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.
Meat only diet
Options
Replies
-
midwesterner85 wrote: »quiksylver296 wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »It's not technically zero, but carnivores are pretty close. With the exception of minimal carbs to manage hypoglycemia (I'm a type 1 diabetic), I just eat meat. Though I'm still eating a bit of other meats, I'm working towards moving to just beef and wild game (as long as I kill it myself or participate in killing it). I just feel so much better when sticking with only beef.
As to recipes? It depends on what you get and how you want to cook it. I'm going to put a round roast in the crock pot with a small amount of water. For loose hamburger, I have a counter-top grill to cook it fairly quickly. I'll probably be cooking up some hamburger patties on the outside grill later this week and probably some sirloin tip steaks next week. I have a little bit of venison left from last season that will be split up between the dehydrator (jerky) and maybe a stove-top pan. I do have a few cans of tuna to finish off, and those will just get drained and eaten without cooking.
Pure curiosity. How long have you eaten this way? Seriously nothing else? I'm fascinated.
Most of last year, then took a 'break' and back to animals only again in Jan. I only gave up eggs and dairy within the past few weeks and I'm now working towards giving up those other meats besides beef. The exception is that I do drink coffee (black) and tea, but would like to give those up too. That won't happen as soon as getting to beef only. And I may add back other meats later or eggs or dairy. I do want to eventually get to beef only for at least 3-4 weeks and see how well it works before deciding what, if anything, to add back again.
This makes me think of The Beef and Dairy Network podcast. You'd love it, lol.0 -
Considering how resource intensive beef production is, I think this is an extremely irresponsible way of eating.27
-
happytree923 wrote: »Considering how resource intensive beef production is, I think this is an extremely irresponsible way of eating.
For factory farming, I completely agree.
If one converted all those corn and soy farms into pasture, with perennial grasses instead of agricultural monocrop farms, then beef would be more sustainable. Better yet, farm bison and other grazer's which are easier on the grass (nibble off the tops rather than rip the grass out) and let the pigs and chicken roam with them.19 -
happytree923 wrote: »Considering how resource intensive beef production is, I think this is an extremely irresponsible way of eating.
For factory farming, I completely agree.
If one converted all those corn and soy farms into pasture, with perennial grasses instead of agricultural monocrop farms, then beef would be more sustainable. Better yet, farm bison and other grazer's which are easier on the grass (nibble off the tops rather than rip the grass out) and let the pigs and chicken roam with them.
Still leaves a massive carbon footprint.9 -
happytree923 wrote: »Considering how resource intensive beef production is, I think this is an extremely irresponsible way of eating.
For factory farming, I completely agree.
If one converted all those corn and soy farms into pasture, with perennial grasses instead of agricultural monocrop farms, then beef would be more sustainable. Better yet, farm bison and other grazer's which are easier on the grass (nibble off the tops rather than rip the grass out) and let the pigs and chicken roam with them.
I think it's acceptable to discuss what *could* happen at some point in the future if humans decided to quit factory farming, but right now we're in the situation of what *is* happening. Someone who is choosing to eat all beef now is doing it within the current farming system and that means they're either paying a premium for grass-fed beef or supporting factory farming (or, I suppose, finding some third way to obtain beef like raising their own).8 -
happytree923 wrote: »Considering how resource intensive beef production is, I think this is an extremely irresponsible way of eating.
There was a study published a couple years back that put a level of environmental damage of various activities. Having 1 additional child dwarfed everything else. Eating meat was pretty low. Since I have already chosen to have 0 kids, use energy efficient HVAC, and drive a hybrid, I'm far more "green" than most of the rest of the world in total. Having a kid is extremely irresponsible. Eating beef is a little blip of nothing when compared to the rest.19 -
midwesterner85 wrote: »happytree923 wrote: »Considering how resource intensive beef production is, I think this is an extremely irresponsible way of eating.
There was a study published a couple years back that put a level of environmental damage of various activities. Having 1 additional child dwarfed everything else. Eating meat was pretty low. Since I have already chosen to have 0 kids, use energy efficient HVAC, and drive a hybrid, I'm far more "green" than most of the rest of the world in total. Having a kid is extremely irresponsible. Eating beef is a little blip of nothing when compared to the rest.
I don't know if this is the study you're referencing, but I got curious, began Googling, and found this support for it: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/jul/12/want-to-fight-climate-change-have-fewer-children
One fewer child is the equivalent of saving 58.6 tons of C02 emissions per year. Switching to a plant-based diet is just .82.
I don't think this particular study takes water into account, but I am sure someone has done that math somewhere.6 -
midwesterner85 wrote: »happytree923 wrote: »Considering how resource intensive beef production is, I think this is an extremely irresponsible way of eating.
There was a study published a couple years back that put a level of environmental damage of various activities. Having 1 additional child dwarfed everything else. Eating meat was pretty low. Since I have already chosen to have 0 kids, use energy efficient HVAC, and drive a hybrid, I'm far more "green" than most of the rest of the world in total. Having a kid is extremely irresponsible. Eating beef is a little blip of nothing when compared to the rest.
Do I have to point out that both you and the author of this "study" are both someone's children?
Is there a point to gaining social status within a philosophy that despises your mere existence?21 -
janejellyroll wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »happytree923 wrote: »Considering how resource intensive beef production is, I think this is an extremely irresponsible way of eating.
There was a study published a couple years back that put a level of environmental damage of various activities. Having 1 additional child dwarfed everything else. Eating meat was pretty low. Since I have already chosen to have 0 kids, use energy efficient HVAC, and drive a hybrid, I'm far more "green" than most of the rest of the world in total. Having a kid is extremely irresponsible. Eating beef is a little blip of nothing when compared to the rest.
I don't know if this is the study you're referencing, but I got curious, began Googling, and found this support for it: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/jul/12/want-to-fight-climate-change-have-fewer-children
One fewer child is the equivalent of saving 58.6 tons of C02 emissions per year. Switching to a plant-based diet is just .82.
I don't think this particular study takes water into account, but I am sure someone has done that math somewhere.
Yes, that is it - here is the graph from the study:
The left-most green bar is having 1 fewer child and the last (furthest right) green bar is switching to a plant-based diet.3 -
One fewer child than what?!?0
-
midwesterner85 wrote: »happytree923 wrote: »Considering how resource intensive beef production is, I think this is an extremely irresponsible way of eating.
There was a study published a couple years back that put a level of environmental damage of various activities. Having 1 additional child dwarfed everything else. Eating meat was pretty low. Since I have already chosen to have 0 kids, use energy efficient HVAC, and drive a hybrid, I'm far more "green" than most of the rest of the world in total. Having a kid is extremely irresponsible. Eating beef is a little blip of nothing when compared to the rest.
Do I have to point out that both you and the author of this "study" are both someone's children?
Is there a point to gaining social status within a philosophy that despises your mere existence?
Does that mean incel is the new Greenpeace?10 -
quiksylver296 wrote: »One fewer child than what?!?
I'm guessing that's just their way of saying each child uses this much in resources over the course of their lifetime? I read a news article today about a man in Canada with 24 wives and 149 children. Let's all blame him for dooming the planet
5 -
quiksylver296 wrote: »One fewer child than what?!?
I think they thought it was a more positive way than saying "each child has this impact."3 -
quiksylver296 wrote: »One fewer child than what?!?
I'm guessing that's just their way of saying each child uses this much in resources over the course of their lifetime? I read a news article today about a man in Canada with 24 wives and 149 children. Let's all blame him for dooming the planet
I saw that article, too. Crazy.
0 -
janejellyroll wrote: »quiksylver296 wrote: »One fewer child than what?!?
I think they thought it was a more positive way than saying "each child has this impact."
I figured since I only have one child, instead of the standard 2.3 kids (or whatever it is), I'm good, right?!?
That was more a sanity choice, though, than a "green" choice.
8 -
happytree923 wrote: »Considering how resource intensive beef production is, I think this is an extremely irresponsible way of eating.
For factory farming, I completely agree.
If one converted all those corn and soy farms into pasture, with perennial grasses instead of agricultural monocrop farms, then beef would be more sustainable. Better yet, farm bison and other grazer's which are easier on the grass (nibble off the tops rather than rip the grass out) and let the pigs and chicken roam with them.
This is a myth. Yes, ruminants are a natural part of certain ecosystems but we cannot graze enough cattle to match current beef production without a massive environmental toll. Cows create lots of greenhouse gas just by existing.
https://www.newscientist.com/article/2149220-grass-fed-beef-is-bad-for-the-planet-and-causes-climate-change/
ETA plus grass fed cattle and game like bison are much lower in fat than corn-fed cattle. I’m curious, how does promoting grass fed mesh with very high fat diets?9 -
johnslater461 wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »happytree923 wrote: »Considering how resource intensive beef production is, I think this is an extremely irresponsible way of eating.
There was a study published a couple years back that put a level of environmental damage of various activities. Having 1 additional child dwarfed everything else. Eating meat was pretty low. Since I have already chosen to have 0 kids, use energy efficient HVAC, and drive a hybrid, I'm far more "green" than most of the rest of the world in total. Having a kid is extremely irresponsible. Eating beef is a little blip of nothing when compared to the rest.
Do I have to point out that both you and the author of this "study" are both someone's children?
Is there a point to gaining social status within a philosophy that despises your mere existence?
Does that mean incel is the new Greenpeace?
All seems to be resulting from the same underlying root cause: one individual's fantasy clashing with reality.10 -
midwesterner85 wrote: »happytree923 wrote: »Considering how resource intensive beef production is, I think this is an extremely irresponsible way of eating.
There was a study published a couple years back that put a level of environmental damage of various activities. Having 1 additional child dwarfed everything else. Eating meat was pretty low. Since I have already chosen to have 0 kids, use energy efficient HVAC, and drive a hybrid, I'm far more "green" than most of the rest of the world in total. Having a kid is extremely irresponsible. Eating beef is a little blip of nothing when compared to the rest.
Do I have to point out that both you and the author of this "study" are both someone's children?
Is there a point to gaining social status within a philosophy that despises your mere existence?
I did not choose to be born. The fact is that my parents were quite irresponsible, and I could not have prevented their selfish and irresponsible actions.14 -
midwesterner85 wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »happytree923 wrote: »Considering how resource intensive beef production is, I think this is an extremely irresponsible way of eating.
There was a study published a couple years back that put a level of environmental damage of various activities. Having 1 additional child dwarfed everything else. Eating meat was pretty low. Since I have already chosen to have 0 kids, use energy efficient HVAC, and drive a hybrid, I'm far more "green" than most of the rest of the world in total. Having a kid is extremely irresponsible. Eating beef is a little blip of nothing when compared to the rest.
Do I have to point out that both you and the author of this "study" are both someone's children?
Is there a point to gaining social status within a philosophy that despises your mere existence?
I did not choose to be born. The fact is that my parents were quite irresponsible, and I could not have prevented their selfish and irresponsible actions.
This got real dark.16 -
janejellyroll wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »happytree923 wrote: »Considering how resource intensive beef production is, I think this is an extremely irresponsible way of eating.
There was a study published a couple years back that put a level of environmental damage of various activities. Having 1 additional child dwarfed everything else. Eating meat was pretty low. Since I have already chosen to have 0 kids, use energy efficient HVAC, and drive a hybrid, I'm far more "green" than most of the rest of the world in total. Having a kid is extremely irresponsible. Eating beef is a little blip of nothing when compared to the rest.
Do I have to point out that both you and the author of this "study" are both someone's children?
Is there a point to gaining social status within a philosophy that despises your mere existence?
I did not choose to be born. The fact is that my parents were quite irresponsible, and I could not have prevented their selfish and irresponsible actions.
This got real dark.
It isn't intended that way... it's just a fact that my parents made bad choices, one of which led to my birth. I'm not saying I would kill myself, but I can at least mitigate the damage by not making the same bad choice myself.5
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.5K 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
- 391 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
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 925 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions