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.
Keto diet = good or bad
Options
Replies
-
magnusthenerd wrote: »alisonpinnell wrote: »keto is great for weight loss but not a sustainable diet
I'm four years in now, so we know it can be sustainable.
Perhaps sustainable was not in reference to the individual.
What does "sustainable" mean, on a group/population level? Or are you just talking "for the majority", in a general way?
Not trying to be confrontational; it's just that I've always thought of sustainability (in a "can a person/people keep it up" sense, not the ecological sense) as an individual thing, so hard to generalize about . . . so curious.
I doubt the person actually meant it in this way, but sustainable is often used at a population level for environment. Honestly, having a large portion of the population on keto does seem unsustainable. Most forms of the diet involve a large animal product base, and a popularity of coconut and avocado. That's hard to maintain.5 -
hnoyola0874 wrote: »I use keto as a lifestyle and not just a diet to lose weight and find a magic pill result. My health has never been as good as it is now. Processed carbs do damage to your health. my blood pressure, Cholesterol and sugar are great now. i no longer suffer from joints and lower back pain. Keto helps with inflammations. In less than a year I have lost 82 pounds and my energy levels are high. you have to educate yourself about keto and not just say you are doing keto and end up doing it wrong. you could do more damage than good.
You were doing pretty well there until you told us what we need to do.
My body weight, BP, cholesterol, and general health are fine, now, just from losing weight, while eating around 200g carbs most days. Joint problems also improved dramatically (though the torn meniscus for which I'm deferring surgery is not magically fixed). I never had problems with blood sugar; but didn't eat truly huge amounts of processed carbs even when I was obese.
Personally, for me - especially as a vegetarian - cutting way back on vegetables, fruits, and legumes would be really dissatisfying. Also, I doubt that eating fewer vegetables is generally a good idea for most people.
I recognize that some people find themselves eating more vegetables while keto then they did previously, which will be a change for the healthier, for them. But my routine is 5+ servings minimum daily, often hitting servings in the teens, and recently hit 24 servings one day, which may be a PR. I would need to dramatically reduce veggies/fruit to reach keto levels of carbs, and I don't think that would be a healthier choice for me. (I'd also have to reduce dairy intake, something my Northern European genes make me tolerate just fine, and which I enjoy.)
Keto can be great for some, and seems to be sustainable for some. That's wonderful! The evangelical approach of saying it would be best for all . . . no. And I'm betting that "you must" is not the most effective way to convert those who are on the fence, either.
Where did he tell anyone what they need to do or say that it was best for all?3 -
hnoyola0874 wrote: »I use keto as a lifestyle and not just a diet to lose weight and find a magic pill result. My health has never been as good as it is now. Processed carbs do damage to your health. my blood pressure, Cholesterol and sugar are great now. i no longer suffer from joints and lower back pain. Keto helps with inflammations. In less than a year I have lost 82 pounds and my energy levels are high. you have to educate yourself about keto and not just say you are doing keto and end up doing it wrong. you could do more damage than good.
You were doing pretty well there until you told us what we need to do.
My body weight, BP, cholesterol, and general health are fine, now, just from losing weight, while eating around 200g carbs most days. Joint problems also improved dramatically (though the torn meniscus for which I'm deferring surgery is not magically fixed). I never had problems with blood sugar; but didn't eat truly huge amounts of processed carbs even when I was obese.
Personally, for me - especially as a vegetarian - cutting way back on vegetables, fruits, and legumes would be really dissatisfying. Also, I doubt that eating fewer vegetables is generally a good idea for most people.
I recognize that some people find themselves eating more vegetables while keto then they did previously, which will be a change for the healthier, for them. But my routine is 5+ servings minimum daily, often hitting servings in the teens, and recently hit 24 servings one day, which may be a PR. I would need to dramatically reduce veggies/fruit to reach keto levels of carbs, and I don't think that would be a healthier choice for me. (I'd also have to reduce dairy intake, something my Northern European genes make me tolerate just fine, and which I enjoy.)
Keto can be great for some, and seems to be sustainable for some. That's wonderful! The evangelical approach of saying it would be best for all . . . no. And I'm betting that "you must" is not the most effective way to convert those who are on the fence, either.
Where did he tell anyone what they need to do or say that it was best for all?
Perhaps I misread him, but "Processed carbs do damage to your health" (unqualified by context or dosage) and "you have to educate yourself about keto and not just say you are doing keto and end up doing it wrong. you could do more damage than good" is what I was reacting to. IMO, any healthful diet , including some forms of "wrong" keto, will be noninjurious (as will proper keto).9 -
magnusthenerd wrote: »alisonpinnell wrote: »keto is great for weight loss but not a sustainable diet
I'm four years in now, so we know it can be sustainable.
Perhaps sustainable was not in reference to the individual.
I live in the foothills of the Rocky Mountains in Canada, beef is the only sustainable food around here beyond some berries in the summer.
6 -
This sounds good, thanks for the idea. https://www.familycircle.com/recipe/steak-with-berry-sauce/ Mulberries are coming into season soon. So good.1
-
magnusthenerd wrote: »alisonpinnell wrote: »keto is great for weight loss but not a sustainable diet
I'm four years in now, so we know it can be sustainable.
Perhaps sustainable was not in reference to the individual.
I live in the foothills of the Rocky Mountains in Canada, beef is the only sustainable food around here beyond some berries in the summer.
I'm not sure in the longer term beef from living animals is sustainable anywhere on this planet, but I don't begrudge people living beyond their means in a global system that has set them and their expectations up for it.15 -
magnusthenerd wrote: »magnusthenerd wrote: »alisonpinnell wrote: »keto is great for weight loss but not a sustainable diet
I'm four years in now, so we know it can be sustainable.
Perhaps sustainable was not in reference to the individual.
I live in the foothills of the Rocky Mountains in Canada, beef is the only sustainable food around here beyond some berries in the summer.
I'm not sure in the longer term beef from living animals is sustainable anywhere on this planet, but I don't begrudge people living beyond their means in a global system that has set them and their expectations up for it.
How kind.
Flying in tofu or bananas or beans is better, I guess...7 -
magnusthenerd wrote: »magnusthenerd wrote: »alisonpinnell wrote: »keto is great for weight loss but not a sustainable diet
I'm four years in now, so we know it can be sustainable.
Perhaps sustainable was not in reference to the individual.
I live in the foothills of the Rocky Mountains in Canada, beef is the only sustainable food around here beyond some berries in the summer.
I'm not sure in the longer term beef from living animals is sustainable anywhere on this planet, but I don't begrudge people living beyond their means in a global system that has set them and their expectations up for it.
How kind.
Flying in tofu or bananas or beans is better, I guess...
From an ecological footprint viewpoint, yes, it is.9 -
Well in the long run, there are zero carbon ways to transport goods, even flying them places. In the long run, there is no way for a ruminant to remain a ruminant and not produce methane.magnusthenerd wrote: »magnusthenerd wrote: »alisonpinnell wrote: »keto is great for weight loss but not a sustainable diet
I'm four years in now, so we know it can be sustainable.
Perhaps sustainable was not in reference to the individual.
I live in the foothills of the Rocky Mountains in Canada, beef is the only sustainable food around here beyond some berries in the summer.
I'm not sure in the longer term beef from living animals is sustainable anywhere on this planet, but I don't begrudge people living beyond their means in a global system that has set them and their expectations up for it.
How kind.
Flying in tofu or bananas or beans is better, I guess...
You also seem to assume I don't think environmental changes will involve people moving. The potential futures I can envision do not hold human autonomy as highly much of western, individualistic liberalism does.10 -
magnusthenerd wrote: »
Well in the long run, there are zero carbon ways to transport goods, even flying them places. In the long run, there is no way for a ruminant to remain a ruminant and not produce methane.magnusthenerd wrote: »magnusthenerd wrote: »alisonpinnell wrote: »keto is great for weight loss but not a sustainable diet
I'm four years in now, so we know it can be sustainable.
Perhaps sustainable was not in reference to the individual.
I live in the foothills of the Rocky Mountains in Canada, beef is the only sustainable food around here beyond some berries in the summer.
I'm not sure in the longer term beef from living animals is sustainable anywhere on this planet, but I don't begrudge people living beyond their means in a global system that has set them and their expectations up for it.
How kind.
Flying in tofu or bananas or beans is better, I guess...
You also seem to assume I don't think environmental changes will involve people moving. The potential futures I can envision do not hold human autonomy as highly much of western, individualistic liberalism does.
When I envision the future, it seems that living in an area that doesn't have the ability to feed the population will be a luxury, a choice that's only available to a select few.5 -
janejellyroll wrote: »magnusthenerd wrote: »
Well in the long run, there are zero carbon ways to transport goods, even flying them places. In the long run, there is no way for a ruminant to remain a ruminant and not produce methane.magnusthenerd wrote: »magnusthenerd wrote: »alisonpinnell wrote: »keto is great for weight loss but not a sustainable diet
I'm four years in now, so we know it can be sustainable.
Perhaps sustainable was not in reference to the individual.
I live in the foothills of the Rocky Mountains in Canada, beef is the only sustainable food around here beyond some berries in the summer.
I'm not sure in the longer term beef from living animals is sustainable anywhere on this planet, but I don't begrudge people living beyond their means in a global system that has set them and their expectations up for it.
How kind.
Flying in tofu or bananas or beans is better, I guess...
You also seem to assume I don't think environmental changes will involve people moving. The potential futures I can envision do not hold human autonomy as highly much of western, individualistic liberalism does.
When I envision the future, it seems that living in an area that doesn't have the ability to feed the population will be a luxury, a choice that's only available to a select few.
Oh, I don't know. Many places like deserts have potential for solar or wind power which the rest of us producers of food may desperately need in the future. So people that live there and run power stations might be just fine.
However, living in the Mediterranean basin, I just can't get into Keto. People here have food traditions that go back centuries. I like this way of eating.3 -
snowflake954 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »magnusthenerd wrote: »
Well in the long run, there are zero carbon ways to transport goods, even flying them places. In the long run, there is no way for a ruminant to remain a ruminant and not produce methane.magnusthenerd wrote: »magnusthenerd wrote: »alisonpinnell wrote: »keto is great for weight loss but not a sustainable diet
I'm four years in now, so we know it can be sustainable.
Perhaps sustainable was not in reference to the individual.
I live in the foothills of the Rocky Mountains in Canada, beef is the only sustainable food around here beyond some berries in the summer.
I'm not sure in the longer term beef from living animals is sustainable anywhere on this planet, but I don't begrudge people living beyond their means in a global system that has set them and their expectations up for it.
How kind.
Flying in tofu or bananas or beans is better, I guess...
You also seem to assume I don't think environmental changes will involve people moving. The potential futures I can envision do not hold human autonomy as highly much of western, individualistic liberalism does.
When I envision the future, it seems that living in an area that doesn't have the ability to feed the population will be a luxury, a choice that's only available to a select few.
Oh, I don't know. Many places like deserts have potential for solar or wind power which the rest of us producers of food may desperately need in the future. So people that live there and run power stations might be just fine.
However, living in the Mediterranean basin, I just can't get into Keto. People here have food traditions that go back centuries. I like this way of eating.
That's a good point. It's possible that areas with resources to trade may be able to make it work in areas with poor food production potential.1 -
magnusthenerd wrote: »
Well in the long run, there are zero carbon ways to transport goods, even flying them places. In the long run, there is no way for a ruminant to remain a ruminant and not produce methane.magnusthenerd wrote: »magnusthenerd wrote: »alisonpinnell wrote: »keto is great for weight loss but not a sustainable diet
I'm four years in now, so we know it can be sustainable.
Perhaps sustainable was not in reference to the individual.
I live in the foothills of the Rocky Mountains in Canada, beef is the only sustainable food around here beyond some berries in the summer.
I'm not sure in the longer term beef from living animals is sustainable anywhere on this planet, but I don't begrudge people living beyond their means in a global system that has set them and their expectations up for it.
How kind.
Flying in tofu or bananas or beans is better, I guess...
You also seem to assume I don't think environmental changes will involve people moving. The potential futures I can envision do not hold human autonomy as highly much of western, individualistic liberalism does.
The effect that ruminants have on the environment is minimal, and not that different than it was a thousand years ago, or even a few hundred years ago during the last mini ice age. That cow burps make a new dangerous level of methane is a myth.
https://www.ars.usda.gov/news-events/news/research-news/2019/study-clarifies-us-beefs-resource-use-and-greenhouse-gas-emissions/
Plus grasslands are a great carbon sink, much better than agriculture is, which is much healthier and better for the soil and water usage with ruminants grazing on it.
You also seem to think I dont care about the environment, I do, but I won't base my diet on environmental misinformation which may negatively impact my health.
10 -
snowflake954 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »magnusthenerd wrote: »
Well in the long run, there are zero carbon ways to transport goods, even flying them places. In the long run, there is no way for a ruminant to remain a ruminant and not produce methane.magnusthenerd wrote: »magnusthenerd wrote: »alisonpinnell wrote: »keto is great for weight loss but not a sustainable diet
I'm four years in now, so we know it can be sustainable.
Perhaps sustainable was not in reference to the individual.
I live in the foothills of the Rocky Mountains in Canada, beef is the only sustainable food around here beyond some berries in the summer.
I'm not sure in the longer term beef from living animals is sustainable anywhere on this planet, but I don't begrudge people living beyond their means in a global system that has set them and their expectations up for it.
How kind.
Flying in tofu or bananas or beans is better, I guess...
You also seem to assume I don't think environmental changes will involve people moving. The potential futures I can envision do not hold human autonomy as highly much of western, individualistic liberalism does.
When I envision the future, it seems that living in an area that doesn't have the ability to feed the population will be a luxury, a choice that's only available to a select few.
Oh, I don't know. Many places like deserts have potential for solar or wind power which the rest of us producers of food may desperately need in the future. So people that live there and run power stations might be just fine.
However, living in the Mediterranean basin, I just can't get into Keto. People here have food traditions that go back centuries. I like this way of eating.
No reason to do keto unless it is offering you some benefit. Do what makes you healthy and happy.3 -
Methane on a per pound basis is about 50x as impactful as CO2 as a greenhouse gas, though one that subsides much faster. My recollection of the amounts per animal are such that it was calculated that Australia could reach its Kyoto Accord goals by giving up its entire cattle industry, replacing it with non-ruminants like kangaroo.magnusthenerd wrote: »
Well in the long run, there are zero carbon ways to transport goods, even flying them places. In the long run, there is no way for a ruminant to remain a ruminant and not produce methane.magnusthenerd wrote: »magnusthenerd wrote: »alisonpinnell wrote: »keto is great for weight loss but not a sustainable diet
I'm four years in now, so we know it can be sustainable.
Perhaps sustainable was not in reference to the individual.
I live in the foothills of the Rocky Mountains in Canada, beef is the only sustainable food around here beyond some berries in the summer.
I'm not sure in the longer term beef from living animals is sustainable anywhere on this planet, but I don't begrudge people living beyond their means in a global system that has set them and their expectations up for it.
How kind.
Flying in tofu or bananas or beans is better, I guess...
You also seem to assume I don't think environmental changes will involve people moving. The potential futures I can envision do not hold human autonomy as highly much of western, individualistic liberalism does.
The effect that ruminants have on the environment is minimal, and not that different than it was a thousand years ago, or even a few hundred years ago during the last mini ice age. That cow burps make a new dangerous level of methane is a myth.
https://www.ars.usda.gov/news-events/news/research-news/2019/study-clarifies-us-beefs-resource-use-and-greenhouse-gas-emissions/
The scale at which modern agriculture, including meat production, is nothing like what it was a few thousand years ago. We definitely have put ruminant numbers and other agricultural animal numbers to levels they'd have never reached naturally.
The Little Ice Age is more a misnomer than ice age. Europe experienced a local warming period around 1,000 AD, and the "Little Ice Age" is relative to that.
I usually take it as more cow flatulence than burps.
In particular, the study is looking at cattle as a portion of the US production of GHG. That has two problems - one the USA already is over the top per capita in GHG use anyway, so the percentage will come off small. The second is that US cattle is, relatively speaking, rather productive compared to the rest of the world, particularly non-industrial regions.
Which is to say, it has little do with the overall idea of beef being sustainable for a global population. Again, the idea seems to assume I think of the picture as current people's current lifestyles continuing. Frankly, I don't picture it as sustainable for huge swathes of the world to live in poverty so people in North America can live richly.
Well except the size of a agricultural land is typically smaller, and working with the same area, allows returning what has been converted into agricultural and grassland back into forests with young forests being a very strong carbon sink.Plus grasslands are a great carbon sink, much better than agriculture is, which is much healthier and better for the soil and water usage with ruminants grazing on it.
Look, I'm not going to make ludicrously strong claims like there would never be a case of a region being most productive as a grams of protein / CO2 being animal husbandry, though perhaps not beef. It just isn't germane to my case to what is globally sustainable, particularly if anyone is going to advocate a sizable portion of the population should be on a ketogenic diet.
I never made any such claim. I think it would be a silly claim to make about anyone - who's going to say they want the environment to be worse, it seems a rather odd position to take. My position is just more pessimistic and perhaps even Malthusian. I think absent rather strong innovations, we'll all see a rather different food environment. I'm not even any shade of vegetarian myself, so I hope artificial meat products really start driving down price via competition and innovation as they currently don't seem to make an economic case for themselves like they should.You also seem to think I dont care about the environment, I do, but I won't base my diet on environmental misinformation which may negatively impact my health.9 -
magnusthenerd wrote: »
Methane on a per pound basis is about 50x as impactful as CO2 as a greenhouse gas, though one that subsides much faster. My recollection of the amounts per animal are such that it was calculated that Australia could reach its Kyoto Accord goals by giving up its entire cattle industry, replacing it with non-ruminants like kangaroo.magnusthenerd wrote: »
Well in the long run, there are zero carbon ways to transport goods, even flying them places. In the long run, there is no way for a ruminant to remain a ruminant and not produce methane.magnusthenerd wrote: »magnusthenerd wrote: »alisonpinnell wrote: »keto is great for weight loss but not a sustainable diet
I'm four years in now, so we know it can be sustainable.
Perhaps sustainable was not in reference to the individual.
I live in the foothills of the Rocky Mountains in Canada, beef is the only sustainable food around here beyond some berries in the summer.
I'm not sure in the longer term beef from living animals is sustainable anywhere on this planet, but I don't begrudge people living beyond their means in a global system that has set them and their expectations up for it.
How kind.
Flying in tofu or bananas or beans is better, I guess...
You also seem to assume I don't think environmental changes will involve people moving. The potential futures I can envision do not hold human autonomy as highly much of western, individualistic liberalism does.
The effect that ruminants have on the environment is minimal, and not that different than it was a thousand years ago, or even a few hundred years ago during the last mini ice age. That cow burps make a new dangerous level of methane is a myth.
https://www.ars.usda.gov/news-events/news/research-news/2019/study-clarifies-us-beefs-resource-use-and-greenhouse-gas-emissions/
The scale at which modern agriculture, including meat production, is nothing like what it was a few thousand years ago. We definitely have put ruminant numbers and other agricultural animal numbers to levels they'd have never reached naturally.
The Little Ice Age is more a misnomer than ice age. Europe experienced a local warming period around 1,000 AD, and the "Little Ice Age" is relative to that.
I usually take it as more cow flatulence than burps.
In particular, the study is looking at cattle as a portion of the US production of GHG. That has two problems - one the USA already is over the top per capita in GHG use anyway, so the percentage will come off small. The second is that US cattle is, relatively speaking, rather productive compared to the rest of the world, particularly non-industrial regions.
Which is to say, it has little do with the overall idea of beef being sustainable for a global population. Again, the idea seems to assume I think of the picture as current people's current lifestyles continuing. Frankly, I don't picture it as sustainable for huge swathes of the world to live in poverty so people in North America can live richly.
I realize that CH4 is more damaging than CO2, but the article is addressing CH4. That cows burps (and it is ruminant burps, not farts) are driving global warming is silly. We have fewer ruminants now than we did 50-100 years ago, and CH4 turns into CO2 within 10-11 years - it isn't hanging around.
Slate natural gas from the US is a MUCH larger problem in my opinion. It's in the same areas as the cattle so NASA's satellite footage isn't showing the cause of higher CH4. Not flaring CH4 is a problem.
Aging forests on Canada's north are also an issue. Burning adds CO2 but letting it rot adds CH4.
Anyways, the only thing that grows well here is grass, unless you add irrigation. We have only 90 frost free days a year here. If we don't eat local beef and eggs, there is not much else to eat unless you rely on transportation, which results in a lot of of CH4 and methane to see that system run (making cars, batteries, roads, tires, making fuel, using fuel, etc).
Well except the size of a agricultural land is typically smaller, and working with the same area, allows returning what has been converted into agricultural and grassland back into forests with young forests being a very strong carbon sink.Plus grasslands are a great carbon sink, much better than agriculture is, which is much healthier and better for the soil and water usage with ruminants grazing on it.
Look, I'm not going to make ludicrously strong claims like there would never be a case of a region being most productive as a grams of protein / CO2 being animal husbandry, though perhaps not beef. It just isn't germane to my case to what is globally sustainable, particularly if anyone is going to advocate a sizable portion of the population should be on a ketogenic diet.
I am not advocating that everyone should be on a ketogenic diet. My point is that arguing against the ketogenic diet in general due to (erroneous save the) environment reasons does not make sense. Those who don't need will probably never use it - why should they?
I never made any such claim. I think it would be a silly claim to make about anyone - who's going to say they want the environment to be worse, it seems a rather odd position to take. My position is just more pessimistic and perhaps even Malthusian. I think absent rather strong innovations, we'll all see a rather different food environment. I'm not even any shade of vegetarian myself, so I hope artificial meat products really start driving down price via competition and innovation as they currently don't seem to make an economic case for themselves like they should.You also seem to think I dont care about the environment, I do, but I won't base my diet on environmental misinformation which may negatively impact my health.
Yeah... see I hope they move towards more sustainable agriculture and ranching methods, and reduce packaging and processing on other plant based foods instead of moving towards invented foods that are there strictly to replace traditional animal based foods. It did not work very well for the switch away from butter and lard. I'd rather wait a generation and let others opposed to eating meat experiment on themselves.
7 -
That they are driving global warming is silly only if one is attempting to interpret it in a silly claim, such as they are the sole cause. Since I would think you would not be trying to dishonestly represent my position, I fail to see why you think it silly to say ruminant methane impacts global warming, given one already accepts anthropogenic climate change via carbon mechanisms.magnusthenerd wrote: »
Methane on a per pound basis is about 50x as impactful as CO2 as a greenhouse gas, though one that subsides much faster. My recollection of the amounts per animal are such that it was calculated that Australia could reach its Kyoto Accord goals by giving up its entire cattle industry, replacing it with non-ruminants like kangaroo.magnusthenerd wrote: »
Well in the long run, there are zero carbon ways to transport goods, even flying them places. In the long run, there is no way for a ruminant to remain a ruminant and not produce methane.magnusthenerd wrote: »magnusthenerd wrote: »alisonpinnell wrote: »keto is great for weight loss but not a sustainable diet
I'm four years in now, so we know it can be sustainable.
Perhaps sustainable was not in reference to the individual.
I live in the foothills of the Rocky Mountains in Canada, beef is the only sustainable food around here beyond some berries in the summer.
I'm not sure in the longer term beef from living animals is sustainable anywhere on this planet, but I don't begrudge people living beyond their means in a global system that has set them and their expectations up for it.
How kind.
Flying in tofu or bananas or beans is better, I guess...
You also seem to assume I don't think environmental changes will involve people moving. The potential futures I can envision do not hold human autonomy as highly much of western, individualistic liberalism does.
The effect that ruminants have on the environment is minimal, and not that different than it was a thousand years ago, or even a few hundred years ago during the last mini ice age. That cow burps make a new dangerous level of methane is a myth.
https://www.ars.usda.gov/news-events/news/research-news/2019/study-clarifies-us-beefs-resource-use-and-greenhouse-gas-emissions/
The scale at which modern agriculture, including meat production, is nothing like what it was a few thousand years ago. We definitely have put ruminant numbers and other agricultural animal numbers to levels they'd have never reached naturally.
The Little Ice Age is more a misnomer than ice age. Europe experienced a local warming period around 1,000 AD, and the "Little Ice Age" is relative to that.
I usually take it as more cow flatulence than burps.
In particular, the study is looking at cattle as a portion of the US production of GHG. That has two problems - one the USA already is over the top per capita in GHG use anyway, so the percentage will come off small. The second is that US cattle is, relatively speaking, rather productive compared to the rest of the world, particularly non-industrial regions.
Which is to say, it has little do with the overall idea of beef being sustainable for a global population. Again, the idea seems to assume I think of the picture as current people's current lifestyles continuing. Frankly, I don't picture it as sustainable for huge swathes of the world to live in poverty so people in North America can live richly.
I realize that CH4 is more damaging than CO2, but the article is addressing CH4. That cows burps (and it is ruminant burps, not farts) are driving global warming is silly. We have fewer ruminants now than we did 50-100 years ago, and CH4 turns into CO2 within 10-11 years - it isn't hanging around.
Slate natural gas from the US is a MUCH larger problem in my opinion. It's in the same areas as the cattle so NASA's satellite footage isn't showing the cause of higher CH4. Not flaring CH4 is a problem.
Aging forests on Canada's north are also an issue. Burning adds CO2 but letting it rot adds CH4.
Anyways, the only thing that grows well here is grass, unless you add irrigation. We have only 90 frost free days a year here. If we don't eat local beef and eggs, there is not much else to eat unless you rely on transportation, which results in a lot of of CH4 and methane to see that system run (making cars, batteries, roads, tires, making fuel, using fuel, etc).
To say we have fewer ruminants now, who is we: globally, the US, or North America? Is this ruminants extending beyond cattle. Is it truly lower or is this a per capita number? I'm a bit skeptical of a claim that globally there were more cows 100 years ago than now globally.
I'm not sure what about our current energy production being unsustainable makes cattle production sustainable. Similarly with aging forests.
I'm also not seeing the point in backtracking on the transit issue. I already conceded that my vision of what will be sustainable could include people will be forced to relocate, or that transportation that is more neutral might be necessary. Certainly the people who will be forced by nature to relocate from the coasts won't be sympathetic to people's complaints that relocation is unacceptable.
I fail to see where I implied anyone was discussing everyone on a ketogenic diet. I think we can agree that even with current, not future populations, 7 billion on keto would, if even possible, involve everyone living on mainly guzzling vegetable oils, which would probably negate any health benefits.
Well except the size of a agricultural land is typically smaller, and working with the same area, allows returning what has been converted into agricultural and grassland back into forests with young forests being a very strong carbon sink.Plus grasslands are a great carbon sink, much better than agriculture is, which is much healthier and better for the soil and water usage with ruminants grazing on it.
Look, I'm not going to make ludicrously strong claims like there would never be a case of a region being most productive as a grams of protein / CO2 being animal husbandry, though perhaps not beef. It just isn't germane to my case to what is globally sustainable, particularly if anyone is going to advocate a sizable portion of the population should be on a ketogenic diet.
I am not advocating that everyone should be on a ketogenic diet. My point is that arguing against the ketogenic diet in general due to (erroneous save the) environment reasons does not make sense. Those who don't need will probably never use it - why should they?
I haven't put the level of thought into it to consider what percent of the population could be sustained on a ketogenic diet, but I'm inclined to guess going much into double digits isn't going to work. Do you think more than 10% of the human population has a health need for ketosis?
I think lab grown meat is about the most compromising of positions, though I don't know if even that would let a global population eat meat at an American level. Long term, I don't think ranching will really be much of an occupation - maybe if ruminants were engineered into non-ruminants.
I never made any such claim. I think it would be a silly claim to make about anyone - who's going to say they want the environment to be worse, it seems a rather odd position to take. My position is just more pessimistic and perhaps even Malthusian. I think absent rather strong innovations, we'll all see a rather different food environment. I'm not even any shade of vegetarian myself, so I hope artificial meat products really start driving down price via competition and innovation as they currently don't seem to make an economic case for themselves like they should.You also seem to think I dont care about the environment, I do, but I won't base my diet on environmental misinformation which may negatively impact my health.
Yeah... see I hope they move towards more sustainable agriculture and ranching methods, and reduce packaging and processing on other plant based foods instead of moving towards invented foods that are there strictly to replace traditional animal based foods. It did not work very well for the switch away from butter and lard. I'd rather wait a generation and let others opposed to eating meat experiment on themselves.
I frankly don't know what the butter and lard switch is meant to imply. I think there's fair enough evidence that plant oils are preferable for cooking and adding fats over animal based oils.11 -
magnusthenerd wrote: »
That they are driving global warming is silly only if one is attempting to interpret it in a silly claim, such as they are the sole cause. Since I would think you would not be trying to dishonestly represent my position, I fail to see why you think it silly to say ruminant methane impacts global warming, given one already accepts anthropogenic climate change via carbon mechanisms.magnusthenerd wrote: »
Methane on a per pound basis is about 50x as impactful as CO2 as a greenhouse gas, though one that subsides much faster. My recollection of the amounts per animal are such that it was calculated that Australia could reach its Kyoto Accord goals by giving up its entire cattle industry, replacing it with non-ruminants like kangaroo.magnusthenerd wrote: »
Well in the long run, there are zero carbon ways to transport goods, even flying them places. In the long run, there is no way for a ruminant to remain a ruminant and not produce methane.magnusthenerd wrote: »magnusthenerd wrote: »alisonpinnell wrote: »keto is great for weight loss but not a sustainable diet
I'm four years in now, so we know it can be sustainable.
Perhaps sustainable was not in reference to the individual.
I live in the foothills of the Rocky Mountains in Canada, beef is the only sustainable food around here beyond some berries in the summer.
I'm not sure in the longer term beef from living animals is sustainable anywhere on this planet, but I don't begrudge people living beyond their means in a global system that has set them and their expectations up for it.
How kind.
Flying in tofu or bananas or beans is better, I guess...
You also seem to assume I don't think environmental changes will involve people moving. The potential futures I can envision do not hold human autonomy as highly much of western, individualistic liberalism does.
The effect that ruminants have on the environment is minimal, and not that different than it was a thousand years ago, or even a few hundred years ago during the last mini ice age. That cow burps make a new dangerous level of methane is a myth.
https://www.ars.usda.gov/news-events/news/research-news/2019/study-clarifies-us-beefs-resource-use-and-greenhouse-gas-emissions/
The scale at which modern agriculture, including meat production, is nothing like what it was a few thousand years ago. We definitely have put ruminant numbers and other agricultural animal numbers to levels they'd have never reached naturally.
The Little Ice Age is more a misnomer than ice age. Europe experienced a local warming period around 1,000 AD, and the "Little Ice Age" is relative to that.
I usually take it as more cow flatulence than burps.
In particular, the study is looking at cattle as a portion of the US production of GHG. That has two problems - one the USA already is over the top per capita in GHG use anyway, so the percentage will come off small. The second is that US cattle is, relatively speaking, rather productive compared to the rest of the world, particularly non-industrial regions.
Which is to say, it has little do with the overall idea of beef being sustainable for a global population. Again, the idea seems to assume I think of the picture as current people's current lifestyles continuing. Frankly, I don't picture it as sustainable for huge swathes of the world to live in poverty so people in North America can live richly.
I realize that CH4 is more damaging than CO2, but the article is addressing CH4. That cows burps (and it is ruminant burps, not farts) are driving global warming is silly. We have fewer ruminants now than we did 50-100 years ago, and CH4 turns into CO2 within 10-11 years - it isn't hanging around.
Slate natural gas from the US is a MUCH larger problem in my opinion. It's in the same areas as the cattle so NASA's satellite footage isn't showing the cause of higher CH4. Not flaring CH4 is a problem.
Aging forests on Canada's north are also an issue. Burning adds CO2 but letting it rot adds CH4.
Anyways, the only thing that grows well here is grass, unless you add irrigation. We have only 90 frost free days a year here. If we don't eat local beef and eggs, there is not much else to eat unless you rely on transportation, which results in a lot of of CH4 and methane to see that system run (making cars, batteries, roads, tires, making fuel, using fuel, etc).
To say we have fewer ruminants now, who is we: globally, the US, or North America? Is this ruminants extending beyond cattle. Is it truly lower or is this a per capita number? I'm a bit skeptical of a claim that globally there were more cows 100 years ago than now globally.
I'm not sure what about our current energy production being unsustainable makes cattle production sustainable. Similarly with aging forests.
I'm also not seeing the point in backtracking on the transit issue. I already conceded that my vision of what will be sustainable could include people will be forced to relocate, or that transportation that is more neutral might be necessary. Certainly the people who will be forced by nature to relocate from the coasts won't be sympathetic to people's complaints that relocation is unacceptable.
I did not say it was silly to say that cows small contribution in methane burps was silly (I believe it is around 3-4%). What I said was, "That cows burps (and it is ruminant burps, not farts) are driving global warming is silly." Far from the sole cause or even much of a cause at all. It has a minor contribution but that's it.
And I did not say relocation is unacceptable. Nor imply it. I said transportation and infrastructure needed to transport food in creates a lot of methane - I think its contribution is often mistakenly overlooked, which may be due to the influence of animal activists who do not support meat eating nor its benefits.
In North America, there are fewer ruminants now than there was 100 years ago (yet they make more milk and beef). Compared to the bison (excluding deer, moose, caribou, goats, elk, sheep, etc) there are approximately up to 30% more ruminants on North America now. It may be less. I've seen both, and inbetween estimated. Other man-made sources of methane are way up.
I landfills alone appear to contribute many times more methane than ruminants. Rice production does too... using updated information and not the old, outdated and now shown to be wrong numbers.magnusthenerd wrote: »
I fail to see where I implied anyone was discussing everyone on a ketogenic diet. I think we can agree that even with current, not future populations, 7 billion on keto would, if even possible, involve everyone living on mainly guzzling vegetable oils, which would probably negate any health benefits.
Well except the size of a agricultural land is typically smaller, and working with the same area, allows returning what has been converted into agricultural and grassland back into forests with young forests being a very strong carbon sink.Plus grasslands are a great carbon sink, much better than agriculture is, which is much healthier and better for the soil and water usage with ruminants grazing on it.
Look, I'm not going to make ludicrously strong claims like there would never be a case of a region being most productive as a grams of protein / CO2 being animal husbandry, though perhaps not beef. It just isn't germane to my case to what is globally sustainable, particularly if anyone is going to advocate a sizable portion of the population should be on a ketogenic diet.
I am not advocating that everyone should be on a ketogenic diet. My point is that arguing against the ketogenic diet in general due to (erroneous save the) environment reasons does not make sense. Those who don't need will probably never use it - why should they?
I haven't put the level of thought into it to consider what percent of the population could be sustained on a ketogenic diet, but I'm inclined to guess going much into double digits isn't going to work. Do you think more than 10% of the human population has a health need for ketosis?
I am guessing that grazing cows would produce more food energy than seed oils would, but I agree that a meat based diet for all would not work. Happily a ketogenic diet need not be meat based - that is just my personal preference and what works best for my health. Also happily, not everyone needs to eat ketogenic.
I think more than 10% of the population would benefit from a ketogenic diet - I am thinking of those who need to treat serious metabolic diseases like T2D. NAFLD, or CVD. As long as it is not too extreme, many would benefit from low carb. Of course, these illnesses also are also aided by exercise, weightloss and other life style changes but it isn't always enough. For example, Britain has shown that there are only three proven ways to reliably reverse (not just treat) T2D: bariatric surgery, 800 kcal diet with meal replacement shakes, and a LCHF diet of whole foods.
As for the metabolically healthy, I have seen no evidence that a ketogenic diet is needed for good health.
If we can avoid these diseases, possibly through better life long nutrition, probably something mostly whole foods based with lower highly processed and refined foods, then I think a ketogenic diet is often not needed. I also think a LFHC diet can work with a good lifestyle, but it appears to be harder to stick with for many.magnusthenerd wrote: »
I think lab grown meat is about the most compromising of positions, though I don't know if even that would let a global population eat meat at an American level. Long term, I don't think ranching will really be much of an occupation - maybe if ruminants were engineered into non-ruminants.
I never made any such claim. I think it would be a silly claim to make about anyone - who's going to say they want the environment to be worse, it seems a rather odd position to take. My position is just more pessimistic and perhaps even Malthusian. I think absent rather strong innovations, we'll all see a rather different food environment. I'm not even any shade of vegetarian myself, so I hope artificial meat products really start driving down price via competition and innovation as they currently don't seem to make an economic case for themselves like they should.You also seem to think I dont care about the environment, I do, but I won't base my diet on environmental misinformation which may negatively impact my health.
Yeah... see I hope they move towards more sustainable agriculture and ranching methods, and reduce packaging and processing on other plant based foods instead of moving towards invented foods that are there strictly to replace traditional animal based foods. It did not work very well for the switch away from butter and lard. I'd rather wait a generation and let others opposed to eating meat experiment on themselves.
I frankly don't know what the butter and lard switch is meant to imply. I think there's fair enough evidence that plant oils are preferable for cooking and adding fats over animal based oils.
Butter and lard was replaced with seed oils hydrogenated, and partially hydrogenated, forms. They were invented for industry and then someone discovered they looked a lot like lard so why not sell it as a food (like substance). They may lower LDL, but they also lower HDL, raise triglycerides, do not change your CVD risk and raise cancer rates.
I don't understand why one would want ruminants to be non-ruminants. These are the only animals on Earth who can change grass, which very few animals thrive on, in marginal areas (agriculturally speaking) and turn it into nutrient rich products that we can use just to lower methane rates by a tiny amount... maybe 3 or 4% it you get rid of all ruminants - goodbye horses, sheep, elk and other ruminants which also contribute methane; we do too, just not as much. Simply getting rid of all horses would lower the methane emissions of ruminants by up to 10%. Sadly, the GHGs and pollutants created by pet ownership is fairly substantial in itself. I don't want to get rid of my dog.
Reducing GHGs is not an easy answer. I believe animals are not a large problem, and what they impact negatively may not be worth the health risks of giving them up, or eating little meat, on a global scale. There are a number of other foods, like bottled water; cans of soda; cut, washed, bleached and prepackaged mini carrots; or boxes of dehydrated mashed potatoes; which I would guess leave a larger ecological footprint for a much a smaller nutritional bang for your buck than red meat.
It's an interesting topic, but not one solved by skipping meat. JMO17 -
...magnusthenerd wrote: »
That they are driving global warming is silly only if one is attempting to interpret it in a silly claim, such as they are the sole cause. Since I would think you would not be trying to dishonestly represent my position, I fail to see why you think it silly to say ruminant methane impacts global warming, given one already accepts anthropogenic climate change via carbon mechanisms.magnusthenerd wrote: »
Methane on a per pound basis is about 50x as impactful as CO2 as a greenhouse gas, though one that subsides much faster. My recollection of the amounts per animal are such that it was calculated that Australia could reach its Kyoto Accord goals by giving up its entire cattle industry, replacing it with non-ruminants like kangaroo.magnusthenerd wrote: »
Well in the long run, there are zero carbon ways to transport goods, even flying them places. In the long run, there is no way for a ruminant to remain a ruminant and not produce methane.magnusthenerd wrote: »magnusthenerd wrote: »alisonpinnell wrote: »keto is great for weight loss but not a sustainable diet
I'm four years in now, so we know it can be sustainable.
Perhaps sustainable was not in reference to the individual.
I live in the foothills of the Rocky Mountains in Canada, beef is the only sustainable food around here beyond some berries in the summer.
I'm not sure in the longer term beef from living animals is sustainable anywhere on this planet, but I don't begrudge people living beyond their means in a global system that has set them and their expectations up for it.
How kind.
Flying in tofu or bananas or beans is better, I guess...
You also seem to assume I don't think environmental changes will involve people moving. The potential futures I can envision do not hold human autonomy as highly much of western, individualistic liberalism does.
The effect that ruminants have on the environment is minimal, and not that different than it was a thousand years ago, or even a few hundred years ago during the last mini ice age. That cow burps make a new dangerous level of methane is a myth.
https://www.ars.usda.gov/news-events/news/research-news/2019/study-clarifies-us-beefs-resource-use-and-greenhouse-gas-emissions/
The scale at which modern agriculture, including meat production, is nothing like what it was a few thousand years ago. We definitely have put ruminant numbers and other agricultural animal numbers to levels they'd have never reached naturally.
The Little Ice Age is more a misnomer than ice age. Europe experienced a local warming period around 1,000 AD, and the "Little Ice Age" is relative to that.
I usually take it as more cow flatulence than burps.
In particular, the study is looking at cattle as a portion of the US production of GHG. That has two problems - one the USA already is over the top per capita in GHG use anyway, so the percentage will come off small. The second is that US cattle is, relatively speaking, rather productive compared to the rest of the world, particularly non-industrial regions.
Which is to say, it has little do with the overall idea of beef being sustainable for a global population. Again, the idea seems to assume I think of the picture as current people's current lifestyles continuing. Frankly, I don't picture it as sustainable for huge swathes of the world to live in poverty so people in North America can live richly.
I realize that CH4 is more damaging than CO2, but the article is addressing CH4. That cows burps (and it is ruminant burps, not farts) are driving global warming is silly. We have fewer ruminants now than we did 50-100 years ago, and CH4 turns into CO2 within 10-11 years - it isn't hanging around.
Slate natural gas from the US is a MUCH larger problem in my opinion. It's in the same areas as the cattle so NASA's satellite footage isn't showing the cause of higher CH4. Not flaring CH4 is a problem.
Aging forests on Canada's north are also an issue. Burning adds CO2 but letting it rot adds CH4.
Anyways, the only thing that grows well here is grass, unless you add irrigation. We have only 90 frost free days a year here. If we don't eat local beef and eggs, there is not much else to eat unless you rely on transportation, which results in a lot of of CH4 and methane to see that system run (making cars, batteries, roads, tires, making fuel, using fuel, etc).
To say we have fewer ruminants now, who is we: globally, the US, or North America? Is this ruminants extending beyond cattle. Is it truly lower or is this a per capita number? I'm a bit skeptical of a claim that globally there were more cows 100 years ago than now globally.
I'm not sure what about our current energy production being unsustainable makes cattle production sustainable. Similarly with aging forests.
I'm also not seeing the point in backtracking on the transit issue. I already conceded that my vision of what will be sustainable could include people will be forced to relocate, or that transportation that is more neutral might be necessary. Certainly the people who will be forced by nature to relocate from the coasts won't be sympathetic to people's complaints that relocation is unacceptable.
I did not say it was silly to say that cows small contribution in methane burps was silly (I believe it is around 3-4%). What I said was, "That cows burps (and it is ruminant burps, not farts) are driving global warming is silly." Far from the sole cause or even much of a cause at all. It has a minor contribution but that's it.
And I did not say relocation is unacceptable. Nor imply it. I said transportation and infrastructure needed to transport food in creates a lot of methane - I think its contribution is often mistakenly overlooked, which may be due to the influence of animal activists who do not support meat eating nor its benefits.
In North America, there are fewer ruminants now than there was 100 years ago (yet they make more milk and beef). Compared to the bison (excluding deer, moose, caribou, goats, elk, sheep, etc) there are approximately up to 30% more ruminants on North America now. It may be less. I've seen both, and inbetween estimated. Other man-made sources of methane are way up.
I landfills alone appear to contribute many times more methane than ruminants. Rice production does too... using updated information and not the old, outdated and now shown to be wrong numbers.
Okay, so if you're saying driving as in to be the predominate or only cause of global warming, I'm not sure I see the relevance to any of my points. I'm not attributing global warming solely to even agriculture, let alone cattle. That there's beef to be had with a lot of industries doesn't eliminate beef as an issue.
I'm afraid I'm confused then what the transport discussion is. Is it about future conditions (what I was taking it to be), or what currently accounts for causes of global warming? I don't have a disagreement with the idea that transportation, including agricultural transport plays a role in GHG production. Honestly, it is probably one of the areas meat is probably doing a better than average job - I think most meat is transported by ship or train which are a lot lower than say vegetables being hauled by truck.
So the ruminants is a North America thing. Given bison were at ~1000 by 1889 do you perhaps mean a different timeline than 100 years? As far as heads of cattle, In 1920, there there was a cattle inventory of around 12.5 million heads in the US, while today it is estimated at 94.4 million. I'm not sure what number exactly you're saying of what is higher in what year unless you have a very different set of data you're using.
I don't see what the relevance of other sources of methane are. To say someone is eating too much cheesecake to lose weight doesn't mean they aren't also eating too much cheese too.
I don't see how cows could produce more energy per GHG than growing grains for oils in any but some very marginal lands. My recollection from reports about an estimated 1% or less of all land would be most productive for animal production.magnusthenerd wrote: »
I fail to see where I implied anyone was discussing everyone on a ketogenic diet. I think we can agree that even with current, not future populations, 7 billion on keto would, if even possible, involve everyone living on mainly guzzling vegetable oils, which would probably negate any health benefits.
Well except the size of a agricultural land is typically smaller, and working with the same area, allows returning what has been converted into agricultural and grassland back into forests with young forests being a very strong carbon sink.Plus grasslands are a great carbon sink, much better than agriculture is, which is much healthier and better for the soil and water usage with ruminants grazing on it.
Look, I'm not going to make ludicrously strong claims like there would never be a case of a region being most productive as a grams of protein / CO2 being animal husbandry, though perhaps not beef. It just isn't germane to my case to what is globally sustainable, particularly if anyone is going to advocate a sizable portion of the population should be on a ketogenic diet.
I am not advocating that everyone should be on a ketogenic diet. My point is that arguing against the ketogenic diet in general due to (erroneous save the) environment reasons does not make sense. Those who don't need will probably never use it - why should they?
I haven't put the level of thought into it to consider what percent of the population could be sustained on a ketogenic diet, but I'm inclined to guess going much into double digits isn't going to work. Do you think more than 10% of the human population has a health need for ketosis?
I am guessing that grazing cows would produce more food energy than seed oils would, but I agree that a meat based diet for all would not work. Happily a ketogenic diet need not be meat based - that is just my personal preference and what works best for my health. Also happily, not everyone needs to eat ketogenic.
I think more than 10% of the population would benefit from a ketogenic diet - I am thinking of those who need to treat serious metabolic diseases like T2D. NAFLD, or CVD. As long as it is not too extreme, many would benefit from low carb. Of course, these illnesses also are also aided by exercise, weightloss and other life style changes but it isn't always enough. For example, Britain has shown that there are only three proven ways to reliably reverse (not just treat) T2D: bariatric surgery, 800 kcal diet with meal replacement shakes, and a LCHF diet of whole foods.
As for the metabolically healthy, I have seen no evidence that a ketogenic diet is needed for good health.
If we can avoid these diseases, possibly through better life long nutrition, probably something mostly whole foods based with lower highly processed and refined foods, then I think a ketogenic diet is often not needed. I also think a LFHC diet can work with a good lifestyle, but it appears to be harder to stick with for many.
I fail to see keto as a health benefit for NAFLD or CVD independent of weight loss, and maybe marginally for T2D based on diagnostic criteria.magnusthenerd wrote: »
I think lab grown meat is about the most compromising of positions, though I don't know if even that would let a global population eat meat at an American level. Long term, I don't think ranching will really be much of an occupation - maybe if ruminants were engineered into non-ruminants.
I never made any such claim. I think it would be a silly claim to make about anyone - who's going to say they want the environment to be worse, it seems a rather odd position to take. My position is just more pessimistic and perhaps even Malthusian. I think absent rather strong innovations, we'll all see a rather different food environment. I'm not even any shade of vegetarian myself, so I hope artificial meat products really start driving down price via competition and innovation as they currently don't seem to make an economic case for themselves like they should.You also seem to think I dont care about the environment, I do, but I won't base my diet on environmental misinformation which may negatively impact my health.
Yeah... see I hope they move towards more sustainable agriculture and ranching methods, and reduce packaging and processing on other plant based foods instead of moving towards invented foods that are there strictly to replace traditional animal based foods. It did not work very well for the switch away from butter and lard. I'd rather wait a generation and let others opposed to eating meat experiment on themselves.
I frankly don't know what the butter and lard switch is meant to imply. I think there's fair enough evidence that plant oils are preferable for cooking and adding fats over animal based oils.
Butter and lard was replaced with seed oils hydrogenated, and partially hydrogenated, forms. They were invented for industry and then someone discovered they looked a lot like lard so why not sell it as a food (like substance). They may lower LDL, but they also lower HDL, raise triglycerides, do not change your CVD risk and raise cancer rates.
I don't understand why one would want ruminants to be non-ruminants. These are the only animals on Earth who can change grass, which very few animals thrive on, in marginal areas (agriculturally speaking) and turn it into nutrient rich products that we can use just to lower methane rates by a tiny amount... maybe 3 or 4% it you get rid of all ruminants - goodbye horses, sheep, elk and other ruminants which also contribute methane; we do too, just not as much. Simply getting rid of all horses would lower the methane emissions of ruminants by up to 10%. Sadly, the GHGs and pollutants created by pet ownership is fairly substantial in itself. I don't want to get rid of my dog.
Reducing GHGs is not an easy answer. I believe animals are not a large problem, and what they impact negatively may not be worth the health risks of giving them up, or eating little meat, on a global scale. There are a number of other foods, like bottled water; cans of soda; cut, washed, bleached and prepackaged mini carrots; or boxes of dehydrated mashed potatoes; which I would guess leave a larger ecological footprint for a much a smaller nutritional bang for your buck than red meat.
It's an interesting topic, but not one solved by skipping meat. JMO
Ah, so trans fats. Sure, trans fats aren't an improvement over animal fats. I wouldn't have described that as simply an experiment to remove lards without including the idea of trying to force an excessive shelf life on it.
Ruminants into non-ruminants is a matter of their digestion. Kangaroos are a kind of beef, and they're not ruminants. I already mentioned them in relation to Australia. If it is possible to replace the way a cow does digestion, it might be possible to eliminate their methane release.
I think you mean reducing GHGs has no easy answers? Sure but I would take it as such because it requires all of the above in all kinds of sectors. I don't think have 900 million or more eating meat at even the current American levels, let alone ketogenic levels is going to be part of those answers.7
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.4K 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
- 390 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
- 922 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions