Carnivore Diet: The Antithesis to Veganism

1235710

Replies

  • kshama2001
    kshama2001 Posts: 27,889 Member
    edited December 2018
    nvmomketo wrote: »
    nvmomketo wrote: »
    You are generalizing. Hugely. There are no old growth forests here. We have grasslands and forests that typically burn every 100-200years. There are 4 million people in Alberta, which I am guessing is close to the size of California. More than was here 300 years ago, sure, but we don't have the same problems as the more populated areas. We have space for cattle.

    Even if that is the case, where is the evidence that grass-fed beef produces fewer emissions than, say, legumes? Because I posted evidence stating that even the most environmentally consciously raised meat still has more impact than plant foods, and you haven't posted any evidence to the contrary.
    My point about grazing the cows is that almost all cows up here ARE grass fed the first year or so of life. It is already being done. Just don't finish them/ fatten them all in feedlots at the end. Perhaps cattle is raised entirely in feedlots in California. That's not how it is done here. It must be economic if it is being done already....

    Well there must be a reason for feedlots and that reason is cost. You can grass-finish them but the fact is it will make beef more expensive, fewer cows will be produced, and less beef will be available...otherwise there would be no point in putting the effort to farm crops to feed cows when they could just eat freely accessible grass that grows everywhere and replenishes itself each year.
    Thearticleyoupostedjust shows that feedlot cows and their processing, makes methane. It does not disprove what I have said which is that intact soil can capture that carbon, create a richer habitat and stronger ecosystem, nor that cows fed foods other than corn gave fewer emissions. I read it and noticed it did not address what I am saying. Do you have anything to share on that?

    The article said "The scientists also found that even the very lowest impact meat and dairy products still cause much more environmental harm than the least sustainable vegetable and cereal growing." and "For example, beef cattle raised on deforested land result in 12 times more greenhouse gases and use 50 times more land than those grazing rich natural pasture. But the comparison of beef with plant protein such as peas is stark, with even the lowest impact beef responsible for six times more greenhouse gases and 36 times more land." "Rich natural pasture" seems to be the kind of soil you are referring to, as opposed to "deforested land."
    As to historic drought in California, it's a shame. Sorry you are experiencing it but it is only historic in terms of how long weather has been measured and records werekept.
    https://www.mercurynews.com/2014/01/25/california-drought-past-dry-periods-have-lasted-more-than-200-years-scientists-say/

    I don't live in California, it was just an example of natural disasters worsened by climate change since it happened recently. The longer droughts happened centuries ago and it says right in the article that you posted: "Bill Patzert, a research scientist and oceanographer at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, says that the West is in a 20-year drought that began in 2000. He cites the fact that a phenomenon known as a “negative Pacific decadal oscillation” is underway — and that historically has been linked to extreme high-pressure ridges that block storms.

    Such events, which cause pools of warm water in the North Pacific Ocean and cool water along the California coast, are not the result of global warming, Patzert said. But climate change caused by the burning of fossil fuels has been linked to longer heat waves. That wild card wasn’t around years ago.

    “Long before the Industrial Revolution, we were vulnerable to long extended periods of drought. And now we have another experiment with all this CO2 in the atmosphere where there are potentially even more wild swings in there,” said Graham Kent, a University of Nevada geophysicist who has studied submerged ancient trees in Fallen Leaf Lake near Lake Tahoe." So basically the oscillation caused the drought, but the oscillation itself is more extreme due to climate change.

    https://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/21/science/climate-change-intensifies-california-drought-scientists-say.html

    Also as an aside, it says right in that article: "Although many Californians think that population growth is the main driver of water demand statewide, it actually is agriculture. In an average year, farmers use 80 percent of the water consumed by people and businesses — 34 million of 43 million acre-feet diverted from rivers, lakes and groundwater, according to the state Department of Water Resources." And since we know animal agriculture takes up a lot of the land and water use, that's another impact.
    As to the vegetarian question, I was just wondering if you had already written off beef. I guess so. I don't often see such vehement arguments from people who eat meat.

    It's a fact-based argument and so far you have not provided one piece of hard data to refute anything I've said, and my own personal life has nothing to do with it. But the reason why people who eat meat usually aren't the ones making these arguments, is because people who accept the truth of how dietary choices affect carbon footprint oftentimes change their diet accordingly. Otherwise, they would be a hypocrite and people would call them out for that, right? If you're trying to say I have some kind of "vegetarian agenda" that is incorrect. I actually don't really care that much about the ethics of killing animals for food. I think hunting is perfectly natural and while I don't think factory farms are great, I probably wouldn't give up meat for that reason alone. Climate change is my main concern and particularly its impact on me, loved ones, and future generations. So it is kind of a selfish reason in a way, maybe not the "bleeding heart" thing you were expecting. But honestly it does annoy me that my future might be compromised because other people insist on eating unsustainable foods such as beef, taking long-distance flights, living in huge houses, etc. when none of these things are actually necessary for survival. Beef and chicken aren't even that nutritious compared to fish and shellfish (except for organ meats but not many people eat those).
    nvmomketo wrote: »
    Only processed meats have a link to cancer and possibly raising your risk of colon cancer from 5 to 6%.

    Red meat has not been shown to be cause cancer at all... And they've looked.

    https://www.who.int/features/qa/cancer-red-meat/en/ "Probably carcinogenic" is exactly what I said in my previous post...if someone wants to take a chance on "probably" they can go ahead.



    Anyways, I'll stop after this. We have become horribly derailed.

    I eat carnivore because my joints do not function well when I eat plants. It's quite painful. Plant based foods also cause my BG and insulin to be les stable, I get more headaches, my pimples and roseaca acts up, it stimulates my appetite making weight management harder, but mainly it is so I can function without a lot of pain killers.

    I do not eat this way to hurt the environment or as a "who cares" sort of stance. I do it for medical reasons. I know that food has a carbon footprint. I will not sacrifice my quality of life on science that I find dubious that says my local, pasture fed cow for the year is worse for the environment than someone eating processed foods, fruit, veggies or shellfish that are flown or trucked in from far away using agricultural practices that may be questionable.

    I have only flown a couple of times, I carpool, I keep my house at a temperature that requires a sweater, I do large laundry loads and hang up a fair bit to dry, most of my house is dark after 4:30 because we only turn on the lights in the room we are in, I buy bulk to prevent waste and skip bottled water, we rarely buy anything new, I shower in low pressure to use less water and using cleaning products that are not as bad for the water supply, but I eat one cows very 18 months or so to help with my health hike skipping most plant foods.... I just don't see that as a big problem. We should just agree to disagree. Best wishes.

    Sure, I have no problem with YOU eating mostly meat. But it's just not feasible for a large part of the population to switch to this, and that suggestion is the source of the pushback you're getting, not for your personal choices.

    I wish more people would implement your energy conservation practices :smile:
  • laurenq1991
    laurenq1991 Posts: 384 Member
    edited December 2018
    nvmomketo wrote: »
    Anyways, I'll stop after this. We have become horribly derailed.

    I eat carnivore because my joints do not function well when I eat plants. It's quite painful. Plant based foods also cause my BG and insulin to be les stable, I get more headaches, my pimples and roseaca acts up, it stimulates my appetite making weight management harder, but mainly it is so I can function without a lot of pain killers.

    I do not eat this way to hurt the environment or as a "who cares" sort of stance. I do it for medical reasons. I know that food has a carbon footprint. I will not sacrifice my quality of life on science that I find dubious that says my local, pasture fed cow for the year is worse for the environment than someone eating processed foods, fruit, veggies or shellfish that are flown or trucked in from far away using agricultural practices that may be questionable.

    I have only flown a couple of times, I carpool, I keep my house at a temperature that requires a sweater, I do large laundry loads and hang up a fair bit to dry, most of my house is dark after 4:30 because we only turn on the lights in the room we are in, I buy bulk to prevent waste and skip bottled water, we rarely buy anything new, I shower in low pressure to use less water and using cleaning products that are not as bad for the water supply, but I eat one cows very 18 months or so to help with my health hike skipping most plant foods.... I just don't see that as a big problem. We should just agree to disagree. Best wishes.

    As I said earlier in the thread, it's possible that a small minority of the population may have serious health issues that require them to eat mostly or only meat. But those people are outliers. What I take issue with is the claim that this way of eating causes fewer emissions than the typical diet recommended by nutritionists, because all evidence I can find indicates that this is false. So far nobody has posted any actual scientific research refuting the research I and other people posted.
    For the purpose of the discussion, I think that compromise is great.

    In practice? Eh, I have issues pricing staple foods out of reach for certain income levels. It's a real conundrum.

    Then again, bringing this back to the topic of the thread, I don't see people with lower incomes ever willingly choosing to be carnivores simply because they probably couldn't afford to be so.

    I read the other day that about 75% of the dairy industry's profits come from Uncle Sam, which seems to indicate that dairy would cost four times the price it does now if it was not subsidized. It's a difficult issue because these subsidies were created during the Great Depression and they had value for emergency purposes, but I disagree with the idea of the government influencing what people can eat and what is most valuable to farm, and I think maybe the subsidies should be more equalized than they are now. But plenty of people in America already have enough problems paying for groceries, and if they took the subsidies away at this point it would lead to big problems. Most people in America probably have never even seen grass-fed beef for sale in the store, let alone purchased it, because as it is it would be way out of their price range.
  • nvmomketo
    nvmomketo Posts: 12,019 Member
    kshama2001 wrote: »
    nvmomketo wrote: »
    nvmomketo wrote: »
    You are generalizing. Hugely. There are no old growth forests here. We have grasslands and forests that typically burn every 100-200years. There are 4 million people in Alberta, which I am guessing is close to the size of California. More than was here 300 years ago, sure, but we don't have the same problems as the more populated areas. We have space for cattle.

    Even if that is the case, where is the evidence that grass-fed beef produces fewer emissions than, say, legumes? Because I posted evidence stating that even the most environmentally consciously raised meat still has more impact than plant foods, and you haven't posted any evidence to the contrary.
    My point about grazing the cows is that almost all cows up here ARE grass fed the first year or so of life. It is already being done. Just don't finish them/ fatten them all in feedlots at the end. Perhaps cattle is raised entirely in feedlots in California. That's not how it is done here. It must be economic if it is being done already....

    Well there must be a reason for feedlots and that reason is cost. You can grass-finish them but the fact is it will make beef more expensive, fewer cows will be produced, and less beef will be available...otherwise there would be no point in putting the effort to farm crops to feed cows when they could just eat freely accessible grass that grows everywhere and replenishes itself each year.
    Thearticleyoupostedjust shows that feedlot cows and their processing, makes methane. It does not disprove what I have said which is that intact soil can capture that carbon, create a richer habitat and stronger ecosystem, nor that cows fed foods other than corn gave fewer emissions. I read it and noticed it did not address what I am saying. Do you have anything to share on that?

    The article said "The scientists also found that even the very lowest impact meat and dairy products still cause much more environmental harm than the least sustainable vegetable and cereal growing." and "For example, beef cattle raised on deforested land result in 12 times more greenhouse gases and use 50 times more land than those grazing rich natural pasture. But the comparison of beef with plant protein such as peas is stark, with even the lowest impact beef responsible for six times more greenhouse gases and 36 times more land." "Rich natural pasture" seems to be the kind of soil you are referring to, as opposed to "deforested land."
    As to historic drought in California, it's a shame. Sorry you are experiencing it but it is only historic in terms of how long weather has been measured and records werekept.
    https://www.mercurynews.com/2014/01/25/california-drought-past-dry-periods-have-lasted-more-than-200-years-scientists-say/

    I don't live in California, it was just an example of natural disasters worsened by climate change since it happened recently. The longer droughts happened centuries ago and it says right in the article that you posted: "Bill Patzert, a research scientist and oceanographer at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, says that the West is in a 20-year drought that began in 2000. He cites the fact that a phenomenon known as a “negative Pacific decadal oscillation” is underway — and that historically has been linked to extreme high-pressure ridges that block storms.

    Such events, which cause pools of warm water in the North Pacific Ocean and cool water along the California coast, are not the result of global warming, Patzert said. But climate change caused by the burning of fossil fuels has been linked to longer heat waves. That wild card wasn’t around years ago.

