More tripe (or rather reasons to push whole grains) from the usual suspects
Azuriaz
Posts: 785 Member
http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2015/10/ag-v-nutrition/409390/
To take an extreme example, it would be of no use to tell people to eat a diet high in diamonds. It would be counterproductive to extoll the nutritional virtues of human meat. In practical terms, it would be irresponsible not to consider the emissions that accompany large-scale farming of animals (18 to 51 percent of all greenhouse-gas emissions, by various estimates, not to mention intensive water use) when recommending how much animal meat an entire nation of people should ideally consume.
Now don't get me wrong, I detest big industry lobbying and that includes the meat industry. But after decades of lies from the USDA created a nation of sick people there are officials determined to swap out their reasoning from (debunked) health claims to environmental concerns so they can continue to recommend the same low animal product diet.
We low carbers are going to have to keep a close watch on this nonsense. Because subsidies could be involved. And meat is already heavily subsidized to make it (barely) affordable.
(Edit: I'm assuming that human meat part is an error and not meant to extol the virtues of cannibalism!)
To take an extreme example, it would be of no use to tell people to eat a diet high in diamonds. It would be counterproductive to extoll the nutritional virtues of human meat. In practical terms, it would be irresponsible not to consider the emissions that accompany large-scale farming of animals (18 to 51 percent of all greenhouse-gas emissions, by various estimates, not to mention intensive water use) when recommending how much animal meat an entire nation of people should ideally consume.
Now don't get me wrong, I detest big industry lobbying and that includes the meat industry. But after decades of lies from the USDA created a nation of sick people there are officials determined to swap out their reasoning from (debunked) health claims to environmental concerns so they can continue to recommend the same low animal product diet.
We low carbers are going to have to keep a close watch on this nonsense. Because subsidies could be involved. And meat is already heavily subsidized to make it (barely) affordable.
(Edit: I'm assuming that human meat part is an error and not meant to extol the virtues of cannibalism!)
0
Replies
-
I've always wondered if the wording on the "eat more whole grains" stuff was carefully crafted manipulation. Perhaps they meant eating whole grains was better than eating refined grains, i.e. "eat more whole grains than refined grains" became "eat more whole grains". It wouldn't, of course, surprise me.
Thanks for this article.0 -
Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »I've always wondered if the wording on the "eat more whole grains" stuff was carefully crafted manipulation. Perhaps they meant eating whole grains was better than eating refined grains, i.e. "eat more whole grains than refined grains" became "eat more whole grains". It wouldn't, of course, surprise me.
Thanks for this article.
Maybe it was just alliterative. Heart healthy whole grains. So catchy. So slogany. So wrong.
Then again, I'm a cynic. I don't think the intent was ever about heart health. I think it was about getting the majority of workers to eat the cheapest, most portable and storable foods possible.0 -
Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »I've always wondered if the wording on the "eat more whole grains" stuff was carefully crafted manipulation. Perhaps they meant eating whole grains was better than eating refined grains, i.e. "eat more whole grains than refined grains" became "eat more whole grains". It wouldn't, of course, surprise me.
Thanks for this article.
Maybe it was just alliterative. Heart healthy whole grains. So catchy. So slogany. So wrong.
Then again, I'm a cynic. I don't think the intent was ever about heart health. I think it was about getting the majority of workers to eat the cheapest, most portable and storable foods possible.
I think it was about getting us to eat what they were subsidizing and didn't want to. if we leave on grains, the farmers won't need their government money.
(I'm a cynic too)
The fact that it's never about broccoli or other green vegetables is always fascinating to me. They must not have a good lobby.0 -
http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2015/10/ag-v-nutrition/409390/
To take an extreme example, it would be of no use to tell people to eat a diet high in diamonds. It would be counterproductive to extoll the nutritional virtues of human meat. In practical terms, it would be irresponsible not to consider the emissions that accompany large-scale farming of animals (18 to 51 percent of all greenhouse-gas emissions, by various estimates, not to mention intensive water use) when recommending how much animal meat an entire nation of people should ideally consume.
Now don't get me wrong, I detest big industry lobbying and that includes the meat industry. But after decades of lies from the USDA created a nation of sick people there are officials determined to swap out their reasoning from (debunked) health claims to environmental concerns so they can continue to recommend the same low animal product diet.
We low carbers are going to have to keep a close watch on this nonsense. Because subsidies could be involved. And meat is already heavily subsidized to make it (barely) affordable.
(Edit: I'm assuming that human meat part is an error and not meant to extol the virtues of cannibalism!)
In my case, low carb doesn't equal "meat eater", so yeah. The environmental impact of our present day way of raising livestock is indeed huge.
If that doesn't make me "we low carbers", so be it. Proud not to be one of them, then.
0 -
Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »I've always wondered if the wording on the "eat more whole grains" stuff was carefully crafted manipulation. Perhaps they meant eating whole grains was better than eating refined grains, i.e. "eat more whole grains than refined grains" became "eat more whole grains". It wouldn't, of course, surprise me.
Thanks for this article.
Doubtful. Well, at least not by the time it got to the consumers. It's possible the Harvard studies on which the USDA recommendations are supposedly based aren't that bad (and as I recall, they aren't).
Remember the old USDA food pyramid? 6-11 servings of grains per day. 2-3 each of fruits, vegetables, and meat/protein. You have to combine them all in order to get the same amount of servings as grains alone. Ever actually work out what 6-11 servings is? I did one time. It's nearly an entire standard-sized loaf of bread a day. No wonder it's so common to have starches with your starches (pasta and bread, anyone?). You have to in order to meet the USDA guidelines, since even sandwiches for three meals a day only reaches the lower threshold of that (assuming you're using two slices).0 -
Rouzer’s reasoning harkens to the Paleo school of dietary thought, highlighting the absurd extremes to which it gives people license to unlimited meat.
Interesting insight into the author's biases.
It depends strictly on your DNA, that sort of thing. In my opinion, it’s dangerous to set forth guidelines.
I like that guy. The guidelines should be tailored to individuals, not populations. That's how medicine works, why not diet?0 -
Dragonwolf wrote: »Remember the old USDA food pyramid? 6-11 servings of grains per day. 2-3 each of fruits, vegetables, and meat/protein. You have to combine them all in order to get the same amount of servings as grains alone. Ever actually work out what 6-11 servings is? I did one time. It's nearly an entire standard-sized loaf of bread a day. No wonder it's so common to have starches with your starches (pasta and bread, anyone?). You have to in order to meet the USDA guidelines, since even sandwiches for three meals a day only reaches the lower threshold of that (assuming you're using two slices).
I did a project with my daughter for her high school wellness class where she had to design an eating plan based on USDA guidelines. She had a hard time working all the grains into the diet. She finally had the poor hypothetical person eating toast for breakfast, sandwiches for lunch, bread with dinner, pasta salad for a snack - if I ate like that, I wouldn't be able to get up off the couch!0 -
From numbers I have seen Whole Grain products are fractionally less bad for health than our other options. Bad or badder are still bad.
I grew up farming and still live in a land of relative small farms. Since I left all grains a year ago my personal experience has been better health number across the board and good pain management. At my point in life I will do what works best in my case and do my own research vs follow an health guidelines from sellers of grains rubber stamped by any government agency.
If I did not have the training to do so I am not sure what I would be doing. It was 1976 when I first started doing medical research in a medical library. Now with Google, etc things are much easier to research however developing a BS detector is required. 0 -
Dragonwolf wrote: »Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »I've always wondered if the wording on the "eat more whole grains" stuff was carefully crafted manipulation. Perhaps they meant eating whole grains was better than eating refined grains, i.e. "eat more whole grains than refined grains" became "eat more whole grains". It wouldn't, of course, surprise me.
Thanks for this article.
Doubtful. Well, at least not by the time it got to the consumers. It's possible the Harvard studies on which the USDA recommendations are supposedly based aren't that bad (and as I recall, they aren't).
Remember the old USDA food pyramid? 6-11 servings of grains per day. 2-3 each of fruits, vegetables, and meat/protein. You have to combine them all in order to get the same amount of servings as grains alone. Ever actually work out what 6-11 servings is? I did one time. It's nearly an entire standard-sized loaf of bread a day. No wonder it's so common to have starches with your starches (pasta and bread, anyone?). You have to in order to meet the USDA guidelines, since even sandwiches for three meals a day only reaches the lower threshold of that (assuming you're using two slices).
Lordy that's a lot of bread!0 -
http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2015/10/ag-v-nutrition/409390/
To take an extreme example, it would be of no use to tell people to eat a diet high in diamonds. It would be counterproductive to extoll the nutritional virtues of human meat. In practical terms, it would be irresponsible not to consider the emissions that accompany large-scale farming of animals (18 to 51 percent of all greenhouse-gas emissions, by various estimates, not to mention intensive water use) when recommending how much animal meat an entire nation of people should ideally consume.
Now don't get me wrong, I detest big industry lobbying and that includes the meat industry. But after decades of lies from the USDA created a nation of sick people there are officials determined to swap out their reasoning from (debunked) health claims to environmental concerns so they can continue to recommend the same low animal product diet.
We low carbers are going to have to keep a close watch on this nonsense. Because subsidies could be involved. And meat is already heavily subsidized to make it (barely) affordable.
(Edit: I'm assuming that human meat part is an error and not meant to extol the virtues of cannibalism!)
In my case, low carb doesn't equal "meat eater", so yeah. The environmental impact of our present day way of raising livestock is indeed huge.
If that doesn't make me "we low carbers", so be it. Proud not to be one of them, then.
I apologize, there aren't many vegetarians who manage to avoid meat entirely. I did forget that some people manage it. And I agree the impact raising animals for food is huge. Not just of raising animals for slaughter, but raising them to harvest dairy and eggs, too.
But that isn't something that belongs in dietary guidelines. Especially not as an excuse by the same people who lied to us (or worse were just incredibly stupid) for decades about what we should and shouldn't eat and who now seem to want to continue the same dietary recommendations by bringing up the environment.0 -
Check out this petition and who started it.
https://www.change.org/p/mike-conaway-collin-peterson-randy-neugebauer-bob-goodlatte-frank-lucas-steve-king-mike-rogers-glenn-thompson-austin-scott-bob-gibbs-rick-crawford-scott-desjarlair-vicky-hartzler-dan-b-demand-that-quality-science-determines-the-2015-u
Petitioning the U.S. Government
Demand that Quality Science Help Determine the 2015 Dietary Guidelines0 -
Check out this petition and who started it.
https://www.change.org/p/mike-conaway-collin-peterson-randy-neugebauer-bob-goodlatte-frank-lucas-steve-king-mike-rogers-glenn-thompson-austin-scott-bob-gibbs-rick-crawford-scott-desjarlair-vicky-hartzler-dan-b-demand-that-quality-science-determines-the-2015-u
Petitioning the U.S. Government
Demand that Quality Science Help Determine the 2015 Dietary Guidelines
It’s time for all Americans to look beyond MyPlate and begin asking for dietary guidelines based on quality science generated from a variety of different experimental approaches that encompasses a range of different diet approaches. It is also time we have dietary guidelines that eliminate the one-size-fits-all eating plan and focuses on the needs of a very diverse group of people. This can only be done by disrupting the status quo and recognizing the insights of newer, better and more credible science.
Another reason to love the internet. It's the information being made so easily available to all of us that is helping to disrupt that status quo.0 -
I completely agree that guidelines for a whole nation are absurd. I don't know how you could come up with formulas for each person though.0
-
sweetteadrinker2 wrote: »I completely agree that guidelines for a whole nation are absurd. I don't know how you could come up with formulas for each person though.
The first step is to train docs or dietitians. Then they can offer reasonable individual guidance. Eventually, the science and data will improve. Maybe we'll have genetic databases that make this stuff a no-brainer.0 -
sweetteadrinker2 wrote: »I completely agree that guidelines for a whole nation are absurd. I don't know how you could come up with formulas for each person though.
The first step is to train docs or dietitians. Then they can offer reasonable individual guidance. Eventually, the science and data will improve. Maybe we'll have genetic databases that make this stuff a no-brainer.
This! And have a healthcare system that makes highly-educated, open-minded, up-on-the -latest-research healthcare providers accessible before someone needs weight loss surgery or other extreme intervention.
Not even out of goodness and mercy and fellow feeling toward other human beings (though as world ruler I assure you all I would be extremely beneficent) but to save money in the long run.0 -
The main stream medical care services are just going to lag 20-40 years come hell or high water.
I think bariatric surgeons are driving Very Low Carb High Fat WOE (way of eating) so patients recover and lose the weight they expected. A few MD's have been pushing for 40 years so VLCHF WOE's time has come.
As obese people pick up on this and decide to get on the WOE and skip the surgery at this time it may lower healthcare costs upfront and down the road. As long as most of the food in major grocery stores contain grains the grain industry is not at risk however. 0 -
http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2015/10/ag-v-nutrition/409390/
To take an extreme example, it would be of no use to tell people to eat a diet high in diamonds. It would be counterproductive to extoll the nutritional virtues of human meat. In practical terms, it would be irresponsible not to consider the emissions that accompany large-scale farming of animals (18 to 51 percent of all greenhouse-gas emissions, by various estimates, not to mention intensive water use) when recommending how much animal meat an entire nation of people should ideally consume.
Now don't get me wrong, I detest big industry lobbying and that includes the meat industry. But after decades of lies from the USDA created a nation of sick people there are officials determined to swap out their reasoning from (debunked) health claims to environmental concerns so they can continue to recommend the same low animal product diet.
We low carbers are going to have to keep a close watch on this nonsense. Because subsidies could be involved. And meat is already heavily subsidized to make it (barely) affordable.
(Edit: I'm assuming that human meat part is an error and not meant to extol the virtues of cannibalism!)
In my case, low carb doesn't equal "meat eater", so yeah. The environmental impact of our present day way of raising livestock is indeed huge.
If that doesn't make me "we low carbers", so be it. Proud not to be one of them, then.
I apologize, there aren't many vegetarians who manage to avoid meat entirely. I did forget that some people manage it. And I agree the impact raising animals for food is huge. Not just of raising animals for slaughter, but raising them to harvest dairy and eggs, too.
But that isn't something that belongs in dietary guidelines. Especially not as an excuse by the same people who lied to us (or worse were just incredibly stupid) for decades about what we should and shouldn't eat and who now seem to want to continue the same dietary recommendations by bringing up the environment.
I don't know. We eat meat at unprecedented rates, as a general population, not only in the west, but increasingly in China, India and emerging areas as well. I read somewhere that having one meat free day, globally, would already cut our greenhouse gas emissions below Kyoto targets. So why would that not have to be part of dietary guidelines: eat slightly less meat? We changed our aerosol using habits because of the ozone layer, and quite succesfully. We hardly see the danger our present methods of food production are bringing: not only greenhouse gas emissions, but huge food waste, dangerous soil depletion, a phosphate crisis.
Most importantly, I think, we have food, even meat, at incredibly low prices, but we will pay for that with our children's future, sadly. I always smile at the paleo way of having meat with everything. A real paleolithic hunter and gatherer would have gasped in amazement.
I really wince at the steaks that serve as this group's banner. Not because i feel morally assaulted, but because of the lapse of judgement it shows.
So, summing up, I really don't think "dietary advice" should only pertain to what one puts into one's body. "Diet" is always environmental. It cannot be otherwise.
0 -
http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2015/10/ag-v-nutrition/409390/
To take an extreme example, it would be of no use to tell people to eat a diet high in diamonds. It would be counterproductive to extoll the nutritional virtues of human meat. In practical terms, it would be irresponsible not to consider the emissions that accompany large-scale farming of animals (18 to 51 percent of all greenhouse-gas emissions, by various estimates, not to mention intensive water use) when recommending how much animal meat an entire nation of people should ideally consume.
Now don't get me wrong, I detest big industry lobbying and that includes the meat industry. But after decades of lies from the USDA created a nation of sick people there are officials determined to swap out their reasoning from (debunked) health claims to environmental concerns so they can continue to recommend the same low animal product diet.
We low carbers are going to have to keep a close watch on this nonsense. Because subsidies could be involved. And meat is already heavily subsidized to make it (barely) affordable.
(Edit: I'm assuming that human meat part is an error and not meant to extol the virtues of cannibalism!)
In my case, low carb doesn't equal "meat eater", so yeah. The environmental impact of our present day way of raising livestock is indeed huge.
If that doesn't make me "we low carbers", so be it. Proud not to be one of them, then.
I apologize, there aren't many vegetarians who manage to avoid meat entirely. I did forget that some people manage it. And I agree the impact raising animals for food is huge. Not just of raising animals for slaughter, but raising them to harvest dairy and eggs, too.
But that isn't something that belongs in dietary guidelines. Especially not as an excuse by the same people who lied to us (or worse were just incredibly stupid) for decades about what we should and shouldn't eat and who now seem to want to continue the same dietary recommendations by bringing up the environment.
I don't know. We eat meat at unprecedented rates, as a general population, not only in the west, but increasingly in China, India and emerging areas as well. I read somewhere that having one meat free day, globally, would already cut our greenhouse gas emissions below Kyoto targets. So why would that not have to be part of dietary guidelines: eat slightly less meat? We changed our aerosol using habits because of the ozone layer, and quite succesfully. We hardly see the danger our present methods of food production are bringing: not only greenhouse gas emissions, but huge food waste, dangerous soil depletion, a phosphate crisis.
Most importantly, I think, we have food, even meat, at incredibly low prices, but we will pay for that with our children's future, sadly. I always smile at the paleo way of having meat with everything. A real paleolithic hunter and gatherer would have gasped in amazement.
I really wince at the steaks that serve as this group's banner. Not because i feel morally assaulted, but because of the lapse of judgement it shows.
So, summing up, I really don't think "dietary advice" should only pertain to what one puts into one's body. "Diet" is always environmental. It cannot be otherwise.
If pressure is put to raise meat prices only the rich will have meat. They compared it to diamonds in one of those quotes, after all. Who wears diamonds?
But if pressure is put on society to fund technology for alternatives with the understanding that we all have to eat out of the same vat (referring to vat grown meat here) no luxury slaughterhouse steaks for the wealthy and aspirational upper middle class, then maybe a fire will get lit under the right behinds and we'll safely 'science' our way out of it.
If not then I have to go with the selfish option. I don't do well on vegan. I gave it a very good try. And I was vegetarian for years. Usually a fat one.0 -
The global warming agenda has been thoroughly debunked.
Our own NOAA has been caught readjusting weather numbers many times
Recently because we have shown global cooling my. Interestingly NASA confirmed global cooling
Politicizing food is just another manipulation
I would rather eat based on my needs and the raw data.
The grain industry is behind so much of our farming and food industry. The power of $$$$ in politics is undeniable.
Since I don't like the product pushed by those in power and with money, it is natural to expect some resistance
The global warming hokum tie in against meat is not unexpected but totally disregarded.
The health crisis we are in now is much more of a tangible threat to our children and grand children than a lean meat and vegetable based diet
0 -
Check out this petition and who started it.
https://www.change.org/p/mike-conaway-collin-peterson-randy-neugebauer-bob-goodlatte-frank-lucas-steve-king-mike-rogers-glenn-thompson-austin-scott-bob-gibbs-rick-crawford-scott-desjarlair-vicky-hartzler-dan-b-demand-that-quality-science-determines-the-2015-u
Petitioning the U.S. Government
Demand that Quality Science Help Determine the 2015 Dietary Guidelines
Jeff Volek wrote a diet plan for a book I'm reading. In the diet for 'Cruiserweight' include the following items: One time items: ketchup, brown sugar, peanut butter, jelly(the items most on low carb may or may not include); under weekly items: 1.5 gal of 1% milk, 2 quarts of 2% chocolate milk, apple juice, orange juice, 1% cottage cheese, low fat cheddar cheese, loaves of multigrain thin bread, multigrain rolls, bagels, oranges, a banana, multigrain waffles, turkey Italian sausage, box of penne, box of brown rice, box of rolled oats, box of Shredded Wheat and Bran, can of kidney beans, box of saltines, box of granola. These are the items most folks advocating LCHF diets are typically NOT including in the dietary intake. Interesting how people think the science is evolving. It seems some doctors 'evolve' to suit their audience. Do the dance that brought you folks.
0 -
_Terrapin_ wrote: »Check out this petition and who started it.
https://www.change.org/p/mike-conaway-collin-peterson-randy-neugebauer-bob-goodlatte-frank-lucas-steve-king-mike-rogers-glenn-thompson-austin-scott-bob-gibbs-rick-crawford-scott-desjarlair-vicky-hartzler-dan-b-demand-that-quality-science-determines-the-2015-u
Petitioning the U.S. Government
Demand that Quality Science Help Determine the 2015 Dietary Guidelines
Jeff Volek wrote a diet plan for a book I'm reading. In the diet for 'Cruiserweight' include the following items: One time items: ketchup, brown sugar, peanut butter, jelly(the items most on low carb may or may not include); under weekly items: 1.5 gal of 1% milk, 2 quarts of 2% chocolate milk, apple juice, orange juice, 1% cottage cheese, low fat cheddar cheese, loaves of multigrain thin bread, multigrain rolls, bagels, oranges, a banana, multigrain waffles, turkey Italian sausage, box of penne, box of brown rice, box of rolled oats, box of Shredded Wheat and Bran, can of kidney beans, box of saltines, box of granola. These are the items most folks advocating LCHF diets are typically NOT including in the dietary intake. Interesting how people think the science is evolving. It seems some doctors 'evolve' to suit their audience. Do the dance that brought you folks.
People will ever do whatever best fills their wallets when push comes to shove.0 -
http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2015/10/ag-v-nutrition/409390/
To take an extreme example, it would be of no use to tell people to eat a diet high in diamonds. It would be counterproductive to extoll the nutritional virtues of human meat. In practical terms, it would be irresponsible not to consider the emissions that accompany large-scale farming of animals (18 to 51 percent of all greenhouse-gas emissions, by various estimates, not to mention intensive water use) when recommending how much animal meat an entire nation of people should ideally consume.
Now don't get me wrong, I detest big industry lobbying and that includes the meat industry. But after decades of lies from the USDA created a nation of sick people there are officials determined to swap out their reasoning from (debunked) health claims to environmental concerns so they can continue to recommend the same low animal product diet.
We low carbers are going to have to keep a close watch on this nonsense. Because subsidies could be involved. And meat is already heavily subsidized to make it (barely) affordable.
(Edit: I'm assuming that human meat part is an error and not meant to extol the virtues of cannibalism!)
In my case, low carb doesn't equal "meat eater", so yeah. The environmental impact of our present day way of raising livestock is indeed huge.
If that doesn't make me "we low carbers", so be it. Proud not to be one of them, then.
I apologize, there aren't many vegetarians who manage to avoid meat entirely. I did forget that some people manage it. And I agree the impact raising animals for food is huge. Not just of raising animals for slaughter, but raising them to harvest dairy and eggs, too.
But that isn't something that belongs in dietary guidelines. Especially not as an excuse by the same people who lied to us (or worse were just incredibly stupid) for decades about what we should and shouldn't eat and who now seem to want to continue the same dietary recommendations by bringing up the environment.
I don't know. We eat meat at unprecedented rates, as a general population, not only in the west, but increasingly in China, India and emerging areas as well. I read somewhere that having one meat free day, globally, would already cut our greenhouse gas emissions below Kyoto targets. So why would that not have to be part of dietary guidelines: eat slightly less meat? We changed our aerosol using habits because of the ozone layer, and quite succesfully. We hardly see the danger our present methods of food production are bringing: not only greenhouse gas emissions, but huge food waste, dangerous soil depletion, a phosphate crisis.
Most importantly, I think, we have food, even meat, at incredibly low prices, but we will pay for that with our children's future, sadly. I always smile at the paleo way of having meat with everything. A real paleolithic hunter and gatherer would have gasped in amazement.
I really wince at the steaks that serve as this group's banner. Not because i feel morally assaulted, but because of the lapse of judgement it shows.
So, summing up, I really don't think "dietary advice" should only pertain to what one puts into one's body. "Diet" is always environmental. It cannot be otherwise.
We are always open to better suggestions for the banner pic. As long as it applies appropriately to the group as a whole, of course.
Do you have affordable, widely available, suggestions for a variety of delicious meatless LCHF meals that have a moderate amount of protein per serving, which also keep the daily carb count reasonable for every plan, whether it be ketogenic or higher? If you have some practical suggestions, I'm all ears, so to speak.
Our children have no future if they aren't fed. My husband takes a pay cut so that he doesn't have to travel 4 days out of the week. I don't get paid, as I stay home to educate our children, which is an investment in their future. To say we don't have a lot of money is an understatement, once you figure over $10,000 in healthcare paid out of pocket and other expenses (including housing and clothing for the care of the family). We buy the healthiest food we can at the lowest prices we can find. We live rurally so we do not have a wide variety of specialized foods available.
I'm more than willing to secure the future of the planet so my sacrifices aren't wasted. So that my children have a viable planet in their future. The question is "how exactly to do so?"
I was born in "Meat and Taters"ville. We know no other way. We, as a world, need to be educated in the "how." It's not necessarily a matter of poor judgment, but lack of information. And possibly of lack of availability and higher cost. None of these are insurmountable, of course, but they are legitimate barriers, nonetheless.
Suggestions?
0 -
_Terrapin_ wrote: »These are the items most folks advocating LCHF diets are typically NOT including in the dietary intake. Interesting how people think the science is evolving. It seems some doctors 'evolve' to suit their audience.
That's exactly as it should be. LCHF is not optimal for everyone, and Volek would be the first to tell you that. It's ideal for those with "carb intolerance" -- insulin resistance, metabolic syndrome, diabetes, etc. Also for those who just want the specific benefits of ketone/fat adaptation -- endurance athletes, people who want to minimize oxidative stress, people who would benefit from the brain effects.
Both of those groups represent a minority. The majority would probably do fine with the mainstream recommendations.
The problem with mainstream guidelines aimed at the majority is that the minority is pretty large -- maybe 1/3 of the population, and they can be pretty easily identified by standard medical tests.
And, as we see here each day, even LCHF should be tailored to the individual.
0 -
baconslave wrote: »http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2015/10/ag-v-nutrition/409390/
To take an extreme example, it would be of no use to tell people to eat a diet high in diamonds. It would be counterproductive to extoll the nutritional virtues of human meat. In practical terms, it would be irresponsible not to consider the emissions that accompany large-scale farming of animals (18 to 51 percent of all greenhouse-gas emissions, by various estimates, not to mention intensive water use) when recommending how much animal meat an entire nation of people should ideally consume.
Now don't get me wrong, I detest big industry lobbying and that includes the meat industry. But after decades of lies from the USDA created a nation of sick people there are officials determined to swap out their reasoning from (debunked) health claims to environmental concerns so they can continue to recommend the same low animal product diet.
We low carbers are going to have to keep a close watch on this nonsense. Because subsidies could be involved. And meat is already heavily subsidized to make it (barely) affordable.
(Edit: I'm assuming that human meat part is an error and not meant to extol the virtues of cannibalism!)
In my case, low carb doesn't equal "meat eater", so yeah. The environmental impact of our present day way of raising livestock is indeed huge.
If that doesn't make me "we low carbers", so be it. Proud not to be one of them, then.
I apologize, there aren't many vegetarians who manage to avoid meat entirely. I did forget that some people manage it. And I agree the impact raising animals for food is huge. Not just of raising animals for slaughter, but raising them to harvest dairy and eggs, too.
But that isn't something that belongs in dietary guidelines. Especially not as an excuse by the same people who lied to us (or worse were just incredibly stupid) for decades about what we should and shouldn't eat and who now seem to want to continue the same dietary recommendations by bringing up the environment.
I don't know. We eat meat at unprecedented rates, as a general population, not only in the west, but increasingly in China, India and emerging areas as well. I read somewhere that having one meat free day, globally, would already cut our greenhouse gas emissions below Kyoto targets. So why would that not have to be part of dietary guidelines: eat slightly less meat? We changed our aerosol using habits because of the ozone layer, and quite succesfully. We hardly see the danger our present methods of food production are bringing: not only greenhouse gas emissions, but huge food waste, dangerous soil depletion, a phosphate crisis.
Most importantly, I think, we have food, even meat, at incredibly low prices, but we will pay for that with our children's future, sadly. I always smile at the paleo way of having meat with everything. A real paleolithic hunter and gatherer would have gasped in amazement.
I really wince at the steaks that serve as this group's banner. Not because i feel morally assaulted, but because of the lapse of judgement it shows.
So, summing up, I really don't think "dietary advice" should only pertain to what one puts into one's body. "Diet" is always environmental. It cannot be otherwise.
We are always open to better suggestions for the banner pic. As long as it applies appropriately to the group as a whole, of course.
Do you have affordable, widely available, suggestions for a variety of delicious meatless LCHF meals that have a moderate amount of protein per serving, which also keep the daily carb count reasonable for every plan, whether it be ketogenic or higher? If you have some practical suggestions, I'm all ears, so to speak.
Our children have no future if they aren't fed. My husband takes a pay cut so that he doesn't have to travel 4 days out of the week. I don't get paid, as I stay home to educate our children, which is an investment in their future. To say we don't have a lot of money is an understatement, once you figure over $10,000 in healthcare paid out of pocket and other expenses (including housing and clothing for the care of the family). We buy the healthiest food we can at the lowest prices we can find. We live rurally so we do not have a wide variety of specialized foods available.
I'm more than willing to secure the future of the planet so my sacrifices aren't wasted. So that my children have a viable planet in their future. The question is "how exactly to do so?"
I was born in "Meat and Taters"ville. We know no other way. We, as a world, need to be educated in the "how." It's not necessarily a matter of poor judgment, but lack of information. And possibly of lack of availability and higher cost. None of these are insurmountable, of course, but they are legitimate barriers, nonetheless.
Suggestions?
Same here, but I won't eat soy more than once a week and if I'm going to give up meat, I want to go whole hog (haha I so not funny) and go vegan. I don't think I can live on mostly hemp hearts and chia seeds. But I'm open to ideas.
0 -
Do we have a problem of obesity in the USA today or is it just a side effect of other health issues that may be environment/diet related is often the question that comes to my mind. We know there are groups of native people with very different macros that live long healthy lives.0
-
A meat free day would be a total fast day for me, I can't and won't consider plants to be a viable food source. I suggest reading "The Vegetarian Myth" to get a better idea about how much of the environmental "benefits" of vegetarianism are not accurate and it's just as harmful to the environment as raising meat, if not worse. There are problems with our current model of raising meat.
First, we feed a lot of grain to it. Growing all that grain is very harmful to the environment and using it for feed is very inefficient. We could do a lot better if we stopped pouring so much grain into animal feed. That's a result of government policy that makes it cheap to do just that.
Second, a lot of the land we have committed to raising grains and vegetables is unsuited for it. It would be better to raise animals on it. Some of that land would be best suited for animals that aren't necessarily popular food in America (goats and sheep), but that's as much a problem of changing public tastes as convincing them to eat meat-free. We use a lot of land that's unsuited for growing vegetables and grains and that requires extensive intervention that's harmful to the environment (chemical fertilizers, plowing, watering, etc.).
Third, a major issue of over-population. It's hard to say, because we view all life as precious, but we have too many people. That's primarily a function of having so many cheap calories. We've found ways to extend our food supply beyond natural limits, and we've expanded our population to meet the new supply. There's no easy way back from this point.
There's actually a great fiction book that addresses this whole thing in an approachable manner. It's called Ishmael by Daniel Quinn. It's one of the books that got me interested in investigating the effects of systematic agriculture on population and humanity. It's a fiction book, but that doesn't mean the conclusions and direction it takes doesn't connect to reality. There's a lot of fiction that can teach us something about reality.
Anyway, I am also the one responsible for the current banner. I only put it up because the old picture was universally disliked. I put it up as a temporary place-holder. If we have something better, we're more than willing to change it out. I know most people here aren't complete carnivores, like I am, and we could find an image that more suited for everyone.
Edit: There's no lapse in judgement when it comes to eating meat. Meat is an ideal food for humans. It would be a lapse in judgement to suggest otherwise. If we were talking about a population of tigers, no one would dare suggest they should reduce the amount of meat they eat by implementing meatless days. If a population of tigers is truly eating too much meat, it's because the population has grown too large and not because too many tigers are skipping meatless-Mondays.0 -
I like our current banner. I suspect that everyone's dinner plate differs, but I think all of our different approaches are acceptable.
I am a meat eater and choose to eat meat produced by organic farmers who practice sustainable agriculture. My meat is grass fed and my farmers are truly stewards of the land, in that they produce only what their land can sustain without compromising the integrity and nutrients of the soil.
Got to run and meet my farmers now, picking up chickens, eggs, honey, coffee and soap!0 -
Do we need a vote on the banner thread? I love the banner! I'm carnivore, primarily, and it represents 95% of my diet, but I know we have many different ranges, and types, of low careers here too.0
-
OK now I know what you are talking about. Do not change it because I will think I am at the wrong page.
It makes me hungry but I can see those not into eating blood could have a problem with it daily in their face.0 -
I was a vegetarian for several years, very healthy, not overweight(till I ate too many simple carbs, which are the worst for me), and had excellent health markers. BUT, animals, their consumption, their processing, not a problem. Now, how we raise them? Giant freaking problem from many standpoints, but not raising them at all is also misguided. Lab meat, also a problem. We need to do as fitgoat suggests, use the right lands for the right things, not to grow corn.0
This discussion has been closed.