Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.
This decades “health woo”
Replies
-
janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »laurenq1991 wrote: »
This is now common knowledge.And where in the world did I advocate that everyone should eat all meat? I have argued that some are healthier eating almost all meat and that they should not be pressured to cut back, and worsen their health by really weak claims that cow gas is destroying the environment. The amount of people eating that way is miniscule. The argument is ridiculous.
It was implied that you think people with IR should eat this diet (a lot of the population) and you have been vocal in your support for carnivory in other threads.
I think low carb is an excellent option for those with IR (PCOS, T2D, NAFLD, prediabetes, and some forms of Alzheimer's). Some can improve their condition with just weight loss but IR is a lifestyle disease where not all are overweight.You want a citation for why I don't believe that restricting meat intake would make a greater impact on the environment that better farming practices would? For my belief? Because I have seen no evidence to prove otherwise? That makes no sense.
Uh...yeah? You're making a (supposedly) scientific claim. Scientific claims are backed up by evidence. They aren't "beliefs," they're "findings." There's plenty of studies out there on the environmental impact of certain foods and those studies do not on the whole support your claim.
I am not agreeing with your claims. I think it is on you to bring in the evidence.I advocate for the right for people to eat the best diet for their best health without lame environmental claims being made in an effort to stop them.
Oh so it sounds like you believe in the ol' "environmentalists are lying to force everyone to be vegan" conspiracy. Well again, where is the evidence of that?
Strawman.
I disagree with you therefore I am irrational and must be in an extremist group?I'm all for helping the environment, but I think advocating a diet for the world based on weak evidence that less meat will help the environment, and no evidence that less meat is healthier for people, is a bad idea put together by a powerful few who are pushing a misinformed agenda.
Citation needed. Also you may be old and not have that many years left and so you don't care if the deluge comes after you, but the rest of us have to live here and the effects of climate change are going to be way worse for the collective health of humanity than some carbs.
You want citation that the creators have an agenda? Again, not sure what you want here.
EAT was set up through billionaire vegans who are animal activists. Walter Willet, long known to be pro vegan and vegetarian, was in the lead.
I am 44.More sugar than beef. LOL
That's way less refined sugar than what the average Westerner eats, 25g if it's a 2000 calorie diet which is the recommended limit. They're probably basing it on that to be realistic (like if they said don't eat refined sugar on top of all the other changes people would be less likely to agree).
But regardless of any one organization's example recommendations you have no support for your claims on the environment and never have. If you did you would post that evidence.
I did not say cutting back on sugar is bad. I laugh at the fact that they recommend more sugars than beef, pork, and poultry combined. Awesome...
Walter Willet doesn't appear to be a billionaire *or* a vegan. What billionaire vegans are you referring to and what does Walter Willet have to do with either category?
Interestingly, it looks like his research was responsible for discerning that trans-fat, rather than saturated fat, was the problem in relation to heart disease, and took some heat for being "pro-fat" back in the day. While I didn't find anything I would feel comfortable quoting as a source, I get the impression he stresses limiting, not eliminating animal sources of food. He is actually a rather fascinating character, and I'm going to research him more!
I only had time to skim, but it looks to me like EAT is more about sustainability and environmental concerns, not health per se, am I reading it right?
Yeah, the quotes I saw just now were him talking favorably about the Mediterranean-style diet, specifically including fish. He does seem to come down on the side on the average person eating *more* plant foods, but that obviously doesn't equate to veganism.
I wish I had more time for this today.
Willet is not vegan but is pro vegan and vegetarian. I believe he eats vegetarian but us not 100% strict about it.
This article from a few years ago see to portray him accurately. He is a very well known epidemiogist who is excellent at correlating health issues from data, and has heavily influenced US food recommendations for many years.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bostonglobe.com/magazine/2013/07/27/what-eat-harvard-walter-willett-thinks-has-answers/5WL3MIVdzHCN2ypfpFB6WP/amp.html
I dont agree with all of his conclusions (like meat causing t2d or people keeping sodium under 1500mg) but he is an epidemiologist who shows possible correlation and not causation, so that makes sense.
I don't understand what it means to be "pro-vegan" while one isn't vegan. Can you explain exactly what that means to you? If he is wanting others to be vegan, why refrain from choosing that for himself? In the article you choose to share, he's described as eating both fish and yogurt and there is no indication that his dietary advice is driven by concern about animal exploitation.
In any case, he's not one of the multiple billionaire vegans you were referring to above. Can you clarify who you were referring to when you wrote "EAT was set up through billionaire vegans who are animal activists. Walter Willet, long known to be pro vegan and vegetarian, was in the lead."
Walter Willet isn't vegan and he isn't a billionaire, so we know it isn't him.9 -
laurenq1991 wrote: »If you read what I wrote, compliance is key. For anyone to succeed, they have to be able to adhere. It's why I pointed out, most agencies aren't willing to recommend highly restrictive diets. Why? Because compliance tends to be terrible as compared to having more focused approach on limiting foods. It's also worth noting that most of the benefits of "diets" are actually driven by weight loss and exercise. But for short term improvements, especially if one is in very poor health, would benefit from lowering carbohydrates. At the very least, do it until one is able to lose weight and improve metabolic markers.
Well, yeah...who wants to eat nothing but meat and vegetables for the rest of their life? But that's the point. If people aren't going to adhere to a diet, and worse will go out and binge on sugar and refined carbs after they can't take it anymore, then it's not a realistic diet. If a diet is going to contribute to tanking the ecosystem which will cause even worse health effects long-term, then it's not a realistic diet. If most of the benefits are from weight loss and exercise, which I agree with and is exactly what I said before, then there's no point adopting this diet. The carnivore and keto people are not generally advocating it as a short-term fix.
I also don't see doctors advocating carnivore or keto for diabetes and IR. If they do advocate a low-carb diet, which is not always, it's generally a moderate low-carb diet where whole grains and legumes are allowed, which doesn't necessarily mean eating more animal products but does mean changing which foods are eaten. Usually though the recommendations are just to cut out the usual "unhealthy" culprits, lose weight, and exercise. The evidence that I presented indicates that low-carb diets, and especially the extreme low-carb diets being discussed, are generally not necessary to manage diabetes and may raise additional health concerns.
I guess the question is what "low-carb" means in this debate. I agree carbs *may* need to be limited to some extent for some people that have diabetes (though again, not all). But "low carb diet" in the public lexicon currently means "no grains or legumes." A 150g carbs/day diet would have room for whole grains and legumes and could even be done vegetarian or vegan.Additionally, I never advocated for keto or carnivore. Any diet that you are unable to get adequate fiber, is ridiculous. There are tons of meta-analyses showing the benefits of fibrous foods. Fibrous foods in general have been correlated to improved mortality, reduced risk of CVD, stroke and many cancers. This is personally why I am a huge believer in diets in whole grains, fruits, veggies, adequate levels of proteins (1.5-2.2.g/kg) and fats (especially Omega 3s PUFA and MUFAs). In fact, while I cut, I limit fats because they aren't satiating compared to proteins and fiber. Also, the thermogenic effects of protein and fiber are nice boost to metabolism, albeit small.
Furthermore, not once did I advocate for an all meat based or largely meat based diets. There are plenty of plant based proteins that are healthy and beneficial. Personally, I recommend limiting SFA, just like added sugar, because there is no benefit from them. In fact, I am running a n=1 this year. I am working to reduce SFA and replace it with more fish and plant based proteins (like yakisoba). I am also working on incorporating more veggies.
So then I'm not sure what we are debating about? This is exactly what I am saying. I was responding to the poster who eats a carnivore diet (they posted about this on a carnivore diet thread recently) and insists that people with IR should eat diets comprised mostly or entirely of animal products. This person insists that beef is good for the environment if farmed sustainably, despite a huge amount of evidence to the contrary. They also said in their original post on this thread as examples of "woo":That we need grains.
Fibre's necessity.
Basically this person is presenting prime examples of woo as "the truth."
The arguments I have are around the efficacy of low carb and ketogenic diets as it relates to diabetes and insulin resistance. They provide a short term and can even provide a long term advantage in terms of efficacy. Just because they aren't necessary doesn't mean it isn't advantageous. You can similarly have this argument regarding a brosplit vs full body. Both work, but one works better than another. Now, the more insulin resistant one is, the more carb restriction becomes a bit more necessary. Why? Because the more insulin resistant one is, the more likely carbs will convert to fat. The more insulin sensitive one is, the less likely. This is why it's recommend you become lean prior to bulking. And obese people tend to be more insulin resistant.
As an aside, I do know doctors who advocate for low carb diets. In fact, my wife has PCOS and her doctor advocated for it.
I don't argue the environmental aspects because I don't have the knowledge to put a good faith effort. I question that a person should follow one diet vs the other. I rather suspect that a balance of meats and veggies (especially based on season) is probably a bit more realistic.1 -
The arguments I have are around the efficacy of low carb and ketogenic diets as it relates to diabetes and insulin resistance. They provide a short term and can even provide a long term advantage in terms of efficacy. Just because they aren't necessary doesn't mean it isn't advantageous. You can similarly have this argument regarding a brosplit vs full body. Both work, but one works better than another. Now, the more insulin resistant one is, the more carb restriction becomes a bit more necessary. Why? Because the more insulin resistant one is, the more likely carbs will convert to fat. The more insulin sensitive one is, the less likely. This is why it's recommend you become lean prior to bulking. And obese people tend to be more insulin resistant.
As an aside, I do know doctors who advocate for low carb diets. In fact, my wife has PCOS and her doctor advocated for it.
I don't argue the environmental aspects because I don't have the knowledge to put a good faith effort. I question that a person should follow one diet vs the other. I rather suspect that a balance of meats and veggies (especially based on season) is probably a bit more realistic.
I don't think there is enough evidence that it provides a big advantage as opposed to just an overall healthful balanced diet. The study that I posted before, which is a meta-analysis of many different studies, states, as I quoted, that there is evidence that these diets not only do not produce significantly greater weight loss (and there is a strong link between weight and diabetes as we know), but also might lead to other negative health effects long term. And that's if people even stick to it which most do not. There's also evidence that greater meat consumption leads to increased risk of diabetes (there are many other studies about this but these are just some examples):
https://www.harvardmagazine.com/2012/01/a-diabetes-link-to-meat
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/09/170905134506.htm
Some doctors advocate low carb diets but generally not the extreme low carbs of a carnivore or keto diet. It's possible that they do this because it's easier to tell patients to get rid of all of it, than to tell them to remember the whole glycemic index and what foods are 100% whole grain and so on. I've been working on reducing refined flour and sugar, and I can tell you companies LOVE to sneak white flour in about 95% of products marketed as whole wheat, and sneak sugar in everything. But legumes are very low on the glycemic index (20-30s) and are pretty much some of the healthiest foods around, as well as cheap and filling, so I can't really imagine that most doctors would say a diabetic patient can never eat them again even if they are higher in carbs than meat, and I haven't found information from reputable sources online telling people with diabetes and IR not to eat them.
Technically though, less restrictive low-carb diets are doable with low or no animal products, especially if they are high in fat like keto, which would get around the original argument that a meatless diet is impossible for people with IR, and make this whole argument pointless.
Honestly I feel like I'm just repeating myself at this point.2 -
janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »laurenq1991 wrote: »
This is now common knowledge.And where in the world did I advocate that everyone should eat all meat? I have argued that some are healthier eating almost all meat and that they should not be pressured to cut back, and worsen their health by really weak claims that cow gas is destroying the environment. The amount of people eating that way is miniscule. The argument is ridiculous.
It was implied that you think people with IR should eat this diet (a lot of the population) and you have been vocal in your support for carnivory in other threads.
I think low carb is an excellent option for those with IR (PCOS, T2D, NAFLD, prediabetes, and some forms of Alzheimer's). Some can improve their condition with just weight loss but IR is a lifestyle disease where not all are overweight.You want a citation for why I don't believe that restricting meat intake would make a greater impact on the environment that better farming practices would? For my belief? Because I have seen no evidence to prove otherwise? That makes no sense.
Uh...yeah? You're making a (supposedly) scientific claim. Scientific claims are backed up by evidence. They aren't "beliefs," they're "findings." There's plenty of studies out there on the environmental impact of certain foods and those studies do not on the whole support your claim.
I am not agreeing with your claims. I think it is on you to bring in the evidence.I advocate for the right for people to eat the best diet for their best health without lame environmental claims being made in an effort to stop them.
Oh so it sounds like you believe in the ol' "environmentalists are lying to force everyone to be vegan" conspiracy. Well again, where is the evidence of that?
Strawman.
I disagree with you therefore I am irrational and must be in an extremist group?I'm all for helping the environment, but I think advocating a diet for the world based on weak evidence that less meat will help the environment, and no evidence that less meat is healthier for people, is a bad idea put together by a powerful few who are pushing a misinformed agenda.
Citation needed. Also you may be old and not have that many years left and so you don't care if the deluge comes after you, but the rest of us have to live here and the effects of climate change are going to be way worse for the collective health of humanity than some carbs.
You want citation that the creators have an agenda? Again, not sure what you want here.
EAT was set up through billionaire vegans who are animal activists. Walter Willet, long known to be pro vegan and vegetarian, was in the lead.
I am 44.More sugar than beef. LOL
That's way less refined sugar than what the average Westerner eats, 25g if it's a 2000 calorie diet which is the recommended limit. They're probably basing it on that to be realistic (like if they said don't eat refined sugar on top of all the other changes people would be less likely to agree).
But regardless of any one organization's example recommendations you have no support for your claims on the environment and never have. If you did you would post that evidence.
I did not say cutting back on sugar is bad. I laugh at the fact that they recommend more sugars than beef, pork, and poultry combined. Awesome...
Walter Willet doesn't appear to be a billionaire *or* a vegan. What billionaire vegans are you referring to and what does Walter Willet have to do with either category?
Interestingly, it looks like his research was responsible for discerning that trans-fat, rather than saturated fat, was the problem in relation to heart disease, and took some heat for being "pro-fat" back in the day. While I didn't find anything I would feel comfortable quoting as a source, I get the impression he stresses limiting, not eliminating animal sources of food. He is actually a rather fascinating character, and I'm going to research him more!
I only had time to skim, but it looks to me like EAT is more about sustainability and environmental concerns, not health per se, am I reading it right?
Yeah, the quotes I saw just now were him talking favorably about the Mediterranean-style diet, specifically including fish. He does seem to come down on the side on the average person eating *more* plant foods, but that obviously doesn't equate to veganism.
I wish I had more time for this today.
Willet is not vegan but is pro vegan and vegetarian. I believe he eats vegetarian but us not 100% strict about it.
This article from a few years ago see to portray him accurately. He is a very well known epidemiogist who is excellent at correlating health issues from data, and has heavily influenced US food recommendations for many years.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bostonglobe.com/magazine/2013/07/27/what-eat-harvard-walter-willett-thinks-has-answers/5WL3MIVdzHCN2ypfpFB6WP/amp.html
I dont agree with all of his conclusions (like meat causing t2d or people keeping sodium under 1500mg) but he is an epidemiologist who shows possible correlation and not causation, so that makes sense.
I don't understand what it means to be "pro-vegan" while one isn't vegan. Can you explain exactly what that means to you? If he is wanting others to be vegan, why refrain from choosing that for himself? In the article you choose to share, he's described as eating both fish and yogurt and there is no indication that his dietary advice is driven by concern about animal exploitation.
In any case, he's not one of the multiple billionaire vegans you were referring to above. Can you clarify who you were referring to when you wrote "EAT was set up through billionaire vegans who are animal activists. Walter Willet, long known to be pro vegan and vegetarian, was in the lead."
Walter Willet isn't vegan and he isn't a billionaire, so we know it isn't him.
Pro vegan, in my mind , is someone who encourages that way of eating whether or not they do it. He recommendations are often vegan, vegetarian and low in meat. I don't think o be needs to be fully vegan to encourage it.
I never said Willet was a billionaire, or a vegan, funding the report. He was a lead contributor. Sort of like how NuSi would fund research but they are not the authors or doing the research like Hall or Ludwig.12 -
janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »laurenq1991 wrote: »
This is now common knowledge.And where in the world did I advocate that everyone should eat all meat? I have argued that some are healthier eating almost all meat and that they should not be pressured to cut back, and worsen their health by really weak claims that cow gas is destroying the environment. The amount of people eating that way is miniscule. The argument is ridiculous.
It was implied that you think people with IR should eat this diet (a lot of the population) and you have been vocal in your support for carnivory in other threads.
I think low carb is an excellent option for those with IR (PCOS, T2D, NAFLD, prediabetes, and some forms of Alzheimer's). Some can improve their condition with just weight loss but IR is a lifestyle disease where not all are overweight.You want a citation for why I don't believe that restricting meat intake would make a greater impact on the environment that better farming practices would? For my belief? Because I have seen no evidence to prove otherwise? That makes no sense.
Uh...yeah? You're making a (supposedly) scientific claim. Scientific claims are backed up by evidence. They aren't "beliefs," they're "findings." There's plenty of studies out there on the environmental impact of certain foods and those studies do not on the whole support your claim.
I am not agreeing with your claims. I think it is on you to bring in the evidence.I advocate for the right for people to eat the best diet for their best health without lame environmental claims being made in an effort to stop them.
Oh so it sounds like you believe in the ol' "environmentalists are lying to force everyone to be vegan" conspiracy. Well again, where is the evidence of that?
Strawman.
I disagree with you therefore I am irrational and must be in an extremist group?I'm all for helping the environment, but I think advocating a diet for the world based on weak evidence that less meat will help the environment, and no evidence that less meat is healthier for people, is a bad idea put together by a powerful few who are pushing a misinformed agenda.
Citation needed. Also you may be old and not have that many years left and so you don't care if the deluge comes after you, but the rest of us have to live here and the effects of climate change are going to be way worse for the collective health of humanity than some carbs.
You want citation that the creators have an agenda? Again, not sure what you want here.
EAT was set up through billionaire vegans who are animal activists. Walter Willet, long known to be pro vegan and vegetarian, was in the lead.
I am 44.More sugar than beef. LOL
That's way less refined sugar than what the average Westerner eats, 25g if it's a 2000 calorie diet which is the recommended limit. They're probably basing it on that to be realistic (like if they said don't eat refined sugar on top of all the other changes people would be less likely to agree).
But regardless of any one organization's example recommendations you have no support for your claims on the environment and never have. If you did you would post that evidence.
I did not say cutting back on sugar is bad. I laugh at the fact that they recommend more sugars than beef, pork, and poultry combined. Awesome...
Walter Willet doesn't appear to be a billionaire *or* a vegan. What billionaire vegans are you referring to and what does Walter Willet have to do with either category?
I said Willet was pro vegan and vegetarian. Low fat low meat plant based has been his agenda for a long time.
The Stordalen Foundation is the main contributor.
https://eatforum.org/partner/stordalen-foundation/
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/globe-trotting-billionaire-behind-campaign-13872067.amp&ved=2ahUKEwjn8uuvyv_fAhWpGTQIHXz9Ct0QFjAHegQIAxAB&usg=AOvVaw3o4xHFqjhYzys-pf1dpwwL&cf=1
That article from the Mirror claims that Gunhild Storadalen is a vegetarian. I'm still not clear how this would invalidate anything or how it relates to veganism.
When you refer to "billionaire vegans," who were you referring to?
Surely you wouldn't argue that someone couldn't have an valid opinion on environmental issues or health concerns because they ate meat, I mean, you have opinions on environmental issues. So why is choosing not to eat meat something that makes someone else's opinion less valid?
Do you have evidence that the Storadalen Foundation engaged in scientific malpractice or inappropriate pressure?
Why the focus on this instead of on the report itself?
I had read elsewhere that she was vegan. It could have been wrong.
Billionaire vegetarian, then... It is unsurprising that a vegetarian would fund this line of report. What would be surprising is if a someone eating like a carnivore funded the report.
What does scientific malpractice or inappropriate pressure have to do with anything? Anyone can write fiction, or what I originally called woo - a diet low in protein, high in starchy grain, polyunsaturated plant based oils, low in meat (such as the equivalent of 1.5 chicken nuggets a day) for everyone in the world, regardless of where they live, to supposedly help save the environment.
Vegetarianism is fine. Advocating a near vegetarian diet for everyone to save the world is not.
11 -
janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »laurenq1991 wrote: »
This is now common knowledge.And where in the world did I advocate that everyone should eat all meat? I have argued that some are healthier eating almost all meat and that they should not be pressured to cut back, and worsen their health by really weak claims that cow gas is destroying the environment. The amount of people eating that way is miniscule. The argument is ridiculous.
It was implied that you think people with IR should eat this diet (a lot of the population) and you have been vocal in your support for carnivory in other threads.
I think low carb is an excellent option for those with IR (PCOS, T2D, NAFLD, prediabetes, and some forms of Alzheimer's). Some can improve their condition with just weight loss but IR is a lifestyle disease where not all are overweight.You want a citation for why I don't believe that restricting meat intake would make a greater impact on the environment that better farming practices would? For my belief? Because I have seen no evidence to prove otherwise? That makes no sense.
Uh...yeah? You're making a (supposedly) scientific claim. Scientific claims are backed up by evidence. They aren't "beliefs," they're "findings." There's plenty of studies out there on the environmental impact of certain foods and those studies do not on the whole support your claim.
I am not agreeing with your claims. I think it is on you to bring in the evidence.I advocate for the right for people to eat the best diet for their best health without lame environmental claims being made in an effort to stop them.
Oh so it sounds like you believe in the ol' "environmentalists are lying to force everyone to be vegan" conspiracy. Well again, where is the evidence of that?
Strawman.
I disagree with you therefore I am irrational and must be in an extremist group?I'm all for helping the environment, but I think advocating a diet for the world based on weak evidence that less meat will help the environment, and no evidence that less meat is healthier for people, is a bad idea put together by a powerful few who are pushing a misinformed agenda.
Citation needed. Also you may be old and not have that many years left and so you don't care if the deluge comes after you, but the rest of us have to live here and the effects of climate change are going to be way worse for the collective health of humanity than some carbs.
You want citation that the creators have an agenda? Again, not sure what you want here.
EAT was set up through billionaire vegans who are animal activists. Walter Willet, long known to be pro vegan and vegetarian, was in the lead.
I am 44.More sugar than beef. LOL
That's way less refined sugar than what the average Westerner eats, 25g if it's a 2000 calorie diet which is the recommended limit. They're probably basing it on that to be realistic (like if they said don't eat refined sugar on top of all the other changes people would be less likely to agree).
But regardless of any one organization's example recommendations you have no support for your claims on the environment and never have. If you did you would post that evidence.
I did not say cutting back on sugar is bad. I laugh at the fact that they recommend more sugars than beef, pork, and poultry combined. Awesome...
Walter Willet doesn't appear to be a billionaire *or* a vegan. What billionaire vegans are you referring to and what does Walter Willet have to do with either category?
Interestingly, it looks like his research was responsible for discerning that trans-fat, rather than saturated fat, was the problem in relation to heart disease, and took some heat for being "pro-fat" back in the day. While I didn't find anything I would feel comfortable quoting as a source, I get the impression he stresses limiting, not eliminating animal sources of food. He is actually a rather fascinating character, and I'm going to research him more!
I only had time to skim, but it looks to me like EAT is more about sustainability and environmental concerns, not health per se, am I reading it right?
That is my problem with the diet. They are recommending a global diet based on environmental issues and not what is best for health for all.
I think it's pretty well accepted that trans fats aren't good for human health. That's not an environmental concern, it's actually based on research.
?
What do transfats have to do with EAT except that Willet was one of many to recognize them as unhealthy, many years ago? Past correlations do not mean this recommendation is healthier than if you ignore, at least parts, of it.1 -
Seeing no evidence to the contrary should induce an agnostism, not a belief in the opposition. Even just appealing to prior tradition would be a better justificatory path.laurenq1991 wrote: »Your arguments don't really address the issue. Flying and cars are huge sources of carbon emissions. Cows grazing on a pasture land (aka, carbon sink with no or little use of tractors) is a sound practice when compared to clear cutting forests in Brasil to raise cows in an area where they should not be. I looked at your evidence on our last debate. I did not ignore it. I dismissed it as weak and not relevant to what I was saying.
Except science says you are wrong and I posted research last time showing that even the most sustainably raised beef is worse for the environment than most other foods. You provided no evidence against it besides telling me to read a book by a beef farmer with no environmental science credentials.I also did not say vegetarianism is bad, nor that none should do it, or that it cannot be done healthfully. The fact that you and your husband do it and are healthy is awesome. My MIL and FIL are fat vegetarians of multiple years with health problems. When I was an undiagnosed celiac with developing IR (at a normal weight) I was running half marathons on the weekends, climbing mountains after work, and could bench press my weight. So what? n=1 means very little except that you found something that is working for you right now.
Of course you can be fat as a vegetarian if you eat too many calories. Of course you can develop insulin resistance if you eat a crappy diet (or even if you don't and have unlucky genes). It was just an example. I posted studies last time on the health of balanced diets that include healthy carbs. But you implied in your last post that eating carbs of any kind in significant quantity causes insulin resistance for a significant percentage of people and looking at the historical data that is simply not true. How do you explain the carb-heavy traditional diets of most of the world?My 14 year old son was prescribed more red meat by his doctor when his low iron levels would not improve - it worked.
That doesnt mean eat a diet comprised primarily of red meat which is what you advocate.Realistically speaking, reducing animal products is not for all, or even most.
Citation needed.I don't believe that restricting meat intake would make a greater impact on the environment that better faring practices would either.
Citation needed.And I never said that humans in general are not meant to eat carbs. I have no idea where you got that.
At the very least a large minority of North America is dealing with insulin resistance. That many carbs is not going to work for many.I think humans have evolved to eat appropriately to their environment, and eat almost anything.
Which is why you advocate a highly restricted diet of a few foods.
Also you can be an omnivore and not eat beef and still cut your food emissions by a huge amount just by giving up beef (and lamb) and still eating other meats. Even more so if you give up dairy also or even just the high impact dairy like cheese and Greek yogurt.
You are misquoting me. badly. For the last time, I did not say that eating carbs of any kind in large quantities causes insulin resistance. Look at Ornish.
I did not say:You said eating diets with significant carbs does not work for people with insulin resistance.
I did say
And I stand by that. A diet of 50+% carbs is not going to work for many with IR.At the very least a large minority of North America is dealing with insulin resistance. That many carbs is not going to work for many.
And where in the world did I advocate that everyone should eat all meat? I have argued that some are healthier eating almost all meat and that they should not be pressured to cut back, and worsen their health by really weak claims that cow gas is destroying the environment. The amount of people eating that way is miniscule. The argument is ridiculous.
You want a citation for why I don't believe that restricting meat intake would make a greater impact on the environment that better farming practices would? For my belief? Because I have seen no evidence to prove otherwise? That makes no sense.
Well now there is weak evidence but you believe the opposite?I advocate for the right for people to eat the best diet for their best health without lame environmental claims being made in an effort to stop them. I'm all for helping the environment, but I think advocating a diet for the world based on weak evidence that less meat will help the environment, and no evidence that less meat is healthier for people, is a bad idea put together by a powerful few who are pushing a misinformed agenda. Woo.
Not sure what the point of the genetic fallacy is beyond sounding like a conspiracy theorist.
So, the eating patterns of most blue zone people is "LOL"? Is that just in reference to sweetners? I'm willing to place bets on the sweeteners being a limit rather than a suggested minimum or balanced target if one digs into the source rather than arguing about a graph.This is what EAT recommends:
More sugar than beef. LOL
Certainly you take the beef as a limiter? Or would you think there is a minimum of beef people should need to consume?
10 -
Anyone can write fiction, or what I originally called woo
Studies from a peer-reviewed journal are less likely to be fiction than the unsubstantiated opinions of a random person on the MFP forums, yet you're just expecting everyone to automatically believe you without presenting any evidence even though other people have presented evidence from studies. Do you even realize how ridiculous that is?a diet low in protein
You're just assuming that a plant-based diet is low in protein. I get typically around 90g of protein per day on a mostly vegetarian diet (I have fish about once a week) of 2000-2100 cals/day (and I don't usually have protein powder either). Today for example I got 98g in 2002 calories. Every reputable source I can find says this is more than enough protein for someone of my size. In fact there is evidence that too much protein is detrimental to health.
https://www.health.harvard.edu/diet-and-weight-loss/when-it-comes-to-protein-how-much-is-too-muchhigh in starchy grain
Where is the evidence that whole grains are unhealthy?polyunsaturated plant based oils
Where is the evidence that non-refined oils are unhealthy?Vegetarianism is fine. Advocating a near vegetarian diet for everyone to save the world is not.
Sorry you don't like the facts? I don't really know what to tell you at this point.
I also don't know why you're still so hung up on this one set of recommendations. These are example recommendations, it's not like someone is going to put you in prison if you don't eat exactly 6% of your daily calories from peanuts. There's plenty of evidence out there about the environmental impact of animal agriculture. There are also plenty of eating plans low in animal products that look nothing like this sample plan. Either present some scientific studies actually indicating that beef farming is good for the environment or admit you are wrong and just want an excuse to eat nothing but beef and not feel bad about it.
1 -
@laurenq1991 there is significant amounts of evidence contrary to what that Harvard link suggests, even more so during weight loss. Here is just a small sample of recent meta analysis. If you want about 50 more, i can provide them, too. The RDA is significantly suboptimal, unless your only goal is to prevent malnourishment.
http://www.nrcresearchpress.com/doi/pdf/10.1139/apnm-2015-0549
And in all honesty, i will take my advice on protein from Layne Norton, Eric Helms or Brad Schoenfeld.. essentially the PhD who actually study protein metabolism.0 -
@laurenq1991 there is significant amounts of evidence contrary to what that Harvard link suggests, even more so during weight loss. Here is just a small sample of recent meta analysis. If you want about 50 more, i can provide them, too. The RDA is significantly suboptimal, unless your only goal is to prevent malnourishment.
http://www.nrcresearchpress.com/doi/pdf/10.1139/apnm-2015-0549
And in all honesty, i will take my advice on protein from Layne Norton, Eric Helms or Brad Schoenfeld.. essentially the PhD who actually study protein metabolism.
The RDA is like 46g for someone of my size. Pretty much everyone gets more than the RDA. This also doesn't really contradict the Harvard study because this study recommends 1.5g/kg-2.2g/kg of protein, and the Harvard study recommends limiting to no more than 2.2g/kg of protein. More importantly they don't really describe any really bad adverse effects from not getting a ton of protein, whereas things like diabetes and climate catastrophe are pretty terrible consequences of certain diets.
Layne Norton doesn't seem very professional going by his social media accounts and it doesn't look like he does scientific research, I mean Dr. Oz has an advanced degree too....
Here's an article from Eric Helms stating that there isn't much evidence that protein intake above 1.8g/kg is beneficial:
https://www.strongerbyscience.com/reflecting-on-five-years-studying-protein/
I also don't see anything from Brad Schoenfeld suggesting protein intakes higher than those recommended in the other literature mentioned here.
https://www.lookgreatnaked.com/blog/how-much-protein-do-you-need/
Also FWIW first thing that came up on Brad Schoenfeld's Instagram (it's captioned "Perhaps I missed something, but when exactly did eating fruits and veggies become a bad thing?")1 -
Non-sequitur narrator voice:
Methane produced by cattle isn't the only environmental impact of cattle farming. It's just one of them.14 -
janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »laurenq1991 wrote: »
This is now common knowledge.And where in the world did I advocate that everyone should eat all meat? I have argued that some are healthier eating almost all meat and that they should not be pressured to cut back, and worsen their health by really weak claims that cow gas is destroying the environment. The amount of people eating that way is miniscule. The argument is ridiculous.
It was implied that you think people with IR should eat this diet (a lot of the population) and you have been vocal in your support for carnivory in other threads.
I think low carb is an excellent option for those with IR (PCOS, T2D, NAFLD, prediabetes, and some forms of Alzheimer's). Some can improve their condition with just weight loss but IR is a lifestyle disease where not all are overweight.You want a citation for why I don't believe that restricting meat intake would make a greater impact on the environment that better farming practices would? For my belief? Because I have seen no evidence to prove otherwise? That makes no sense.
Uh...yeah? You're making a (supposedly) scientific claim. Scientific claims are backed up by evidence. They aren't "beliefs," they're "findings." There's plenty of studies out there on the environmental impact of certain foods and those studies do not on the whole support your claim.
I am not agreeing with your claims. I think it is on you to bring in the evidence.I advocate for the right for people to eat the best diet for their best health without lame environmental claims being made in an effort to stop them.
Oh so it sounds like you believe in the ol' "environmentalists are lying to force everyone to be vegan" conspiracy. Well again, where is the evidence of that?
Strawman.
I disagree with you therefore I am irrational and must be in an extremist group?I'm all for helping the environment, but I think advocating a diet for the world based on weak evidence that less meat will help the environment, and no evidence that less meat is healthier for people, is a bad idea put together by a powerful few who are pushing a misinformed agenda.
Citation needed. Also you may be old and not have that many years left and so you don't care if the deluge comes after you, but the rest of us have to live here and the effects of climate change are going to be way worse for the collective health of humanity than some carbs.
You want citation that the creators have an agenda? Again, not sure what you want here.
EAT was set up through billionaire vegans who are animal activists. Walter Willet, long known to be pro vegan and vegetarian, was in the lead.
I am 44.More sugar than beef. LOL
That's way less refined sugar than what the average Westerner eats, 25g if it's a 2000 calorie diet which is the recommended limit. They're probably basing it on that to be realistic (like if they said don't eat refined sugar on top of all the other changes people would be less likely to agree).
But regardless of any one organization's example recommendations you have no support for your claims on the environment and never have. If you did you would post that evidence.
I did not say cutting back on sugar is bad. I laugh at the fact that they recommend more sugars than beef, pork, and poultry combined. Awesome...
Walter Willet doesn't appear to be a billionaire *or* a vegan. What billionaire vegans are you referring to and what does Walter Willet have to do with either category?
Interestingly, it looks like his research was responsible for discerning that trans-fat, rather than saturated fat, was the problem in relation to heart disease, and took some heat for being "pro-fat" back in the day. While I didn't find anything I would feel comfortable quoting as a source, I get the impression he stresses limiting, not eliminating animal sources of food. He is actually a rather fascinating character, and I'm going to research him more!
I only had time to skim, but it looks to me like EAT is more about sustainability and environmental concerns, not health per se, am I reading it right?
Yeah, the quotes I saw just now were him talking favorably about the Mediterranean-style diet, specifically including fish. He does seem to come down on the side on the average person eating *more* plant foods, but that obviously doesn't equate to veganism.
I wish I had more time for this today.
Willet is not vegan but is pro vegan and vegetarian. I believe he eats vegetarian but us not 100% strict about it.
This article from a few years ago see to portray him accurately. He is a very well known epidemiogist who is excellent at correlating health issues from data, and has heavily influenced US food recommendations for many years.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bostonglobe.com/magazine/2013/07/27/what-eat-harvard-walter-willett-thinks-has-answers/5WL3MIVdzHCN2ypfpFB6WP/amp.html
I dont agree with all of his conclusions (like meat causing t2d or people keeping sodium under 1500mg) but he is an epidemiologist who shows possible correlation and not causation, so that makes sense.
I don't understand what it means to be "pro-vegan" while one isn't vegan. Can you explain exactly what that means to you? If he is wanting others to be vegan, why refrain from choosing that for himself? In the article you choose to share, he's described as eating both fish and yogurt and there is no indication that his dietary advice is driven by concern about animal exploitation.
In any case, he's not one of the multiple billionaire vegans you were referring to above. Can you clarify who you were referring to when you wrote "EAT was set up through billionaire vegans who are animal activists. Walter Willet, long known to be pro vegan and vegetarian, was in the lead."
Walter Willet isn't vegan and he isn't a billionaire, so we know it isn't him.
Pro vegan, in my mind , is someone who encourages that way of eating whether or not they do it. He recommendations are often vegan, vegetarian and low in meat. I don't think o be needs to be fully vegan to encourage it.
I never said Willet was a billionaire, or a vegan, funding the report. He was a lead contributor. Sort of like how NuSi would fund research but they are not the authors or doing the research like Hall or Ludwig.
He seems to encourage the eating of more plant foods and a reduction in things like red meat and sugar. I think you mean that he's promoting a more plant-based diet. He seems to be doing that out of a genuine conviction that it will result in better health outcomes on a population level.
If you weren't referring to Willet, what billionaire vegans were you referring to? I've asked several times now, but you've only provided Willet's name and the name of a vegetarian. Are there *any* billionaire vegans or was that just a tactic to discredit the work?13 -
janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »laurenq1991 wrote: »
This is now common knowledge.And where in the world did I advocate that everyone should eat all meat? I have argued that some are healthier eating almost all meat and that they should not be pressured to cut back, and worsen their health by really weak claims that cow gas is destroying the environment. The amount of people eating that way is miniscule. The argument is ridiculous.
It was implied that you think people with IR should eat this diet (a lot of the population) and you have been vocal in your support for carnivory in other threads.
I think low carb is an excellent option for those with IR (PCOS, T2D, NAFLD, prediabetes, and some forms of Alzheimer's). Some can improve their condition with just weight loss but IR is a lifestyle disease where not all are overweight.You want a citation for why I don't believe that restricting meat intake would make a greater impact on the environment that better farming practices would? For my belief? Because I have seen no evidence to prove otherwise? That makes no sense.
Uh...yeah? You're making a (supposedly) scientific claim. Scientific claims are backed up by evidence. They aren't "beliefs," they're "findings." There's plenty of studies out there on the environmental impact of certain foods and those studies do not on the whole support your claim.
I am not agreeing with your claims. I think it is on you to bring in the evidence.I advocate for the right for people to eat the best diet for their best health without lame environmental claims being made in an effort to stop them.
Oh so it sounds like you believe in the ol' "environmentalists are lying to force everyone to be vegan" conspiracy. Well again, where is the evidence of that?
Strawman.
I disagree with you therefore I am irrational and must be in an extremist group?I'm all for helping the environment, but I think advocating a diet for the world based on weak evidence that less meat will help the environment, and no evidence that less meat is healthier for people, is a bad idea put together by a powerful few who are pushing a misinformed agenda.
Citation needed. Also you may be old and not have that many years left and so you don't care if the deluge comes after you, but the rest of us have to live here and the effects of climate change are going to be way worse for the collective health of humanity than some carbs.
You want citation that the creators have an agenda? Again, not sure what you want here.
EAT was set up through billionaire vegans who are animal activists. Walter Willet, long known to be pro vegan and vegetarian, was in the lead.
I am 44.More sugar than beef. LOL
That's way less refined sugar than what the average Westerner eats, 25g if it's a 2000 calorie diet which is the recommended limit. They're probably basing it on that to be realistic (like if they said don't eat refined sugar on top of all the other changes people would be less likely to agree).
But regardless of any one organization's example recommendations you have no support for your claims on the environment and never have. If you did you would post that evidence.
I did not say cutting back on sugar is bad. I laugh at the fact that they recommend more sugars than beef, pork, and poultry combined. Awesome...
Walter Willet doesn't appear to be a billionaire *or* a vegan. What billionaire vegans are you referring to and what does Walter Willet have to do with either category?
I said Willet was pro vegan and vegetarian. Low fat low meat plant based has been his agenda for a long time.
The Stordalen Foundation is the main contributor.
https://eatforum.org/partner/stordalen-foundation/
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/globe-trotting-billionaire-behind-campaign-13872067.amp&ved=2ahUKEwjn8uuvyv_fAhWpGTQIHXz9Ct0QFjAHegQIAxAB&usg=AOvVaw3o4xHFqjhYzys-pf1dpwwL&cf=1
That article from the Mirror claims that Gunhild Storadalen is a vegetarian. I'm still not clear how this would invalidate anything or how it relates to veganism.
When you refer to "billionaire vegans," who were you referring to?
Surely you wouldn't argue that someone couldn't have an valid opinion on environmental issues or health concerns because they ate meat, I mean, you have opinions on environmental issues. So why is choosing not to eat meat something that makes someone else's opinion less valid?
Do you have evidence that the Storadalen Foundation engaged in scientific malpractice or inappropriate pressure?
Why the focus on this instead of on the report itself?
I had read elsewhere that she was vegan. It could have been wrong.
Billionaire vegetarian, then... It is unsurprising that a vegetarian would fund this line of report. What would be surprising is if a someone eating like a carnivore funded the report.
What does scientific malpractice or inappropriate pressure have to do with anything? Anyone can write fiction, or what I originally called woo - a diet low in protein, high in starchy grain, polyunsaturated plant based oils, low in meat (such as the equivalent of 1.5 chicken nuggets a day) for everyone in the world, regardless of where they live, to supposedly help save the environment.
Vegetarianism is fine. Advocating a near vegetarian diet for everyone to save the world is not.
We started with a claim of multiple billionaire vegans and you have one person that you read somewhere was a vegan but it could have been wrong. This is why I sometimes struggle to take you seriously, the facts just don't seem that important to you.
If it is unsurprising to you that a vegetarian funded the report, what was the relevance of your comment about how "billionaire vegans" were behind the funding? What were you attempting to communicate there?
Why isn't it okay for an individual to advocate for people to eat more plants if one is convinced by the available evidence that this diet will help the planet and that is a priority for an individual? We can discuss the validity of and foundation for that belief, but why is it inappropriate for someone to advocate for what they think is correct and helpful?
If a carnivore was convinced that eating more meat would help the world in some way, I might ask to see what evidence they were basing that claim on and I might challenge the foundation of their theory. I wouldn't think it was inappropriate for them to try to make a case for what they think is correct.
8 -
janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »laurenq1991 wrote: »
This is now common knowledge.And where in the world did I advocate that everyone should eat all meat? I have argued that some are healthier eating almost all meat and that they should not be pressured to cut back, and worsen their health by really weak claims that cow gas is destroying the environment. The amount of people eating that way is miniscule. The argument is ridiculous.
It was implied that you think people with IR should eat this diet (a lot of the population) and you have been vocal in your support for carnivory in other threads.
I think low carb is an excellent option for those with IR (PCOS, T2D, NAFLD, prediabetes, and some forms of Alzheimer's). Some can improve their condition with just weight loss but IR is a lifestyle disease where not all are overweight.You want a citation for why I don't believe that restricting meat intake would make a greater impact on the environment that better farming practices would? For my belief? Because I have seen no evidence to prove otherwise? That makes no sense.
Uh...yeah? You're making a (supposedly) scientific claim. Scientific claims are backed up by evidence. They aren't "beliefs," they're "findings." There's plenty of studies out there on the environmental impact of certain foods and those studies do not on the whole support your claim.
I am not agreeing with your claims. I think it is on you to bring in the evidence.I advocate for the right for people to eat the best diet for their best health without lame environmental claims being made in an effort to stop them.
Oh so it sounds like you believe in the ol' "environmentalists are lying to force everyone to be vegan" conspiracy. Well again, where is the evidence of that?
Strawman.
I disagree with you therefore I am irrational and must be in an extremist group?I'm all for helping the environment, but I think advocating a diet for the world based on weak evidence that less meat will help the environment, and no evidence that less meat is healthier for people, is a bad idea put together by a powerful few who are pushing a misinformed agenda.
Citation needed. Also you may be old and not have that many years left and so you don't care if the deluge comes after you, but the rest of us have to live here and the effects of climate change are going to be way worse for the collective health of humanity than some carbs.
You want citation that the creators have an agenda? Again, not sure what you want here.
EAT was set up through billionaire vegans who are animal activists. Walter Willet, long known to be pro vegan and vegetarian, was in the lead.
I am 44.More sugar than beef. LOL
That's way less refined sugar than what the average Westerner eats, 25g if it's a 2000 calorie diet which is the recommended limit. They're probably basing it on that to be realistic (like if they said don't eat refined sugar on top of all the other changes people would be less likely to agree).
But regardless of any one organization's example recommendations you have no support for your claims on the environment and never have. If you did you would post that evidence.
I did not say cutting back on sugar is bad. I laugh at the fact that they recommend more sugars than beef, pork, and poultry combined. Awesome...
Walter Willet doesn't appear to be a billionaire *or* a vegan. What billionaire vegans are you referring to and what does Walter Willet have to do with either category?
Interestingly, it looks like his research was responsible for discerning that trans-fat, rather than saturated fat, was the problem in relation to heart disease, and took some heat for being "pro-fat" back in the day. While I didn't find anything I would feel comfortable quoting as a source, I get the impression he stresses limiting, not eliminating animal sources of food. He is actually a rather fascinating character, and I'm going to research him more!
I only had time to skim, but it looks to me like EAT is more about sustainability and environmental concerns, not health per se, am I reading it right?
That is my problem with the diet. They are recommending a global diet based on environmental issues and not what is best for health for all.
I think it's pretty well accepted that trans fats aren't good for human health. That's not an environmental concern, it's actually based on research.
?
What do transfats have to do with EAT except that Willet was one of many to recognize them as unhealthy, many years ago? Past correlations do not mean this recommendation is healthier than if you ignore, at least parts, of it.
I thought you were arguing that his recommendations were not based in a desire to promote good health for all. If that wasn't what you were arguing, then I apologize.1 -
Anti fat eating perhaps is the mother of all "woo".
https://newsweek.com/full-fat-milk-could-cut-risk-stroke-heart-attack-study-says-1025069?fbclid=IwAR3VXxeOMgkFyQUUb4bb7wL4o15MrqTTt_sxO7kXudC3vxglFukYr4XQBvo10 -
GaleHawkins wrote: »Anti fat eating perhaps is the mother of all "woo".
https://newsweek.com/full-fat-milk-could-cut-risk-stroke-heart-attack-study-says-1025069?fbclid=IwAR3VXxeOMgkFyQUUb4bb7wL4o15MrqTTt_sxO7kXudC3vxglFukYr4XQBvo
The entire conclusion is based on a *theory* that the fatty acids are linked to dairy consumption. It hasn't yet been established.5 -
janejellyroll wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »Anti fat eating perhaps is the mother of all "woo".
https://newsweek.com/full-fat-milk-could-cut-risk-stroke-heart-attack-study-says-1025069?fbclid=IwAR3VXxeOMgkFyQUUb4bb7wL4o15MrqTTt_sxO7kXudC3vxglFukYr4XQBvo
The entire conclusion is based on a *theory* that the fatty acids are linked to dairy consumption. It hasn't yet been established.
Since the fatty acids are IN the cow's milk why do you use the word "theory"?
https://uoguelph.ca/foodscience/book-page/milk-lipids-chemical-properties8 -
GaleHawkins wrote: »Since the fatty acids are IN the cow's milk why do you use the word "theory"?
Because the study doesn't take into consideration whether individuals are getting their fatty acid consumption from other sources besides milk.6 -
GaleHawkins wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »Anti fat eating perhaps is the mother of all "woo".
https://newsweek.com/full-fat-milk-could-cut-risk-stroke-heart-attack-study-says-1025069?fbclid=IwAR3VXxeOMgkFyQUUb4bb7wL4o15MrqTTt_sxO7kXudC3vxglFukYr4XQBvo
The entire conclusion is based on a *theory* that the fatty acids are linked to dairy consumption. It hasn't yet been established.
Since the fatty acids are IN the cow's milk why do you use the word "theory"?
https://uoguelph.ca/foodscience/book-page/milk-lipids-chemical-properties
Because it hasn't yet been established, per this line in the article you linked to: "In addition, people with higher levels of fatty acids, which the researchers believe may have stemmed from their consumption of dairy products, had a 42 percent lower risk of dying from stroke."
The levels of fatty acids are in the humans. The theory is that it is linked to dairy consumption, but that hasn't yet been proven.7 -
OK but it is good to know FULL-FAT MILK COULD CUT RISK OF STROKE, HEART ATTACK, STUDY SAYS. In light of this study perhaps Heavy Whipping Cream use could do even more to reduce risk of stroke and heart attack.23
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.3K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 388 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 910 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.2K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions