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.
This decades “health woo”
Options
Replies
-
Silage is fed to grass fed cows in the winter when the fields are unproductive. Hay too.4
-
Yep. And then the kind of silage becomes important.Silage is fed to grass fed cows in the winter when the fields are unproductive. Hay too.
Of course, the main issue I'm raising this is because I find it personally amusing how many people out there would respond to my question with, "grass, duh".
0 -
HeliumIsNoble wrote: »@nvmomketo Where is that pie chart from? It has a spelling mistake in the title, which makes me doubt its reliability.
Also, in regards to the issue of environmentally sustainable livestock rearing, what do the grass-fed cows eat in January?
The pie chart is in this article where the spelling is correct. I cannot imagine why it was changed on another site
https://optimisingnutrition.com/2019/01/20/should-you-eat-lancet/
0 -
laurenq1991 wrote: ») I did say
And I stand by that. A diet of 50+% carbs is not going to work for many with IR.At the very least a large minority of North America is dealing with insulin resistance. That many carbs is not going to work for many.
Citation needed.And where in the world did I advocate that everyone should eat all meat? I have argued that some are healthier eating almost all meat and that they should not be pressured to cut back, and worsen their health by really weak claims that cow gas is destroying the environment. The amount of people eating that way is miniscule. The argument is ridiculous.
It was implied that you think people with IR should eat this diet (a lot of the population) and you have been vocal in your support for carnivory in other threads.You want a citation for why I don't believe that restricting meat intake would make a greater impact on the environment that better farming practices would? For my belief? Because I have seen no evidence to prove otherwise? That makes no sense.
Uh...yeah? You're making a (supposedly) scientific claim. Scientific claims are backed up by evidence. They aren't "beliefs," they're "findings." There's plenty of studies out there on the environmental impact of certain foods and those studies do not on the whole support your claim.I advocate for the right for people to eat the best diet for their best health without lame environmental claims being made in an effort to stop them.
Oh so it sounds like you believe in the ol' "environmentalists are lying to force everyone to be vegan" conspiracy. Well again, where is the evidence of that?I'm all for helping the environment, but I think advocating a diet for the world based on weak evidence that less meat will help the environment, and no evidence that less meat is healthier for people, is a bad idea put together by a powerful few who are pushing a misinformed agenda.
Citation needed. Also you may be old and not have that many years left and so you don't care if the deluge comes after you, but the rest of us have to live here and the effects of climate change are going to be way worse for the collective health of humanity than some carbs.More sugar than beef. LOL
That's way less refined sugar than what the average Westerner eats, 25g if it's a 2000 calorie diet which is the recommended limit. They're probably basing it on that to be realistic (like if they said don't eat refined sugar on top of all the other changes people would be less likely to agree).
But regardless of any one organization's example recommendations you have no support for your claims on the environment and never have. If you did you would post that evidence.
Nvketomom is thinking there is a larg majority have IR based on projective statistics. 8% of the population have been diagnosed with IR or diabetes. But they project that 32% are "undiagnosed" which means they might get IR sometime in their lifetime if they don't take actions.
Having said that, if you need a citation that those with actual IR benefit from a low carb or keto diet, than you haven't done much research. Its pretty well established that those with IR benefit from lowering carbs.2 -
prehistoricmoongoddess wrote: »HeliumIsNoble wrote: »@nvmomketo Where is that pie chart from? It has a spelling mistake in the title, which makes me doubt its reliability.
Also, in regards to the issue of environmentally sustainable livestock rearing, what do the grass-fed cows eat in January?
The pie chart is in this article where the spelling is correct. I cannot imagine why it was changed on another site
https://optimisingnutrition.com/2019/01/20/should-you-eat-lancet/
Thank you for linking.
1 -
HeliumIsNoble wrote: »@nvmomketo Where is that pie chart from? It has a spelling mistake in the title, which makes me doubt its reliability.
Also, in regards to the issue of environmentally sustainable livestock rearing, what do the grass-fed cows eat in January?
Around here, mainly hay. The might be supplemented with barley.0 -
laurenq1991 wrote: »
This is now common knowledge.And where in the world did I advocate that everyone should eat all meat? I have argued that some are healthier eating almost all meat and that they should not be pressured to cut back, and worsen their health by really weak claims that cow gas is destroying the environment. The amount of people eating that way is miniscule. The argument is ridiculous.
It was implied that you think people with IR should eat this diet (a lot of the population) and you have been vocal in your support for carnivory in other threads.
I think low carb is an excellent option for those with IR (PCOS, T2D, NAFLD, prediabetes, and some forms of Alzheimer's). Some can improve their condition with just weight loss but IR is a lifestyle disease where not all are overweight.You want a citation for why I don't believe that restricting meat intake would make a greater impact on the environment that better farming practices would? For my belief? Because I have seen no evidence to prove otherwise? That makes no sense.
Uh...yeah? You're making a (supposedly) scientific claim. Scientific claims are backed up by evidence. They aren't "beliefs," they're "findings." There's plenty of studies out there on the environmental impact of certain foods and those studies do not on the whole support your claim.
I am not agreeing with your claims. I think it is on you to bring in the evidence.I advocate for the right for people to eat the best diet for their best health without lame environmental claims being made in an effort to stop them.
Oh so it sounds like you believe in the ol' "environmentalists are lying to force everyone to be vegan" conspiracy. Well again, where is the evidence of that?
Strawman.
I disagree with you therefore I am irrational and must be in an extremist group?I'm all for helping the environment, but I think advocating a diet for the world based on weak evidence that less meat will help the environment, and no evidence that less meat is healthier for people, is a bad idea put together by a powerful few who are pushing a misinformed agenda.
Citation needed. Also you may be old and not have that many years left and so you don't care if the deluge comes after you, but the rest of us have to live here and the effects of climate change are going to be way worse for the collective health of humanity than some carbs.
You want citation that the creators have an agenda? Again, not sure what you want here.
EAT was set up through billionaire vegans who are animal activists. Walter Willet, long known to be pro vegan and vegetarian, was in the lead.
I am 44.More sugar than beef. LOL
That's way less refined sugar than what the average Westerner eats, 25g if it's a 2000 calorie diet which is the recommended limit. They're probably basing it on that to be realistic (like if they said don't eat refined sugar on top of all the other changes people would be less likely to agree).
But regardless of any one organization's example recommendations you have no support for your claims on the environment and never have. If you did you would post that evidence.
I did not say cutting back on sugar is bad. I laugh at the fact that they recommend more sugars than beef, pork, and poultry combined. Awesome...10 -
Plant-based diets as important to saving the environment. Apparenntly animals products are bad rather than the poor farming practices that goes into modern meat and egg production.
They are attacking the wrong thing, imo.
I don't know how we have people eating the same quantity of meat, eggs, and dairy that they're currently eating without using modern farming practices. So focusing on the consumption, if one is concerned about the environmental impact, is likely the right call.10 -
laurenq1991 wrote: »
This is now common knowledge.And where in the world did I advocate that everyone should eat all meat? I have argued that some are healthier eating almost all meat and that they should not be pressured to cut back, and worsen their health by really weak claims that cow gas is destroying the environment. The amount of people eating that way is miniscule. The argument is ridiculous.
It was implied that you think people with IR should eat this diet (a lot of the population) and you have been vocal in your support for carnivory in other threads.
I think low carb is an excellent option for those with IR (PCOS, T2D, NAFLD, prediabetes, and some forms of Alzheimer's). Some can improve their condition with just weight loss but IR is a lifestyle disease where not all are overweight.You want a citation for why I don't believe that restricting meat intake would make a greater impact on the environment that better farming practices would? For my belief? Because I have seen no evidence to prove otherwise? That makes no sense.
Uh...yeah? You're making a (supposedly) scientific claim. Scientific claims are backed up by evidence. They aren't "beliefs," they're "findings." There's plenty of studies out there on the environmental impact of certain foods and those studies do not on the whole support your claim.
I am not agreeing with your claims. I think it is on you to bring in the evidence.I advocate for the right for people to eat the best diet for their best health without lame environmental claims being made in an effort to stop them.
Oh so it sounds like you believe in the ol' "environmentalists are lying to force everyone to be vegan" conspiracy. Well again, where is the evidence of that?
Strawman.
I disagree with you therefore I am irrational and must be in an extremist group?I'm all for helping the environment, but I think advocating a diet for the world based on weak evidence that less meat will help the environment, and no evidence that less meat is healthier for people, is a bad idea put together by a powerful few who are pushing a misinformed agenda.
Citation needed. Also you may be old and not have that many years left and so you don't care if the deluge comes after you, but the rest of us have to live here and the effects of climate change are going to be way worse for the collective health of humanity than some carbs.
You want citation that the creators have an agenda? Again, not sure what you want here.
EAT was set up through billionaire vegans who are animal activists. Walter Willet, long known to be pro vegan and vegetarian, was in the lead.
I am 44.More sugar than beef. LOL
That's way less refined sugar than what the average Westerner eats, 25g if it's a 2000 calorie diet which is the recommended limit. They're probably basing it on that to be realistic (like if they said don't eat refined sugar on top of all the other changes people would be less likely to agree).
But regardless of any one organization's example recommendations you have no support for your claims on the environment and never have. If you did you would post that evidence.
I did not say cutting back on sugar is bad. I laugh at the fact that they recommend more sugars than beef, pork, and poultry combined. Awesome...
Walter Willet doesn't appear to be a billionaire *or* a vegan. What billionaire vegans are you referring to and what does Walter Willet have to do with either category?12 -
Here's what EAT says:
https://eatforum.org/eat-lancet-commission/eat-lancet-funding/
In doing a quick googling, I could only find background on one of the eight board of trustee members being an animal rights activist, and that was in regards to the fur industry. One of the other board members has been involved in sustainable aquaculture for salmon, so hardly vegan.5 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »
So it's funded by the Wellcome Trust, which had no role in the writing of the report. The Wellcome Trust doesn't *appear* to be a vegan organization or funded by vegans, it appears that they do a wide variety of health-related projects, including many that have nothing to do with food. There is no apparent focus on animal issues, all their projects seem to be related to human welfare.
Still not understanding the connection to vegan billionaires, but presumably that will be clarified soon.8 -
janejellyroll wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »
So it's funded by the Wellcome Trust, which had no role in the writing of the report. The Wellcome Trust doesn't *appear* to be a vegan organization or funded by vegans, it appears that they do a wide variety of health-related projects, including many that have nothing to do with food. There is no apparent focus on animal issues, all their projects seem to be related to human welfare.
Still not understanding the connection to vegan billionaires, but presumably that will be clarified soon.
See my edit. I went on a google search on the board members. Still no billionaire vegans. One animal activist who doesn't like the fur industry. When I ate meat, I didn't like the fur industry either.5 -
janejellyroll wrote: »laurenq1991 wrote: »
This is now common knowledge.And where in the world did I advocate that everyone should eat all meat? I have argued that some are healthier eating almost all meat and that they should not be pressured to cut back, and worsen their health by really weak claims that cow gas is destroying the environment. The amount of people eating that way is miniscule. The argument is ridiculous.
It was implied that you think people with IR should eat this diet (a lot of the population) and you have been vocal in your support for carnivory in other threads.
I think low carb is an excellent option for those with IR (PCOS, T2D, NAFLD, prediabetes, and some forms of Alzheimer's). Some can improve their condition with just weight loss but IR is a lifestyle disease where not all are overweight.You want a citation for why I don't believe that restricting meat intake would make a greater impact on the environment that better farming practices would? For my belief? Because I have seen no evidence to prove otherwise? That makes no sense.
Uh...yeah? You're making a (supposedly) scientific claim. Scientific claims are backed up by evidence. They aren't "beliefs," they're "findings." There's plenty of studies out there on the environmental impact of certain foods and those studies do not on the whole support your claim.
I am not agreeing with your claims. I think it is on you to bring in the evidence.I advocate for the right for people to eat the best diet for their best health without lame environmental claims being made in an effort to stop them.
Oh so it sounds like you believe in the ol' "environmentalists are lying to force everyone to be vegan" conspiracy. Well again, where is the evidence of that?
Strawman.
I disagree with you therefore I am irrational and must be in an extremist group?I'm all for helping the environment, but I think advocating a diet for the world based on weak evidence that less meat will help the environment, and no evidence that less meat is healthier for people, is a bad idea put together by a powerful few who are pushing a misinformed agenda.
Citation needed. Also you may be old and not have that many years left and so you don't care if the deluge comes after you, but the rest of us have to live here and the effects of climate change are going to be way worse for the collective health of humanity than some carbs.
You want citation that the creators have an agenda? Again, not sure what you want here.
EAT was set up through billionaire vegans who are animal activists. Walter Willet, long known to be pro vegan and vegetarian, was in the lead.
I am 44.More sugar than beef. LOL
That's way less refined sugar than what the average Westerner eats, 25g if it's a 2000 calorie diet which is the recommended limit. They're probably basing it on that to be realistic (like if they said don't eat refined sugar on top of all the other changes people would be less likely to agree).
But regardless of any one organization's example recommendations you have no support for your claims on the environment and never have. If you did you would post that evidence.
I did not say cutting back on sugar is bad. I laugh at the fact that they recommend more sugars than beef, pork, and poultry combined. Awesome...
Walter Willet doesn't appear to be a billionaire *or* a vegan. What billionaire vegans are you referring to and what does Walter Willet have to do with either category?
Interestingly, it looks like his research was responsible for discerning that trans-fat, rather than saturated fat, was the problem in relation to heart disease, and took some heat for being "pro-fat" back in the day. While I didn't find anything I would feel comfortable quoting as a source, I get the impression he stresses limiting, not eliminating animal sources of food. He is actually a rather fascinating character, and I'm going to research him more!
I only had time to skim, but it looks to me like EAT is more about sustainability and environmental concerns, not health per se, am I reading it right?4 -
janejellyroll wrote: »laurenq1991 wrote: »
This is now common knowledge.And where in the world did I advocate that everyone should eat all meat? I have argued that some are healthier eating almost all meat and that they should not be pressured to cut back, and worsen their health by really weak claims that cow gas is destroying the environment. The amount of people eating that way is miniscule. The argument is ridiculous.
It was implied that you think people with IR should eat this diet (a lot of the population) and you have been vocal in your support for carnivory in other threads.
I think low carb is an excellent option for those with IR (PCOS, T2D, NAFLD, prediabetes, and some forms of Alzheimer's). Some can improve their condition with just weight loss but IR is a lifestyle disease where not all are overweight.You want a citation for why I don't believe that restricting meat intake would make a greater impact on the environment that better farming practices would? For my belief? Because I have seen no evidence to prove otherwise? That makes no sense.
Uh...yeah? You're making a (supposedly) scientific claim. Scientific claims are backed up by evidence. They aren't "beliefs," they're "findings." There's plenty of studies out there on the environmental impact of certain foods and those studies do not on the whole support your claim.
I am not agreeing with your claims. I think it is on you to bring in the evidence.I advocate for the right for people to eat the best diet for their best health without lame environmental claims being made in an effort to stop them.
Oh so it sounds like you believe in the ol' "environmentalists are lying to force everyone to be vegan" conspiracy. Well again, where is the evidence of that?
Strawman.
I disagree with you therefore I am irrational and must be in an extremist group?I'm all for helping the environment, but I think advocating a diet for the world based on weak evidence that less meat will help the environment, and no evidence that less meat is healthier for people, is a bad idea put together by a powerful few who are pushing a misinformed agenda.
Citation needed. Also you may be old and not have that many years left and so you don't care if the deluge comes after you, but the rest of us have to live here and the effects of climate change are going to be way worse for the collective health of humanity than some carbs.
You want citation that the creators have an agenda? Again, not sure what you want here.
EAT was set up through billionaire vegans who are animal activists. Walter Willet, long known to be pro vegan and vegetarian, was in the lead.
I am 44.More sugar than beef. LOL
That's way less refined sugar than what the average Westerner eats, 25g if it's a 2000 calorie diet which is the recommended limit. They're probably basing it on that to be realistic (like if they said don't eat refined sugar on top of all the other changes people would be less likely to agree).
But regardless of any one organization's example recommendations you have no support for your claims on the environment and never have. If you did you would post that evidence.
I did not say cutting back on sugar is bad. I laugh at the fact that they recommend more sugars than beef, pork, and poultry combined. Awesome...
Walter Willet doesn't appear to be a billionaire *or* a vegan. What billionaire vegans are you referring to and what does Walter Willet have to do with either category?
Interestingly, it looks like his research was responsible for discerning that trans-fat, rather than saturated fat, was the problem in relation to heart disease, and took some heat for being "pro-fat" back in the day. While I didn't find anything I would feel comfortable quoting as a source, I get the impression he stresses limiting, not eliminating animal sources of food. He is actually a rather fascinating character, and I'm going to research him more!
I only had time to skim, but it looks to me like EAT is more about sustainability and environmental concerns, not health per se, am I reading it right?
Yeah, I like him. He wrote a book that was popular a while back (I read it years ago and didn't agree with all of it as he can be more extreme), but I doubt it made billions.
https://www.bostonglobe.com/magazine/2013/07/27/what-eat-harvard-walter-willett-thinks-has-answers/5WL3MIVdzHCN2ypfpFB6WP/story.html
I think he came to the conclusion from his research that limiting meat was healthier and is basically a vegetarian for health reasons (discussed in the piece above).1 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »
So it's funded by the Wellcome Trust, which had no role in the writing of the report. The Wellcome Trust doesn't *appear* to be a vegan organization or funded by vegans, it appears that they do a wide variety of health-related projects, including many that have nothing to do with food. There is no apparent focus on animal issues, all their projects seem to be related to human welfare.
Still not understanding the connection to vegan billionaires, but presumably that will be clarified soon.
See my edit. I went on a google search on the board members. Still no billionaire vegans. One animal activist who doesn't like the fur industry. When I ate meat, I didn't like the fur industry either.
Yeah, I know plenty of people who eat meat and still object to fur.
Thanks for sharing your research!0 -
janejellyroll wrote: »laurenq1991 wrote: »
This is now common knowledge.And where in the world did I advocate that everyone should eat all meat? I have argued that some are healthier eating almost all meat and that they should not be pressured to cut back, and worsen their health by really weak claims that cow gas is destroying the environment. The amount of people eating that way is miniscule. The argument is ridiculous.
It was implied that you think people with IR should eat this diet (a lot of the population) and you have been vocal in your support for carnivory in other threads.
I think low carb is an excellent option for those with IR (PCOS, T2D, NAFLD, prediabetes, and some forms of Alzheimer's). Some can improve their condition with just weight loss but IR is a lifestyle disease where not all are overweight.You want a citation for why I don't believe that restricting meat intake would make a greater impact on the environment that better farming practices would? For my belief? Because I have seen no evidence to prove otherwise? That makes no sense.
Uh...yeah? You're making a (supposedly) scientific claim. Scientific claims are backed up by evidence. They aren't "beliefs," they're "findings." There's plenty of studies out there on the environmental impact of certain foods and those studies do not on the whole support your claim.
I am not agreeing with your claims. I think it is on you to bring in the evidence.I advocate for the right for people to eat the best diet for their best health without lame environmental claims being made in an effort to stop them.
Oh so it sounds like you believe in the ol' "environmentalists are lying to force everyone to be vegan" conspiracy. Well again, where is the evidence of that?
Strawman.
I disagree with you therefore I am irrational and must be in an extremist group?I'm all for helping the environment, but I think advocating a diet for the world based on weak evidence that less meat will help the environment, and no evidence that less meat is healthier for people, is a bad idea put together by a powerful few who are pushing a misinformed agenda.
Citation needed. Also you may be old and not have that many years left and so you don't care if the deluge comes after you, but the rest of us have to live here and the effects of climate change are going to be way worse for the collective health of humanity than some carbs.
You want citation that the creators have an agenda? Again, not sure what you want here.
EAT was set up through billionaire vegans who are animal activists. Walter Willet, long known to be pro vegan and vegetarian, was in the lead.
I am 44.More sugar than beef. LOL
That's way less refined sugar than what the average Westerner eats, 25g if it's a 2000 calorie diet which is the recommended limit. They're probably basing it on that to be realistic (like if they said don't eat refined sugar on top of all the other changes people would be less likely to agree).
But regardless of any one organization's example recommendations you have no support for your claims on the environment and never have. If you did you would post that evidence.
I did not say cutting back on sugar is bad. I laugh at the fact that they recommend more sugars than beef, pork, and poultry combined. Awesome...
Walter Willet doesn't appear to be a billionaire *or* a vegan. What billionaire vegans are you referring to and what does Walter Willet have to do with either category?
Interestingly, it looks like his research was responsible for discerning that trans-fat, rather than saturated fat, was the problem in relation to heart disease, and took some heat for being "pro-fat" back in the day. While I didn't find anything I would feel comfortable quoting as a source, I get the impression he stresses limiting, not eliminating animal sources of food. He is actually a rather fascinating character, and I'm going to research him more!
I only had time to skim, but it looks to me like EAT is more about sustainability and environmental concerns, not health per se, am I reading it right?
Yeah, the quotes I saw just now were him talking favorably about the Mediterranean-style diet, specifically including fish. He does seem to come down on the side on the average person eating *more* plant foods, but that obviously doesn't equate to veganism.3 -
Nvketomom is thinking there is a larg majority have IR based on projective statistics. 8% of the population have been diagnosed with IR or diabetes. But they project that 32% are "undiagnosed" which means they might get IR sometime in their lifetime if they don't take actions.
Having said that, if you need a citation that those with actual IR benefit from a low carb or keto diet, than you haven't done much research. Its pretty well established that those with IR benefit from lowering carbs.
Really?
https://www.niddk.nih.gov/health-information/diabetes/overview/diet-eating-physical-activity
"The key to eating with diabetes is to eat a variety of healthy foods from all food groups, in the amounts your meal plan outlines. (and they go on to list all the healthy food groups). Also "Use oils when cooking food instead of butter, cream, shortening, lard, or stick margarine."
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3820526/
"Nutritional recommendations for the treatment of patients with T2DM and subjects at high risk of developing diabetes generally recommend weight loss of at least 7% in overweight/obese patients; restriction of the intake of saturated fats to <7% of energy intake; a cholesterol intake <200 mg/day; restriction of trans fat intake; a high-fiber intake of at least 14 g/1000 kcal; in newer guidelines, lifted restrictions of protein intake, for example, protein intake of 15–20% of energy as long as kidney function is normal. It is also assumed that the use of low glycemic index (GI) and glycemic load (GL) carbohydrates may provide a modest additional benefit for glycemic control over that observed when total carbohydrate is considered alone...."
https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/diabetes/in-depth/diabetes-diet/art-20044295
"A diabetes diet is a healthy-eating plan that's naturally rich in nutrients and low in fat and calories. Key elements are fruits, vegetables and whole grains. In fact, a diabetes diet is the best eating plan for most everyone."
I will agree that people probably see benefits from low-carb diets because most people in the West eat a lot of refined flours and sugars as opposed to whole grains, and if you get rid of all of those, your health will improve. But I don't see anything from reputable sources indicating people with IR or diabetes have to cut out or severely reduce whole grains and eat more meat and animal fat.
Also it's worth noting that 85% of people with type 2 diabetes are overweight and many times losing weight reverses diabetes regardless of how the weight is lost. Being overweight doesn't have much to do with the specific foods you are eating, just the total amount. When people say low-carb diets "reverse" diabetes because usually it's just that they lost the weight. Generally the weight loss happens because of a restriction of food choices. I'm not even overweight and I know I would eat under TDEE if I could only eat meat and vegetables because really, how much meat can a person eat in a day (or afford to eat...especially if they're only eating free-range grass-fed meat like everyone on the internet claims they are doing). It's similar when people say WFPB diets reversed their diabetes (I've actually met people IRL who have said this) -- it's most likely because of the restriction of food options.5 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »Here's what EAT says:
https://eatforum.org/eat-lancet-commission/eat-lancet-funding/
In doing a quick googling, I could only find background on one of the eight board of trustee members being an animal rights activist, and that was in regards to the fur industry. One of the other board members has been involved in sustainable aquaculture for salmon, so hardly vegan.
This "billionaire vegan" ad hominem calumny has got to be oddest turn this argument has taken. You've got to wonder who came up with this weird fever swamp conspiracy theory and who benefits by promoting it.12 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »Here's what EAT says:
https://eatforum.org/eat-lancet-commission/eat-lancet-funding/
In doing a quick googling, I could only find background on one of the eight board of trustee members being an animal rights activist, and that was in regards to the fur industry. One of the other board members has been involved in sustainable aquaculture for salmon, so hardly vegan.
This "billionaire vegan" ad hominem calumny has got to be oddest turn this argument has taken. You've got to wonder who came up with this weird fever swamp conspiracy theory and who benefits by promoting it.
It's a current fad to use this sort of thing as a substitute for actually engaging with ideas. I don't have to actually consider what you're saying if you're a vegan and therefore shouldn't be listened to. In this case, it doesn't actually seem to even be accurate. It's considered enough to just *claim* that someone is vegan and not reliable enough to debate dietary science with the more rational folk.
I would say that even if someone was a billionaire and a vegan, their actual argument *could* be one that is worth considering. For the record, I'd also consider the argument of a broke carnivore or a middle class pescaratian.14 -
This is now common knowledge.
Look at my response above...is it really?I am not agreeing with your claims. I think it is on you to bring in the evidence.
In our previous discussion on this topic I and other people provided many links to reputable sources and you provided none. You can go back and read those if you want. https://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10682108/carnivore-diet-the-antithesis-to-veganism/p3
Just to be nice though, I found yet another source for you that refutes what you are saying. Is Oxford University reputable enough for you?
http://www.ox.ac.uk/news/2017-10-03-grass-fed-beef-good-or-bad-climateStrawman.
I disagree with you therefore I am irrational and must be in an extremist group?
Your use of the word "agenda" and implying that someone is trying to "stop" people from eating meat due to this "misguided agenda" implies that you believe some kind of conspiracy is afoot.You want citation that the creators have an agenda? Again, not sure what you want here.
EAT was set up through billionaire vegans who are animal activists. Walter Willet, long known to be pro vegan and vegetarian, was in the lead.
So you DO believe some kind of conspiracy is afoot...I figured so. I've never heard of this Walter Willet guy but he doesn't seem to be a billionaire (he has kind of an 1890s oil baron mustache though, so I can see why you might be mistaken). In fact I can't think of any billionaire vegans unless you count the time Oprah went on a three-week "vegan cleanse." And she doesn't appear to be shadow funding this project so....I did not say cutting back on sugar is bad. I laugh at the fact that they recommend more sugars than beef, pork, and poultry combined. Awesome...
As I said, their recommendations are 25g/day of refined sugar which is much less than what the average American eats right now, so a shift to this diet would almost certainly be healthier for the average American. I also believe the best amount of refined sugar for health is none, but I think they're trying to be realistic to avoid recommending too many changes at once which could be overwhelming (which is why they also include palm oil as a category since it's in many processed foods, even though nobody *needs* to eat it and it's bad for the environment too). But really, this is one set of example recommendations. This one set of recommendations not being to your liking does not mean that all the research on the environmental impact of meat and the health of non-low-carb diets are lies.5
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