    “Long before the Industrial Revolution, we were vulnerable to long extended periods of drought. And now we have another experiment with all this CO2 in the atmosphere where there are potentially even more wild swings in there,” said Graham Kent, a University of Nevada geophysicist who has studied submerged ancient trees in Fallen Leaf Lake near Lake Tahoe." So basically the oscillation caused the drought, but the oscillation itself is more extreme due to climate change.

    https://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/21/science/climate-change-intensifies-california-drought-scientists-say.html

    Also as an aside, it says right in that article: "Although many Californians think that population growth is the main driver of water demand statewide, it actually is agriculture. In an average year, farmers use 80 percent of the water consumed by people and businesses — 34 million of 43 million acre-feet diverted from rivers, lakes and groundwater, according to the state Department of Water Resources." And since we know animal agriculture takes up a lot of the land and water use, that's another impact.
    As to the vegetarian question, I was just wondering if you had already written off beef. I guess so. I don't often see such vehement arguments from people who eat meat.

    It's a fact-based argument and so far you have not provided one piece of hard data to refute anything I've said, and my own personal life has nothing to do with it. But the reason why people who eat meat usually aren't the ones making these arguments, is because people who accept the truth of how dietary choices affect carbon footprint oftentimes change their diet accordingly. Otherwise, they would be a hypocrite and people would call them out for that, right? If you're trying to say I have some kind of "vegetarian agenda" that is incorrect. I actually don't really care that much about the ethics of killing animals for food. I think hunting is perfectly natural and while I don't think factory farms are great, I probably wouldn't give up meat for that reason alone. Climate change is my main concern and particularly its impact on me, loved ones, and future generations. So it is kind of a selfish reason in a way, maybe not the "bleeding heart" thing you were expecting. But honestly it does annoy me that my future might be compromised because other people insist on eating unsustainable foods such as beef, taking long-distance flights, living in huge houses, etc. when none of these things are actually necessary for survival. Beef and chicken aren't even that nutritious compared to fish and shellfish (except for organ meats but not many people eat those).
    nvmomketo wrote: »
    Only processed meats have a link to cancer and possibly raising your risk of colon cancer from 5 to 6%.

    Red meat has not been shown to be cause cancer at all... And they've looked.

    https://www.who.int/features/qa/cancer-red-meat/en/ "Probably carcinogenic" is exactly what I said in my previous post...if someone wants to take a chance on "probably" they can go ahead.



    Anyways, I'll stop after this. We have become horribly derailed.

    I eat carnivore because my joints do not function well when I eat plants. It's quite painful. Plant based foods also cause my BG and insulin to be les stable, I get more headaches, my pimples and roseaca acts up, it stimulates my appetite making weight management harder, but mainly it is so I can function without a lot of pain killers.

    I do not eat this way to hurt the environment or as a "who cares" sort of stance. I do it for medical reasons. I know that food has a carbon footprint. I will not sacrifice my quality of life on science that I find dubious that says my local, pasture fed cow for the year is worse for the environment than someone eating processed foods, fruit, veggies or shellfish that are flown or trucked in from far away using agricultural practices that may be questionable.

    I have only flown a couple of times, I carpool, I keep my house at a temperature that requires a sweater, I do large laundry loads and hang up a fair bit to dry, most of my house is dark after 4:30 because we only turn on the lights in the room we are in, I buy bulk to prevent waste and skip bottled water, we rarely buy anything new, I shower in low pressure to use less water and using cleaning products that are not as bad for the water supply, but I eat one cows very 18 months or so to help with my health hike skipping most plant foods.... I just don't see that as a big problem. We should just agree to disagree. Best wishes.

    Sure, I have no problem with YOU eating mostly meat. But it's just not feasible for a large part of the population to switch to this, and that suggestion is the source of the pushback you're getting, not for your personal choices.

    I wish more people would implement your energy conservation practices :smile:

    You are right. Most cannot switch to carnivore or we'd have a problem pretty quick. I doubt there will ever be more than a small minority who eat that way. It's definitely smaller than the vegan and vegetarian populations.
  • lemurcat2
    lemurcat2 Posts: 7,885 Member
    Most people in America probably have never even seen grass-fed beef for sale in the store, let alone purchased it, because as it is it would be way out of their price range.

    I'm not sure that's true.

    It's in my grocery, using ground beef as an easy comparison, the grass fed (fat percentage not stated or 85% fat) is about 2x the cost of 80% fat ground beef, but very similar in cost to 95% fat ground beef. The grass fed at the farmers market is only marginally more than that at the grocery store (it's local and organic).

    At this specific grocery store, there are various fruit and vegetable options that are pre-cut and are about 2x or more the cost of the non pre-cut, and there are egg options that are free range or what not (I don't trust any of these labels at groceries), and people buy the more expensive ones quite often.

    So the idea that most have never "seen" these options or cannot possibly afford them seems questionable. Food is actually a much lower percentage of total household budget than it used to be.

    That said, I wouldn't eliminate the cheaper options, although I would eliminate the subsidies.

    I don't see the point in going after the so-called "carnivores," since they are a tiny percentage of the population. If you are actually bothered by meat consumption or farming where huge amounts of agriculture is devoted to feeding animals, it's the regular meat eaters who are the issue.
  • laurenq1991
    laurenq1991 Posts: 384 Member
    lemurcat2 wrote: »
    I'm not sure that's true.

    It's in my grocery, using ground beef as an easy comparison, the grass fed (fat percentage not stated or 85% fat) is about 2x the cost of 80% fat ground beef, but very similar in cost to 95% fat ground beef. The grass fed at the farmers market is only marginally more than that at the grocery store (it's local and organic).

    At this specific grocery store, there are various fruit and vegetable options that are pre-cut and are about 2x or more the cost of the non pre-cut, and there are egg options that are free range or what not (I don't trust any of these labels at groceries), and people buy the more expensive ones quite often.

    So the idea that most have never "seen" these options or cannot possibly afford them seems questionable. Food is actually a much lower percentage of total household budget than it used to be.

    Is it grass-fed and grass-finished, or grass-fed and grain-finished? I know grass-fed butter and cheese are about 2x the price of regular butter and cheese, and the "ethical" eggs are also about 2x the price of the regular ones. I'm not sure that supermarkets in the inner city or certain small towns would necessarily have these options. Does Walmart? Maybe it's just the specific area I live in (NYC region) because food is pretty expensive here and a lot of neighborhoods don't even have complete supermarkets. I hear about people getting five dozen eggs for $5 and blocks of cheddar cheese for $1 in some parts of the country and that is definitely not the case here even if you're buying the cheaper brands.
    I don't see the point in going after the so-called "carnivores," since they are a tiny percentage of the population. If you are actually bothered by meat consumption or farming where huge amounts of agriculture is devoted to feeding animals, it's the regular meat eaters who are the issue.

    It's getting more popular over time though (honestly I've always thought 90% of meat was kind of gross so I can't really understand why someone would want to eat like this, but I guess some people love meat). It's also indicative of a growing sub-population of people who are vilifying carbs. Not just carnivores but also a lot of the low-carb and keto adherents are eating way more meat than even the average American (and the average American eats a lot!) and using questionable reasoning about why this is necessary. When meanwhile experts say we need to be doing the exact opposite and eating way less meat than we are now.

  • johnslater461
    johnslater461 Posts: 449 Member
    psuLemon wrote: »
    nvmomketo wrote: »
    jgnatca wrote: »
    Check mortality rates for communities with a limited diet range.

    It’s more than anecdotal or abbreviated studies when we figure out that there are vitamins and minerals we absolutely need. The discovery of the cause of rickets is high up on that list.

    You can personally re-learn the lessons of the past but these lessons tend to be self limiting.

    Onset of symptoms may not be overnight but if you start getting unexplained bone pain and bleeding gums get thyself to a doctor.

    I don’t buy that cattle are bad for the environment. I live smack dab in the middle of the prairies. Grasslands depend on renewal and they are helped along by close cropping and chopping of the roots by ruminants.

    The historical pemmican out here on the prairies was made from dried meat, fat, and Saskatoon berries. An omnivore concoction.

    I'm not sure what you're saying here. Rickets is unlikely in a carnivore diet since many animal products are high in vitamin D, and also is very rare in the general population. Many foods are now fortified with vitamin D for this reason (among other foods, milk and plant milk are directly fortified, and many meats are indirectly fortified by giving these vitamins to the animals). A well-planned carnivore diet that includes organ meats most likely will not cause any nutritional deficiencies. A bigger concern is the increased risk of cancer because higher red meat consumption is associated with a higher risk of cancer (it is classified as a probable carcinogen by the IARC), and higher consumption of whole grains, fruits, and vegetables, is associated with a lower risk of cancer. Overall a carnivore diet probably won't kill you in the short term, but there's no evidence that it's better than the balanced diet rich in plant foods that is recommended by most nutritionists.


    Only processed meats have a link to cancer and possibly raising your risk of colon cancer from 5 to 6%.

    Red meat has not been shown to be cause cancer at all... And they've looked.

    Wrong again

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4698595/

    The average risk for CRC is 5%. So a 20-30% increase in risk would make it 6-6.5%. Its simple math that is twisted by researchers to make it sound worse. So she was right.

    Add in the fact that this is based off ten epidemiological studies which makes them more limited.

    It's called relative risk. And the risk increase was found in red meat (not just processed)

    So once again she was demonstrably wrong

  • johnslater461
    johnslater461 Posts: 449 Member
    Nobody has mentioned this yet, but my biggest concern with this way of eating is the risk of cancer. From what I understand the research done on meat consumption as a risk to cancer is somewhat skewed because those studies are done on people who follow an omnivorous diet or the standard american diet. So how can we be sure increasing meat is the cause? What if it is the heavily processed and sugary foods people eat on a daily basis that results in this?

    Is there any studies that anybody can direct me to that give clear evidence that more meat = more risk of cancer?

    what's important as well is the quality of the meat you buy. Organic 100% grass fed meat will have a completely different effect on your health than factory farmed, grain fed, hormone and antibiotic packed supermarket meat.

    Citation needed

  • psuLemon
    psuLemon Posts: 38,389 MFP Moderator
    psuLemon wrote: »
    nvmomketo wrote: »
    jgnatca wrote: »
    Check mortality rates for communities with a limited diet range.

    It’s more than anecdotal or abbreviated studies when we figure out that there are vitamins and minerals we absolutely need. The discovery of the cause of rickets is high up on that list.

    You can personally re-learn the lessons of the past but these lessons tend to be self limiting.

    Onset of symptoms may not be overnight but if you start getting unexplained bone pain and bleeding gums get thyself to a doctor.

    I don’t buy that cattle are bad for the environment. I live smack dab in the middle of the prairies. Grasslands depend on renewal and they are helped along by close cropping and chopping of the roots by ruminants.

    The historical pemmican out here on the prairies was made from dried meat, fat, and Saskatoon berries. An omnivore concoction.

    I'm not sure what you're saying here. Rickets is unlikely in a carnivore diet since many animal products are high in vitamin D, and also is very rare in the general population. Many foods are now fortified with vitamin D for this reason (among other foods, milk and plant milk are directly fortified, and many meats are indirectly fortified by giving these vitamins to the animals). A well-planned carnivore diet that includes organ meats most likely will not cause any nutritional deficiencies. A bigger concern is the increased risk of cancer because higher red meat consumption is associated with a higher risk of cancer (it is classified as a probable carcinogen by the IARC), and higher consumption of whole grains, fruits, and vegetables, is associated with a lower risk of cancer. Overall a carnivore diet probably won't kill you in the short term, but there's no evidence that it's better than the balanced diet rich in plant foods that is recommended by most nutritionists.


    Only processed meats have a link to cancer and possibly raising your risk of colon cancer from 5 to 6%.

    Red meat has not been shown to be cause cancer at all... And they've looked.

    Wrong again

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4698595/

    The average risk for CRC is 5%. So a 20-30% increase in risk would make it 6-6.5%. Its simple math that is twisted by researchers to make it sound worse. So she was right.

    Add in the fact that this is based off ten epidemiological studies which makes them more limited.

    It's called relative risk. And the risk increase was found in red meat (not just processed)

    So once again she was demonstrably wrong

    She was partially wrong. She assumed it was only processed meats. It incorporates all red meat. And a 1% risk is far from big or concerning. And again, if you think epidemiological studies have high validatity, you are fooling yourself to justify an argument.
  • kimny72
    kimny72 Posts: 16,013 Member
    Posting facts backed up by scientific research is virtue signalling and trolling?



    So what do you propose we should do? Say nothing lest someone think we are "virtue signalling and trolling" and allow the temperature to rise 7 degrees C by 2100?

    Most everything you have posted here is conjecture - your opinions based on selective readings from the gurus you worship. Don't try to engage me on articles of faith. I don't care. We will never know. And, we can't do anything about it anyway. No one is appointing you or me Supreme Ruler. Meat consumption goes up and down. Probably because of the economy and the weather. Warmer weather, more meat. So, the 20 billion hotdogs are getting eaten next year no matter what you do or say. You and I have no effect whatsoever on these problems. Sorry to break it to you.

    Merry Christmas!

    I get what you're saying, but I would hate to live a life where the only issues I discussed with others were things I had direct control over fixing. I would rather spend some of my time debating big issues that matter whether we control them or not, it's how you learn and expand your mind. And sometimes philosophically debating large issues can help you solve smaller issues.

    If you scroll down the Debate forum list, most are issues we can't fix here. And many classic Debate topics are grand issues and ideas. Many people find debate enjoyable, doesn't mean we think we're going to fix this stuff or come to a universally accepted conclusion here in the forums.
  • lemurcat2
    lemurcat2 Posts: 7,885 Member
    edited December 2018
    lemurcat2 wrote: »
    I'm not sure that's true.

    It's in my grocery, using ground beef as an easy comparison, the grass fed (fat percentage not stated or 85% fat) is about 2x the cost of 80% fat ground beef, but very similar in cost to 95% fat ground beef. The grass fed at the farmers market is only marginally more than that at the grocery store (it's local and organic).

    At this specific grocery store, there are various fruit and vegetable options that are pre-cut and are about 2x or more the cost of the non pre-cut, and there are egg options that are free range or what not (I don't trust any of these labels at groceries), and people buy the more expensive ones quite often.

    So the idea that most have never "seen" these options or cannot possibly afford them seems questionable. Food is actually a much lower percentage of total household budget than it used to be.

    Is it grass-fed and grass-finished, or grass-fed and grain-finished?

    Grass fed and finished.

    I do agree it's not likely to be everywhere.
    It's getting more popular over time though (honestly I've always thought 90% of meat was kind of gross so I can't really understand why someone would want to eat like this, but I guess some people love meat). It's also indicative of a growing sub-population of people who are vilifying carbs. Not just carnivores but also a lot of the low-carb and keto adherents are eating way more meat than even the average American (and the average American eats a lot!) and using questionable reasoning about why this is necessary.

    I don't disagree (although I like meat -- we established you and I have very different tastes, though!), but I think the number of people who will want to do carnivore or stick to it more than a short length of time is very limited, since the vast majority of people would have no desire to do it (and it's boring, which is actually why I think it works as a diet in large part). I also think demonization of carbs and especially of veg (for the very few who go so far as to demonize even veg, I don't think any are on MFP) is tiresome and wrong, but food trends are just that, trends, and it will turn around.

    I think WFPB and veganism are getting more popular, as well as vegetarianism, at the same time -- there's probably greater openness in general to diets that are not the norm that many grew up with (I don't mean simply the SAD, as I certainly did not grow up with that, but the idea that one must eat 3 meals, that dinner isn't dinner without meat, starch, and veg, basically traditional American eating patterns when more people actually cooked). Improving the average diet seems to me a bigger goal than worrying about what carnivores do, although I totally agree that claims that everyone should eat that way or that it's healthier (so all should do it!) should be disputed if made.
  • wilson10102018
    wilson10102018 Posts: 1,306 Member
    edited December 2018
    kimny72 wrote: »

    I get what you're saying, but I would hate to live a life where the only issues I discussed with others were things I had direct control over fixing. I would rather spend some of my time debating big issues that matter whether we control them or not, it's how you learn and expand your mind. And sometimes philosophically debating large issues can help you solve smaller issues.

    If you scroll down the Debate forum list, most are issues we can't fix here. And many classic Debate topics are grand issues and ideas. Many people find debate enjoyable, doesn't mean we think we're going to fix this stuff or come to a universally accepted conclusion here in the forums.

    Oh, I suppose that it serves a purpose for people who are entertained about pointless debate (who would win, the Germans if they had laser guided bombs, or the Allies with EMP's? Answer: The Bears!)

    But, there are actually things that need doing on an individual level. Locally. And, the virtue signalling detracts from that. I have a neighbor who has one of those signs in arabic and english that says something like "we don't care where you are from but we welcome you as our neighbor." But, I have never seen a recycling bin in his driveway, his kids go to a $30k per year per student private school, and he drives a $100,000 car. And, no migrant who reads arabic is moving into our neighborhood unless he is a thoracic surgeon from Dubai.