticize others doing something you also do.
It is all Peter Singer's ideology, i don't subscribe to it, i think there are hierarchies of caring and sacrificing, it starts with your kids, family, social circle, country etc you owe less down the hierarchy.


It's a simple case of the log in your eye vs the mote in the other fellow's eye. We all see the other fellow's hypocrisy but not our own. It's probably true that some people do it more than others, just as some people live closer to their ideals than others. But we all do it. It's not "original sin, and everybody is awful." It's just human nature. We can all justify our own actions while seeing what's wrong with the other guy's. It's like the guy who thinks that stealing bread when your kids are hungry is a crime because you should just get a job, but fudging on his own taxes just a bit is not really cheating because reasons.

I acknowledge my own hypocrisy. I'm not proud of it by any means, but I am aware of it (at least some of the time... I probably have some hypocrisies I am unaware of) and I admit it to myself and others. Notably, I think we should reduce our use of fossil fuels and I drive an electric car powered by hydro here in the PNW, but I also fly to Maui and elsewhere for vacations and I live in a bigger house than would be absolutely necessary. If you live a middle-class lifestyle you are using more resources than you need. If you also believe that people have any responsibility to society, then you are a hypocrite. Nobody is perfect, and that means we're all hypocrites.
Title: Re: Episode #663
Post by: esterin on April 07, 2018, 01:01:01 PM
I think you can also criticise another person for doing something you do, and not be a hypocrite, if the other person is doing something in conflict with his core beliefs.  As an example, in Australia we had a Deputy Prime Minister - a devout Christian - who campaigned in our recent plebiscite  to allow same sex marriage, opposing it on the basis of ‘the sanctity of marriage between a man and a woman.’  It later turned out that he was having an affair with one of his staff members, who became pregnant, and his marriage  (from which he had 4 daughters) broke up.  He got a lot of criticism, possibly from people who might have also had extramarital affairs too (for all we know) - who wouldn’t be hypocrites because they weren’t criticising him for having an extramarital affair, but for claiming to have higher moral standards, and then breaching them.

As an example closer to home - I’m deeply concerned about human-induced global warming, but in two weeks I’m flying from Perth to Paris (a pretty long flight).  Am I hypocrite?  Possibly.  I argue I’m not - the plane was going from Perth to Paris anyway, and it would emit just as much CO2 whether I’m on the plane or not.  And this year I had installed 3 6kW solar systems on 2 rental properties and my own house which in total would generate an average of 60kW.hr/day of electricity over the entire year, which would prevent an enormous amount of CO2 being emitted from coal power plants.  Which is my carbon onset for the flight.
I agree, but this is though not the case that I was pointing out, meat is singled out as the worst crime against the environment, and this criticism is delivered frequently with an amount of moral outrage that would be more appropriate in a discussion of "concentration camps, pros and cons".
In addition, with the same vitriol, it is thrown that it is somehow the only luxury we have vs. the poor of Africa is meat.
While in reality, singling out meat is hypocritical to extent that my head explodes hearing it, and should be for anyone, and is ideological in it's nature, and i am trying to point this out.
Title: Re: Episode #663
Post by: bachfiend on April 07, 2018, 04:49:46 PM
I think you can also criticise another person for doing something you do, and not be a hypocrite, if the other person is doing something in conflict with his core beliefs.  As an example, in Australia we had a Deputy Prime Minister - a devout Christian - who campaigned in our recent plebiscite  to allow same sex marriage, opposing it on the basis of ‘the sanctity of marriage between a man and a woman.’  It later turned out that he was having an affair with one of his staff members, who became pregnant, and his marriage  (from which he had 4 daughters) broke up.  He got a lot of criticism, possibly from people who might have also had extramarital affairs too (for all we know) - who wouldn’t be hypocrites because they weren’t criticising him for having an extramarital affair, but for claiming to have higher moral standards, and then breaching them.

As an example closer to home - I’m deeply concerned about human-induced global warming, but in two weeks I’m flying from Perth to Paris (a pretty long flight).  Am I hypocrite?  Possibly.  I argue I’m not - the plane was going from Perth to Paris anyway, and it would emit just as much CO2 whether I’m on the plane or not.  And this year I had installed 3 6kW solar systems on 2 rental properties and my own house which in total would generate an average of 60kW.hr/day of electricity over the entire year, which would prevent an enormous amount of CO2 being emitted from coal power plants.  Which is my carbon onset for the flight.
I agree, but this is though not the case that I was pointing out, meat is singled out as the worst crime against the environment, and this criticism is delivered frequently with an amount of moral outrage that would be more appropriate in a discussion of "concentration camps, pros and cons".
In addition, with the same vitriol, it is thrown that it is somehow the only luxury we have vs. the poor of Africa is meat.
While in reality, singling out meat is hypocritical to extent that my head explodes hearing it, and should be for anyone, and is ideological in it's nature, and i am trying to point this out.

Well, I think it’s hypocritical trying to justify eating meat on the basis that it’s healthier than a vegetarian diet (it isn’t, I consider that the evidence shows that it’s about the same) and to go desperately to look for ‘evidence’ showing that it is.

If I wanted to go down the same path, I could point that prior to the 20th century, eating meat was uncommon, confined mainly to the rich and powerful, with the masses eating meat only occasionally at best and depending on bread as a staple of their diet (so they were on a high carbohydrate diet).  Meat eating increases with affluence, and the world generally has become increasingly affluent in the 20th century (even in the developing world).  So the consumption of meat has increased.  And the epidemic of heart attacks, type 2 diabetes and obesity is a modern phenomenon.

So meat-eating causes all three of these?  But I’d be committing the ecological fallacy, so I won’t.
Title: Re: Episode #663
Post by: daniel1948 on April 07, 2018, 05:52:11 PM
... meat is singled out as the worst crime against the environment...

Who here has made that assertion? I certainly have not. I do consider the American meat industry to be an environmental disaster, but so is the use of fossil fuels, exponential population growth, the trashing of the oceans, the paving of the land to build suburbs (one of which I live in; hypocrisy admitted), war, and probably plenty of other things that don't immediately pop to mind.
Title: Re: Episode #663
Post by: esterin on April 09, 2018, 11:43:20 AM
esterin,

You’re the one who is claiming that if we’re forced to all go on a vegetarian diet due to some future catastrophic food shortage, then we’ll all get type 2 diabetes and develop cardiovascular disease requiring coronary artery stents in the 20s or 30s.
I guess the apocalypse will not be as pleasant as we expected, the added benefit for vegans would be to finally have the satisfaction of making us eat the disgusting soy food imitation products.

I’m claiming that there’s very little difference between the various possible diets, and that diet - relatively speaking - isn’t as important as other factors, such as obesity, lack of physical activity, overconsumption of simple sugars and alcohol, and smoking.
I understand that it is what you claiming, yet as the Indian data suggest, you are probably mistaken

Regarding vegetarian diets and cardiovascular disease and vegetarian diets; a recent large prospective study of nurses and health professionals showed a slight reduction in those on a vegetarian diet including ‘healthy’ vegetarian items and a slight increase in those on a vegetarian diet including ‘unhealthy’ vegetarian items (‘unhealthy’ includes potatoes, which I include, as a small part of my diet).

As I’ve said all the way along - little difference.
Again, the nurses study is a perfect example of what i was saying, about the misleading nature of observational studies with marginal results.
To Illustrate, the nurses health study included an arm of checking the health benefits of HRT (hormone replacement therapy) - it found a small benefit as many other observational studies that also found some small benefit - the scientific basis for this recommendation looked solid.
So DR.s irresponsibly started to recommend HRT to Women - irresponsibly, because this is a missuse of observational data, many died prematurelly.
Later the WHI (Women Health initiative) tested this recommendation in an experiment i.e. in a RCT - it had to be stopped prematurely due to excessive death rate in the HRT group.
It is now accepted (just not by Walter Willet head of the nurses health study) that the positive effect in the observational data in contrast to the experimental data is that those were completely different populations, i.e. the ones that got HRT in the observational data are those health conscious women that had access and willingness to go to Dr. and medical treatments, and that they have many more other health behaviors that promote health - and hence the small observational effect. The effect of the HRT itself if isolated like in the WHI is actually detrimental.
This is exactly the same as with western vegetarians. 

The Indian studies are deeply flawed.  The Indian population has undergone enormous changes in the 20th century, with increasing urbanisation and prosperity.  They’re suffering from all the diseases of affluence.  Claiming that their suffering from the diseases of their recent economic success is due to their longstanding vegetarian diet is just silly.

Or to put it another way.  The Indians have been on a vegetarian diet for hundreds, perhaps thousands of years.  And then recently they became urbanised, got affluent and developed high rates of type 2 diabetes and heart disease, as shown by your colleague requiring coronary artery stents.

What it demonstrates is the lethal effects of the ‘modern’ lifestyle, not the vegetarian diet.
I think this is willfully to disregard the strongest data we have, China and Korea and other Asian countries went through the same transition at basically the same time, yet not half of the diabetics in the world are Chinese.
Chinese and other Asians also have the same genetic characteristics of lower BMI for diabetes etc.
The Indian engineers in California are not just starting urbanisation - they work in Google yet the have CHD 4 times their counterparts from China, and almost all have diabetes or pre diabetes.
This is striking, mind blowing and definitive data that is consistently disregarded by nutrition "science", you can also disregard it, by concentrating only on the small effect observational studies you site, but when you dismiss a study as "flawed" you should explain specifically why it is flawed, you can't just say urbanisation, something etc....
Note that as I also wrote, India had diabetes in disproportional numbers to all other places well before the current trends, it was noted by British Dr. during the Empire and Vedic doctors long before.
i agree that current trends in availability of sugars and a diet that is not on the verge of starvation are exacerbating the effects of plant based diet, but that is the reality, but eating more fatty meat that doesn't even have a glycamic index reduces the amount of easily digestible carbs you'll eat and hence will reduce the tendency to high blood sugar and pre-diabetes and finally diabetes .
Title: Re: Episode #663
Post by: esterin on April 09, 2018, 01:26:58 PM
Well, I think it’s hypocritical trying to justify eating meat on the basis that it’s healthier than a vegetarian diet (it isn’t, I consider that the evidence shows that it’s about the same) and to go desperately to look for ‘evidence’ showing that it is.
It was just a side discussion, I do not see how it is or can be hypocritical?
The evidence doesn't show that they are about the same, some observational studies, which are invalid by the criteria for observational studies.   

If I wanted to go down the same path, I could point that prior to the 20th century, eating meat was uncommon, confined mainly to the rich and powerful, with the masses eating meat only occasionally at best and depending on bread as a staple of their diet (so they were on a high carbohydrate diet).  Meat eating increases with affluence, and the world generally has become increasingly affluent in the 20th century (even in the developing world).  So the consumption of meat has increased.  And the epidemic of heart attacks, type 2 diabetes and obesity is a modern phenomenon.

So meat-eating causes all three of these?  But I’d be committing the ecological fallacy, so I won’t.
This is not true, not even a little bit this is just type of propaganda that was entrenched by nutrition "science".
What you mean affluence,  is actually better described as the western diet, when western imperialists/traders arrived, what they brought with them, are sugar, flour and vegetable oils, which are easily transportable and do not perish  - not meat.
it is specifically not true for America which always was a meat eating country.
Either when comparing the diet before and after westernazation, the meat eating is not the big change many times it is changed in the opposite direction.
Moreover it is even more illuminating to compare the fate of populations that made the biggest transition, The plane indians (native americans) and the inuits in Canada.
They transition from perfect health and vitality (there are enough surveys that were done) to the worst health status in America or even the western world by introducing  western diet i.e. sugar and "healthy grains" into their otherwise fully animal base diets.
When actually looking at the diet transitions in detail you'll find that this argument is invalid.
The notion that the important thing in our current diet is somehow animal products is weird, when most of fast food and all products of our food industry are basically sugars and grains.
Title: Re: Episode #663
Post by: esterin on April 09, 2018, 01:40:57 PM

It's a simple case of the log in your eye vs the mote in the other fellow's eye. We all see the other fellow's hypocrisy but not our own. It's probably true that some people do it more than others, just as some people live closer to their ideals than others. But we all do it. It's not "original sin, and everybody is awful." It's just human nature. We can all justify our own actions while seeing what's wrong with the other guy's. It's like the guy who thinks that stealing bread when your kids are hungry is a crime because you should just get a job, but fudging on his own taxes just a bit is not really cheating because reasons.

I acknowledge my own hypocrisy. I'm not proud of it by any means, but I am aware of it (at least some of the time... I probably have some hypocrisies I am unaware of) and I admit it to myself and others. Notably, I think we should reduce our use of fossil fuels and I drive an electric car powered by hydro here in the PNW, but I also fly to Maui and elsewhere for vacations and I live in a bigger house than would be absolutely necessary. If you live a middle-class lifestyle you are using more resources than you need. If you also believe that people have any responsibility to society, then you are a hypocrite. Nobody is perfect, and that means we're all hypocrites.
I think you are mixing hypocrisy with using more resources than you absolutely need, it is only hypocrisy if you are an "Champagne environmentalist" like Al Gore or Leonardo DiCaprio.
I think that people have responsibility to society, but they are more preferential to themselves and their family.
There is the pesky thing of human nature of preferring your own before some unknown guy from Yemen (who would want to behead me we met), it was always in the way of radical social changes supposedly for the better. 
Title: Re: Episode #663
Post by: esterin on April 09, 2018, 01:41:44 PM
... meat is singled out as the worst crime against the environment...

Who here has made that assertion? I certainly have not. I do consider the American meat industry to be an environmental disaster, but so is the use of fossil fuels, exponential population growth, the trashing of the oceans, the paving of the land to build suburbs (one of which I live in; hypocrisy admitted), war, and probably plenty of other things that don't immediately pop to mind.
Tim44 and many many others
Title: Re: Episode #663
Post by: bachfiend on April 09, 2018, 04:18:18 PM
esterin,

You want to believe that vegetarian diets lead to type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease and eating meat prevents type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease, in order not to have to eat ‘disgusting soy food imitation products’ (i eat tofu - a soy product - which is imitation of nothing, as part of my diet, and it’s tasty).

The Singapore Chinese meat eating diet study published last year showed that there’s a positive correlation between red meat eating and type 2 diabetes, with the highest quartile of meat eating having the highest incidence of type 2 diabetes.

It’s been hypothesised that high protein diets increase insulin resistance and diabetes (because the peripheral tissues don’t respond as well to the insulin circulating), unlike high sugar diets which hypothetically cause diabetes by producing pancreatic beta-islet cell exhaustion and a deficit of insulin.

There’s a wide range of possible diets (even in ones that are lumped together as ‘vegetarian diets’ or ‘meat-eating diets’) and lifestyles, including activity levels.  You’re committing the ecological fallacy in asserting that a small portion of the vegetarian population  (Indians who have access to Western medicine and be diagnosed as having type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease, and hence have adopted many of the bad habits of the modern western lifestyle, including reduced activity, and increased obesity and sugar consumption) are characteristic of the entire population on vegetarian diets.

The evidence is that the correlation between type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease, and diet is that it’s with obesity and excessive consumption of simple sugars, such as cane sugar, not whether the diet is high (complex) carbohydrate or high protein (as in a meat eating diet).

It’s possible to be obese on a meat-eating diet, if you overdo it, and have type 2 diabetes, just as it’s possible to be obese on a high carbohydrate diet, and also have type 2 diabetes.  Diets, whether meat-eating or vegetarian,  don’t have ‘magic’ properties and prevent disease.  Or cause them.

Title: Re: Episode #663
Post by: daniel1948 on April 09, 2018, 05:32:30 PM
esterin,

You want to believe that vegetarian diets lead to type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease and eating meat prevents type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease, in order not to have to eat ‘disgusting soy food imitation products’ (i eat tofu - a soy product - which is imitation of nothing, as part of my diet, and it’s tasty).

When I quite eating meat, circa 1967, I gave some thought to whether or not to eat imitation meat. I decided not to, on the grounds that if I did, I'd never lose the taste for it and would always want the real thing. It took a year or two before I really just didn't want meat any more. After another year or two, the idea and the smell of meat had become disgusting. I had broken myself of the habit/taste of meat. I did eat some soy products, such as tofu, which I love, and tempeh, which I like. But mostly I ate veggies and grains and nuts and beans and fruits. And I did eat some dairy. I made bean burgers, which look like hamburgers, but taste exactly like beans.

Three decades later I was living in Mexico where there are, surprisingly, vegetarian restaurants. They serve imitation meat, like Boca Burger, that sort of thing. I tried it, and it tasted so much like the way I remembered meat that I didn't like it at all. I much prefered a regular restaurant where I could get beans and rice and tortillas and hot sauce. And nopales when I lived in the north. Or bean-and-potato enchiladas. Or any of the many other non-meat Mexican foods.

As Bachfiend correctly points out, a vegetarian diet does not need to include imitation meat. I'd eat the stuff if I was hungry enough, but I'd have to miss a few meals before I'd be that hungry. If they began marketing lab-grown meat, I'd be happy because it would mean fewer animals killed, but I'd have zero interest in eating it. Beans just taste so much better.
Title: Re: Episode #663
Post by: esterin on April 09, 2018, 06:06:28 PM
esterin,

You want to believe that vegetarian diets lead to type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease and eating meat prevents type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease, in order not to have to eat ‘disgusting soy food imitation products’ (i eat tofu - a soy product - which is imitation of nothing, as part of my diet, and it’s tasty).

The Singapore Chinese meat eating diet study published last year showed that there’s a positive correlation between red meat eating and type 2 diabetes, with the highest quartile of meat eating having the highest incidence of type 2 diabetes.

It’s been hypothesised that high protein diets increase insulin resistance and diabetes (because the peripheral tissues don’t respond as well to the insulin circulating), unlike high sugar diets which hypothetically cause diabetes by producing pancreatic beta-islet cell exhaustion and a deficit of insulin.
I do not want to go into hypothesized mechanisms, you first need to show there is an effect before you hypothesize a mechanisms, those small effect observational studies certainly do not show that.
Those studies are maybe enough to initiate real studies and experiments, concluding from bad observational data is a mortal sin.
Just to remind you, as I wrote, all the experiments to show this link failed miserably, left more dead people in the treatment group than in the controls.

There’s a wide range of possible diets (even in ones that are lumped together as ‘vegetarian diets’ or ‘meat-eating diets’) and lifestyles, including activity levels.  You’re committing the ecological fallacy in asserting that a small portion of the vegetarian population  (Indians who have access to Western medicine and be diagnosed as having type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease, and hence have adopted many of the bad habits of the modern western lifestyle, including reduced activity, and increased obesity and sugar consumption) are characteristic of the entire population on vegetarian diets.
This is neither an ecological fallacy nor a fallacy at all, The indian population is 1/5 of humanity and the best and greatest data point we have on what happen to people who have to eat vegetarian diets.
If being clear headed about this and impartial you have to acknowledge that the Indian population is the least biased data point we have unlike the self selected populations of western vegetarians, who are nothing like the general population they are compered to.
Moreover and I'll stress it again, the results are striking and dramatic in comparison to other populations which are similar both genetically and in terms of economic development thus enhancing our confidence that those result represent genuine discrepancy in meat consumption and not just a statistical effect of comparing different populations.

The evidence is that the correlation between type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease, and diet is that it’s with obesity and excessive consumption of simple sugars, such as cane sugar, not whether the diet is high (complex) carbohydrate or high protein (as in a meat eating diet).

It’s possible to be obese on a meat-eating diet, if you overdo it, and have type 2 diabetes, just as it’s possible to be obese on a high carbohydrate diet, and also have type 2 diabetes.  Diets, whether meat-eating or vegetarian,  don’t have ‘magic’ properties and prevent disease.  Or cause them.
The over consumption of sugars and simple carbs are a direct consequence of the nutrition "science"'s efforts to transform the diet, the insistent war on cholesterol and saturated fat, which is a thinly veiled attack on meat were certainly been successful. 

Again you simple brush the data aside, you can eat some meat and have diabetes, but your chances would be much lower for every steak you eat instead of some "healthy grain".

Actually fatty meat has "magic" properties, it has no glycemic index, meat includes everything you need, and when you eat it instead any plant matter you'll ingest no carbs at all, hence from my own experience (and it is well documented) the blood sugar is substantially reduced, how would you get diabetes with blood sugar of 70-75?
Title: Re: Episode #663
Post by: bachfiend on April 09, 2018, 07:44:19 PM
esterin,

My last fasting blood glucose level on 40 years of a vegetarian high carbohydrate/low fat diet was 4.5 mmol/l (normal range 3.5-5.4; I don’t know what it would be in mg/ volume as the Americans seem to want to record it).

How do you get type 2 diabetes with a BSL of 4.5 mmol/l?

How do you get type 2 diabetes on a high protein/high fat diet?  As a result of gluconeogenesis, which converts certain amino acids and possibly glycerol from triglycerides into glucose.  You need glucose.  Your brain, which makes up 2% of your body weight, consumes around 20% of your calorie intake, and it runs mainly on glucose, and ketones at a pinch.

Excess protein isn’t converted into muscle (unless there’s a concomitant training programme) or stored.  It’s either converted into fat, and stored, or into glucose and burned for energy.

I hardly get any fat in my diet, except for walnuts and a little hard cheese.  My fasting blood lipid profile is completely normal.  Where did the circulating triglycerides and cholesterol come from if I’m not getting them in my diet?  From the extremely complex process of metabolism which takes whatever is available as provided in the diet and converts it into what is needed, including glucose and fatty acids.

I don’t count calories or do carbohydrate analyses, but probably about 40% of my calories come from the complex carbohydrates in sourdough bread.  The glucose in the carbohydrates in sourdough bread is probably converted into free fatty acids and then burned (just as in you).  I used to be a competive marathon runner (competitive with myself, and with the clock, because I was never fast enough to be competive with anyone else - my aim was the sub-3 hour marathon which i achieved several times including two sub-2 hour 48 minute marathons).  When I was running marathons there were a lot of myths going around (they’re probably still going around), including the idea that it’s necessary to ‘carbohydrate load’ in the 3 days before the marathon in order to stuff the skeletal muscles with glycogen to supply the muscle for the entire 42.195 km.  Except it never worked, could never work; maximum glycogen stores provide only enough glucose for around 10 km with free fatty acids providing most of the energy needed.

One of my obstetrics professors once defined epidemiology as ‘the study of man broken down by age and sex.’  Epidemiology deals with population studies, looking at hopefully representative large samples of the population comparing single pairs of variables holding all the other variable constant (or at least matched) with outcome.

They’re very difficult to do, and don’t get reliable results.  At best, they suggest correlation, not causation.  You’ve provided your epidemiological studies which you claim ‘proves’ your assertion that vegetarian diets lead to type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease.  I’ve provided mine, which show that they don’t.

You’re cherry picking the studies you like in order to justify your belief.  I don’t - I don’t think there’s sufficient evidence one way or the other.

The only way of knowing for certain should be to take a very large population of 20 year olds and randomly allocated them into consuming various diets and undertaking varying levels of activity and following them up for 50 years or so for outcome, such as obesity, type 2 diabetes or cardiovascular disease.  Won’t happen.

As you’ve noted, epidemiological studies suffer from the problem that the sample of the population studied may not be representative of the population as a whole.  For example, Indians in the past who have been able to consult British doctors in the period of British control of India or Indian healers and who have had their health findings recorded (assuming that the findings are reliable) are relatively well off and not representative of the general population.  Or Indians migrating to America to work in IT aren’t representative of all vegetarians in general.

And one study you linked to, the LOOK AHEAD study, which was trying to test whether dietary manipulation (decreasing animal products and increasing fruit and vegetables) and increased activity led to improved cardiovascular outcome in already diagnosed type 2 diabetics.  It made no difference - it didn’t cause increased deaths or cardiovascular events, so the study was terminated.

It says nothing, absolutely nothing, about whether vegetarian diets prevent or cause type 2 diabetes.  I’ve provided the figures from studies showing that it’s obesity that has the strongest correlation.
Title: Re: Episode #663
Post by: lonely moa on April 09, 2018, 09:56:24 PM
The Minnesota Coronary Experiment and the Sydney Heart Study, both large and well controlled experiments, lead to higher mortality in the experimental arms; the arms that substituted PUFA's for saturated fat. 
Title: Re: Episode #663
Post by: bachfiend on April 09, 2018, 10:46:27 PM
The Minnesota Coronary Experiment and the Sydney Heart Study, both large and well controlled experiments, lead to higher mortality in the experimental arms; the arms that substituted PUFA's for saturated fat.

And your point?  Both are old unpublished studies (examining dietary recommendations of the time, including substituting margarine for butter; I avoid both) recently reanalysed.

They’re not looking at vegetarian diets per se.  And both are short term studies.  Someone who dies from a heart attack in a nursing home after being put on the study diet for months or a year or so (the length of time of the studies) obviously already had cardiovascular disease.  It’s a study of regression of disease on a diet, not prevention of the disease by diet.  I’m not particularly surprised by the results.
Title: Re: Episode #663
Post by: lonely moa on April 10, 2018, 02:47:41 AM
The Minnesota Coronary Experiment and the Sydney Heart Study, both large and well controlled experiments, lead to higher mortality in the experimental arms; the arms that substituted PUFA's for saturated fat.

And your point?  Both are old unpublished studies (examining dietary recommendations of the time, including substituting margarine for butter; I avoid both) recently reanalysed.

They’re not looking at vegetarian diets per se.  And both are short term studies.  Someone who dies from a heart attack in a nursing home after being put on the study diet for months or a year or so (the length of time of the studies) obviously already had cardiovascular disease.  It’s a study of regression of disease on a diet, not prevention of the disease by diet.  I’m not particularly surprised by the results.

Not surprised that polyunsaturated fats hastened the demise over the saturated fat eating arm?  I'm not surprised.
Title: Re: Episode #663
Post by: bachfiend on April 10, 2018, 03:05:34 AM
The Minnesota Coronary Experiment and the Sydney Heart Study, both large and well controlled experiments, lead to higher mortality in the experimental arms; the arms that substituted PUFA's for saturated fat.

And your point?  Both are old unpublished studies (examining dietary recommendations of the time, including substituting margarine for butter; I avoid both) recently reanalysed.

They’re not looking at vegetarian diets per se.  And both are short term studies.  Someone who dies from a heart attack in a nursing home after being put on the study diet for months or a year or so (the length of time of the studies) obviously already had cardiovascular disease.  It’s a study of regression of disease on a diet, not prevention of the disease by diet.  I’m not particularly surprised by the results.

Not surprised that polyunsaturated fats hastened the demise over the saturated fat eating arm?  I'm not surprised.

I’m still not certain what point you’re trying to make.  The unsaturated fats that are dangerous, and which should be eliminated as much as possible from the diet since there’s no safe level of them, are the trans-(unsaturated) fats.  The cis-fats are perfectly OK.  The trans-fats occur in a wide variety of food, including those of animal origin.

The two old studies referred to were from the ‘60s when the danger of trans-fats wasn’t realised, and part of the comparison was between saturated fats and trans-fats, which in retrospect gave the obvious result.

But what point are you trying to make?  The subjects must already have had cardiovascular disease.  The studies were to see if changing diet could reverse disease already present (it didn’t) not prevent disease.
Title: Re: Episode #663
Post by: lonely moa on April 11, 2018, 05:28:25 AM
The Minnesota Coronary Experiment and the Sydney Heart Study, both large and well controlled experiments, lead to higher mortality in the experimental arms; the arms that substituted PUFA's for saturated fat.

And your point?  Both are old unpublished studies (examining dietary recommendations of the time, including substituting margarine for butter; I avoid both) recently reanalysed.

They’re not looking at vegetarian diets per se.  And both are short term studies.  Someone who dies from a heart attack in a nursing home after being put on the study diet for months or a year or so (the length of time of the studies) obviously already had cardiovascular disease.  It’s a study of regression of disease on a diet, not prevention of the disease by diet.  I’m not particularly surprised by the results.

Not surprised that polyunsaturated fats hastened the demise over the saturated fat eating arm?  I'm not surprised.

I’m still not certain what point you’re trying to make.  The unsaturated fats that are dangerous, and which should be eliminated as much as possible from the diet since there’s no safe level of them, are the trans-(unsaturated) fats.  The cis-fats are perfectly OK.  The trans-fats occur in a wide variety of food, including those of animal origin.

The two old studies referred to were from the ‘60s when the danger of trans-fats wasn’t realised, and part of the comparison was between saturated fats and trans-fats, which in retrospect gave the obvious result.

But what point are you trying to make?  The subjects must already have had cardiovascular disease.  The studies were to see if changing diet could reverse disease already present (it didn’t) not prevent disease.

I don't think the members the experimental arm were supplied with trans fats, just run of the mill vegetable seed oils, safflower oil in thecae of the SHS.   
Title: Re: Episode #663
Post by: bachfiend on April 11, 2018, 05:59:40 AM
The Minnesota Coronary Experiment and the Sydney Heart Study, both large and well controlled experiments, lead to higher mortality in the experimental arms; the arms that substituted PUFA's for saturated fat.

And your point?  Both are old unpublished studies (examining dietary recommendations of the time, including substituting margarine for butter; I avoid both) recently reanalysed.

They’re not looking at vegetarian diets per se.  And both are short term studies.  Someone who dies from a heart attack in a nursing home after being put on the study diet for months or a year or so (the length of time of the studies) obviously already had cardiovascular disease.  It’s a study of regression of disease on a diet, not prevention of the disease by diet.  I’m not particularly surprised by the results.

Not surprised that polyunsaturated fats hastened the demise over the saturated fat eating arm?  I'm not surprised.

I’m still not certain what point you’re trying to make.  The unsaturated fats that are dangerous, and which should be eliminated as much as possible from the diet since there’s no safe level of them, are the trans-(unsaturated) fats.  The cis-fats are perfectly OK.  The trans-fats occur in a wide variety of food, including those of animal origin.

The two old studies referred to were from the ‘60s when the danger of trans-fats wasn’t realised, and part of the comparison was between saturated fats and trans-fats, which in retrospect gave the obvious result.

But what point are you trying to make?  The subjects must already have had cardiovascular disease.  The studies were to see if changing diet could reverse disease already present (it didn’t) not prevent disease.

I don't think the members the experimental arm were supplied with trans fats, just run of the mill vegetable seed oils, safflower oil in thecae of the SHS.

How do you know?  The studies were done a long time ago and weren’t published anyway.  It was only recently that the results were found and reanalysed for publication.  At the time, there was a fad for trans fats as a panacea for heart disease (similar to today’s fad for high fat/low carbohydrate ketogenic diets).