Carnivore Diet: The Antithesis to Veganism

Options
1…468910

Replies

  • happytree923
    happytree923 Posts: 463 Member
    Options
    wilson10102018 wrote: »
    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.

    Based on how sensitive you are over people discussing this issue, I am guessing it is a bit of a sore topic for you. Is there a discrepancy between your values and your diet that you haven't been able to resolve? Because when I see a discussion I feel is useless, I leave. I don't repeatedly come back to the thread and tell people they are virtue signaling and wasting time discussing an issue that is important to them.
  • kimny72
    kimny72 Posts: 16,013 Member
    edited December 2018
    Options
    Lol, alrighty then.


    nvmomketo wrote: »
    kimny72 wrote: »
    nvmomketo wrote: »
    kimny72 wrote: »
    nvmomketo wrote: »
    laurenq1991 wrote: »
    nvmomketo wrote: »
    I know cows create methane but I'm not convinced that problem is worse than flying or trucking in rice or bananas, or the loss of carbon sinks by changing grasslands and forests to modern agriculture, or just the damage to the soil by turning it over every year.

    Do you have any evidence to back up your assertions or is it just how you feel about it? I and other people posted evidence backing up what we have said.
    There used to be millions of bison here. The only reason they are mostly gone is because Europeans needed a way to control the indigenous people, and decimating their food supply was an easy way to do it. From what I have read, and I could be wrong, there is not more cows in North America today than there was bison a few hundred years ago. There's a lot more agriculture and industrialization though, and I think they should be considered more when pointing fingers on global warming contributors.

    Well first of all that's wrong. Peak bison populations were around 60 million (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_bison#Hunting). The US has around 91 million cattle and Canada has around 12 million (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cattle#Population). And that's with current meat consumption levels, with only a tiny number of people doing the carnivore diet. Imagine how high it would be if a significant amount of people were on the diet. Also the environment is totally different now than it was back then. A lot of land is now not usable for cattle because people live there, have roads there, have other industries there, it is too polluted, etc. Back when the bison population was 60 million, basically the entire grasslands were free to them, and the human population and number of permanent human structures built was much lower. Back then there were some human emissions from fires and so on, but they were very small. The natural emissions from ruminants were balanced out by the large amount of vegetation (a lot of which has now been cut for buildings, roadways, etc.) so it was not a problem.

    As I said, a lot of the agriculture happens in order to grow food FOR animals. If you read the Guardian article I posted you would see that experts estimate animal agriculture takes up 83 percent of all agricultural land use.

    https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/may/31/avoiding-meat-and-dairy-is-single-biggest-way-to-reduce-your-impact-on-earth ("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.")

    Yes, industrialization also contributes to climate change, but that's a different issue, we're talking about animal agriculture here.
    A carnivorous diet is usually high in beef but it can include other animas like fish, pigs, deer, elk, eggs and dairy.

    None of those foods are low-impact either.
    But please note that I am not saying it is the best diet for all, or even doable for all. I do think a more carnivorous diet (more animal heavy than plant heavy) may be more appropriate to certain areas. My area has fewer than 4 months of frost free days - we don't have the growing season for many fruits and veggies. That will be different than tropical and subtropical climates (where we get our produce shipped in from).

    Again, "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."
    Should more people switch to carnivore? I don't know. I doubt it is usually needed. Should people limit or avoid meat? IMO, only for financial or ethical reasons. Most do well as omnivores and should probably continue eating that way. I eat that way, but with an animal heavy diet. I think omnivore is usually the way to go.

    If you go on zerocarb on Reddit you will see most people on the carnivore diet think everyone should go on it. Also fixing climate change is not just an ethical reason, but also a reason of increasing your own personal chance of living a full lifespan, not losing everything in a natural disaster, etc.
    wilson10102018 wrote: »
    I am always amazed that otherwise powerless people want to control what everyone in the World chooses to eat. Although, it is interesting to note the choices people have made after millions of personal decision points in an environment of billions of climate and demographic facts, but debate is utterly pointless.

    When you get to the grocery, folks, put the stuff in your cart that you would like to eat. I'll do the same.

    So just totally ignore the facts on what needs to be done and then, when disaster inevitably strikes, complain "why me?!" and "why didn't anyone do anything about it?!" Judging by the natural disasters lately that's been working out really well.

    Okay. So wild bison populations was about 60 million, give or take millions There may well be more cows now. My point was that there is supposed to be ruminants here. If there are more while being managed, cared for and protected by farmers and medicine, that makes sense to me.

    Most of the vegetation around here was cut for farming, and not roads and human structures. Sure roads and cities take up space but it isn't much up here. I agree that leaving the vegetation, instead of plotting it under, would help manage emissions. Soil fauna and flora has a large impact on that in the prairies, and it is greatly depleted by agriculture.... Whether for human or animal. Grazing would help with that.

    I know you are talking about agriculture here, but I think it is the lesser evil compared to industrial, production and transportation emissions.

    I mentioned other animals because they tend to be easier on plants. Cattle often rip plants up whereas other grazers will eat off the tops of grasses to varying lengths which could improve grasslands habitat.

    And again, I think the animal activists tend to twist the facts so that it looks like it is the animals fault that the environment us impacted rather than it being the fault of people who made poor farming choices, among other poor choices that have not helped the environment.

    All carnivores do not think alike. Just because someone on reddit said everyone should eat this way does not mean every carnivore thinks that.

    I think many natural disasters are man made. Giant fires tend to come from natural fire prevention, then there is too much tinder and you get an inferno. Mudslides seem to happen most in areas that are built onto slopes where vegetation has been removed. Flooding tends to happen along rivers and coasts - on flood plains. These disasters are unfortunate but hardly due to global warming - more poor human planning.

    I have bever said to ignore the facts. But I don't think eating tofu or beans instead of fish or steak is the best answer. I respectfully disagree.

    I feel like you're ignoring the fact that back in the 1700s when the Bison and antelopes freely grazed across the continent, there were less humans. A lot less humans. And there weren't cities and national parks and roads and train tracks and airports. And all those animals, in addition to roaming lands that are no longer unobstructed, were feeding this much smaller population of people.

    Again, the sort of setup you are envisioning perhaps would be possible in the frozen plains of rural Canada, I'll take your word for that, but it would be a very geographically limited setup for a small population of people. The majority of the earth's population simply do not have access to affordable grass fed cattle, reasonably fresh organ meat, or the kind of open space that would be required to raise enough animals to be the only source of food without turning to corporate factory style animal production and slaughter.

    That's sort of my point. It makes environmental sense to eat local. Those living on the coast will eat more fish than me. Albertans will eat more beef than those living in tropical or subtropical areas. those in tropical areas will eat less lamb or olives than those in the Mediterranean areas. Someone eating less beef in Alberta is an ineffective way to protest clear cutting for cattle in Brazil. Kwim?

    Sure. I just don't see how it ties in to supporting a carnivore diet. How many people in the world, when eating strictly local and affordable, would have access to enough nutritious animal products to follow a carnivore diet? In my opinion at least, eating local requires eating an at least omnivorous diet. And for people living in heavily populated (especially urban) regions, I would think it would be very difficult to get affordable "local" meat products at all. It just seems like a niche diet if you are talking about practicality or sustainability. I'm sure there are individuals or select areas where it is practical and sustainable, and you and your corner of the world may be one of them, but I think those are very specific individuals and areas.

    I was not so much arguing for carnivore, but rather against the idea that it is bad for environmental reasons.

    And yes, only specific pockets in the worlds are suited to raising cattle or other ruminants, so eating a diet based on that may not be practical. That was one of my points.

    I do think most people do best as omnivores. It's easy and can be quite healthy. I do not think that the few people who eat carnivore, usually out of a medical necessity, should be encouraged to stop because of global warming. I am healthier when I basically avoid plants. I've discovered that my arthritis and inflammation improves dramatically. I would eat more plants if it did not make me feel less well. I don't eat carnivore because I love the food and variety... ;) it's pretty boring.

    Oh okay, that's not at all the gist I was getting from your posts. I've never heard of anyone's arthritis being affected by eating any type of plant foods.

    While I do eat meat, I don't eat much. I would imagine it could get boring, as in most areas at least there's just not much variety available.

    I think raising animals in a manner closer to their natural habitat and diet would make meat not only more nutritious, but more expensive and lower supply, and I don't think that would necessarily be a bad thing. But I'm aware my own personal beliefs and ethics color that opinion. And as has been pointed out, my opinion won't amount to a hill of beans in this crazy world :lol:
  • laurenq1991
    laurenq1991 Posts: 384 Member
    edited December 2018
    Options
    wilson10102018 wrote: »
    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.

    Why are you assuming that nobody posting on this thread is doing anything else to live a low-impact lifestyle or try to get legislation passed on climate change? But if people listed all the other things they are doing you would say that's "virtue signaling" (it would also be off-topic from the discussion of environmental impact of a meat-based diet).

  • kshama2001
    kshama2001 Posts: 27,996 Member
    Options
    kimny72 wrote: »
    Lol, alrighty then.
    nvmomketo wrote: »
    kimny72 wrote: »
    nvmomketo wrote: »
    kimny72 wrote: »
    nvmomketo wrote: »
    laurenq1991 wrote: »
    nvmomketo wrote: »
    I know cows create methane but I'm not convinced that problem is worse than flying or trucking in rice or bananas, or the loss of carbon sinks by changing grasslands and forests to modern agriculture, or just the damage to the soil by turning it over every year.

    Do you have any evidence to back up your assertions or is it just how you feel about it? I and other people posted evidence backing up what we have said.
    There used to be millions of bison here. The only reason they are mostly gone is because Europeans needed a way to control the indigenous people, and decimating their food supply was an easy way to do it. From what I have read, and I could be wrong, there is not more cows in North America today than there was bison a few hundred years ago. There's a lot more agriculture and industrialization though, and I think they should be considered more when pointing fingers on global warming contributors.

    Well first of all that's wrong. Peak bison populations were around 60 million (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_bison#Hunting). The US has around 91 million cattle and Canada has around 12 million (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cattle#Population). And that's with current meat consumption levels, with only a tiny number of people doing the carnivore diet. Imagine how high it would be if a significant amount of people were on the diet. Also the environment is totally different now than it was back then. A lot of land is now not usable for cattle because people live there, have roads there, have other industries there, it is too polluted, etc. Back when the bison population was 60 million, basically the entire grasslands were free to them, and the human population and number of permanent human structures built was much lower. Back then there were some human emissions from fires and so on, but they were very small. The natural emissions from ruminants were balanced out by the large amount of vegetation (a lot of which has now been cut for buildings, roadways, etc.) so it was not a problem.

    As I said, a lot of the agriculture happens in order to grow food FOR animals. If you read the Guardian article I posted you would see that experts estimate animal agriculture takes up 83 percent of all agricultural land use.

    https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/may/31/avoiding-meat-and-dairy-is-single-biggest-way-to-reduce-your-impact-on-earth ("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.")

    Yes, industrialization also contributes to climate change, but that's a different issue, we're talking about animal agriculture here.
    A carnivorous diet is usually high in beef but it can include other animas like fish, pigs, deer, elk, eggs and dairy.

    None of those foods are low-impact either.
    But please note that I am not saying it is the best diet for all, or even doable for all. I do think a more carnivorous diet (more animal heavy than plant heavy) may be more appropriate to certain areas. My area has fewer than 4 months of frost free days - we don't have the growing season for many fruits and veggies. That will be different than tropical and subtropical climates (where we get our produce shipped in from).

    Again, "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."
    Should more people switch to carnivore? I don't know. I doubt it is usually needed. Should people limit or avoid meat? IMO, only for financial or ethical reasons. Most do well as omnivores and should probably continue eating that way. I eat that way, but with an animal heavy diet. I think omnivore is usually the way to go.

    If you go on zerocarb on Reddit you will see most people on the carnivore diet think everyone should go on it. Also fixing climate change is not just an ethical reason, but also a reason of increasing your own personal chance of living a full lifespan, not losing everything in a natural disaster, etc.
    wilson10102018 wrote: »
    I am always amazed that otherwise powerless people want to control what everyone in the World chooses to eat. Although, it is interesting to note the choices people have made after millions of personal decision points in an environment of billions of climate and demographic facts, but debate is utterly pointless.

    When you get to the grocery, folks, put the stuff in your cart that you would like to eat. I'll do the same.

    So just totally ignore the facts on what needs to be done and then, when disaster inevitably strikes, complain "why me?!" and "why didn't anyone do anything about it?!" Judging by the natural disasters lately that's been working out really well.

    Okay. So wild bison populations was about 60 million, give or take millions There may well be more cows now. My point was that there is supposed to be ruminants here. If there are more while being managed, cared for and protected by farmers and medicine, that makes sense to me.

    Most of the vegetation around here was cut for farming, and not roads and human structures. Sure roads and cities take up space but it isn't much up here. I agree that leaving the vegetation, instead of plotting it under, would help manage emissions. Soil fauna and flora has a large impact on that in the prairies, and it is greatly depleted by agriculture.... Whether for human or animal. Grazing would help with that.

    I know you are talking about agriculture here, but I think it is the lesser evil compared to industrial, production and transportation emissions.

    I mentioned other animals because they tend to be easier on plants. Cattle often rip plants up whereas other grazers will eat off the tops of grasses to varying lengths which could improve grasslands habitat.

    And again, I think the animal activists tend to twist the facts so that it looks like it is the animals fault that the environment us impacted rather than it being the fault of people who made poor farming choices, among other poor choices that have not helped the environment.

    All carnivores do not think alike. Just because someone on reddit said everyone should eat this way does not mean every carnivore thinks that.

    I think many natural disasters are man made. Giant fires tend to come from natural fire prevention, then there is too much tinder and you get an inferno. Mudslides seem to happen most in areas that are built onto slopes where vegetation has been removed. Flooding tends to happen along rivers and coasts - on flood plains. These disasters are unfortunate but hardly due to global warming - more poor human planning.

    I have bever said to ignore the facts. But I don't think eating tofu or beans instead of fish or steak is the best answer. I respectfully disagree.

    I feel like you're ignoring the fact that back in the 1700s when the Bison and antelopes freely grazed across the continent, there were less humans. A lot less humans. And there weren't cities and national parks and roads and train tracks and airports. And all those animals, in addition to roaming lands that are no longer unobstructed, were feeding this much smaller population of people.

    Again, the sort of setup you are envisioning perhaps would be possible in the frozen plains of rural Canada, I'll take your word for that, but it would be a very geographically limited setup for a small population of people. The majority of the earth's population simply do not have access to affordable grass fed cattle, reasonably fresh organ meat, or the kind of open space that would be required to raise enough animals to be the only source of food without turning to corporate factory style animal production and slaughter.

    That's sort of my point. It makes environmental sense to eat local. Those living on the coast will eat more fish than me. Albertans will eat more beef than those living in tropical or subtropical areas. those in tropical areas will eat less lamb or olives than those in the Mediterranean areas. Someone eating less beef in Alberta is an ineffective way to protest clear cutting for cattle in Brazil. Kwim?

    Sure. I just don't see how it ties in to supporting a carnivore diet. How many people in the world, when eating strictly local and affordable, would have access to enough nutritious animal products to follow a carnivore diet? In my opinion at least, eating local requires eating an at least omnivorous diet. And for people living in heavily populated (especially urban) regions, I would think it would be very difficult to get affordable "local" meat products at all. It just seems like a niche diet if you are talking about practicality or sustainability. I'm sure there are individuals or select areas where it is practical and sustainable, and you and your corner of the world may be one of them, but I think those are very specific individuals and areas.

    I was not so much arguing for carnivore, but rather against the idea that it is bad for environmental reasons.

    And yes, only specific pockets in the worlds are suited to raising cattle or other ruminants, so eating a diet based on that may not be practical. That was one of my points.

    I do think most people do best as omnivores. It's easy and can be quite healthy. I do not think that the few people who eat carnivore, usually out of a medical necessity, should be encouraged to stop because of global warming. I am healthier when I basically avoid plants. I've discovered that my arthritis and inflammation improves dramatically. I would eat more plants if it did not make me feel less well. I don't eat carnivore because I love the food and variety... ;) it's pretty boring.

    Oh okay, that's not at all the gist I was getting from your posts. I've never heard of anyone's arthritis being affected by eating any type of plant foods.

    While I do eat meat, I don't eat much. I would imagine it could get boring, as in most areas at least there's just not much variety available.

    I think raising animals in a manner closer to their natural habitat and diet would make meat not only more nutritious, but more expensive and lower supply, and I don't think that would necessarily be a bad thing. But I'm aware my own personal beliefs and ethics color that opinion. And as has been pointed out, my opinion won't amount to a hill of beans in this crazy world :lol:

    Mom thinks limiting nightshade vegetables helps her arthritis but according to this, the science does not support that.

    https://www.arthritis.org/living-with-arthritis/arthritis-diet/best-foods-for-arthritis/best-vegetables-for-arthritis.php

    ...Should You Avoid Nightshade Vegetables?

    Eggplants, peppers, tomatoes and potatoes are all members of the nightshade family. These vegetables contain the chemical solanine, which some people claim aggravates arthritis pain and inflammation. Are nightshades worth avoiding?

    “It is anecdotal, and it certainly might be true for some people, but there are no scientific studies done to prove that they actually cause inflammation or make symptoms worse,” Larson says. Nightshade vegetables are rich in nutrients, making them a worthy addition to your diet. But if you find they trigger arthritis pain, don’t eat them, Larson suggests.
  • laurenq1991
    laurenq1991 Posts: 384 Member
    Options
    nvmomketo wrote: »
    If there were any studies on carnivore groups, then it might be comparable. All that I have seen is that about 200-400 years ago, when Europeans were arriving in North America, there were more centenarians in the very tall and healthy First Nations populations than there was among the Europeans. I think there are still some Masai men out there who eat mainly as a carnivore, but they are not as long lived as those who live a remarkably different lifestyle with a higher socioeconomic status and health and education that the Masai typically are not able to access. There are basically no carnivore, or mostly carnivore, cultures to study anymore. They have adopted western diets and vices.

    Regardless, it is a correlation only. You know that. The blue zones' diet (I assume you are talking about them) may be part of the cause, and probably is, but the fact that they eat plant based foods may not hugely factor into it. Plant based diets are growing in popularity in N. America, and it isn't apparently helping longevity here. Perhaps in is whole foods, freshness, different strains of plains that are not as altered and what most people get, portion size, lack of sugars, reduced exposure to problem foods so they are further back on epidemic changes, lack of alcohol, tobacco, drugs, or avoidance of highly refined and processed foods? We can't dismis location, social structure and support, stress or other factors either.... It's all just correlation. If those cultures had access to more animal products, or they weren't worried about meat affecting ...urges, perhaps they would live even longer. Who knows..

    Obviously you can be very long lived eating mostly plantbased foods. There is little evidence that plant based foods are the reason for it. Doritos, twinkies, and gingerbread cookies are plant based too. ;)

    The plant-based diet that is recommended by nutritionists and was eaten as a traditional diet in most parts of the world throughout human history is "whole foods plant based." https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3662288/ Obviously everyone knows that eating Doritos, Twinkies, and gingerbread cookies is not the key to nutrition, so that is a strawman argument.

    Is there evidence that plant-based diets are not helping longevity? Studies have shown that such diets do in fact reduce the risk of certain "lifestyle diseases." But whole foods plant-based diets have also not been popular for long enough among a large enough segment of the population to have an effect on overall US longevity, especially considering that other segments of the population are eating less healthy than ever before and becoming more obese. Even a lot of people who have whole foods plant based diets now, ate the Standard American Diet growing up. Plus other factors are influencing lowered longevity such as drug and alcohol use and increased environmental pollutants.

  • nowine4me
    nowine4me Posts: 3,985 Member
    Options
    Sounds expensive and boring. I’ll pass.
  • jgnatca
    jgnatca Posts: 14,464 Member
    Options
    The US diet patterns are not homogenous. The way people eat in California is different than the Deep South, the Ozarks, the Midwest and the East Coast. Very different regions.
  • laurenq1991
    laurenq1991 Posts: 384 Member
    Options
    nvmomketo wrote: »
    People are not living longer in the U.S. And plant based diets are growing in popularity. Many are trying to reduce the amount of meat they eat all the time or for some meals each week. If plant based diets are a direct cause of longevity, and are not just correlated with longevity, then life expectancy should be showing this.

    I am aware a blue zone is in the U.S. but those 7th day Adventist are hardly typical I what they eat and how they live. It isn't just the food they eat, although I am sure it can contribute.

    I did not say the blue zones would live longer if they eliminated plants from their diet. Not sure where you got that. I was pointing out that all plant based foods are not equal so saying a plant based diet is the reason they live longer is wrong. Just like bacon is not equal to wild salmon, an Oreo is not equal to a few olives.

    I did not dismis the role that the blue zones' Diets may play in their longevity, but saying their longevity is due to eating foods from plants is a huge leap, IMO. They are doing something right, or many things right, or they live in the right place if have the right genetics or something. We don't know what it is yet though. It's all speculation at this point.

    That is a minority of people. The Standard American Diet is still the typical diet. If you have any evidence indicating that the Standard American Diet is not the typical diet in the US anymore, and that the percentage of Americans following the recommended nutritional guidelines is skyrocketing, now is the time to present it. That doesn't necessarily mean a plant-based diet BTW but it does mean a whole-foods diet with fruits, vegetables, whole grains, legumes, nuts, etc. and a low to moderate amount of animal products. There is plenty of research out there indicating such a diet and/or a whole foods plant-based diet is linked to better health outcomes, including the article I posted.
    Medicine has improved, fewer people smoke now, people make a point to exercise now, medical access has improved, but life expectancy has not.

    Obesity is at all-time highs and, while some people may exercise occasionally, the average American has a very sedentary lifestyle consisting largely of sitting at a desk, sitting in a car, and sitting at home. Also, according to this study, only 23% of Americans get the recommended amount of exercise, varying widely by state.

    https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2018/06/28/cdc-report-only-23-americans-get-enough-exercise/741433002/

Categories