51–60 of 63 posts
Also mostly per serving, not per gram. You can buy fish and meat without packaging that weighs as much as a sardine can.
No, please don't. Commercial fishing is not good. Do some research to find the many reasons. Plastic is not something you want to eat, and fish have increasing amounts of plastic in them. Same goes for Mercury. Sardines (and probably anchovies) don't have much, but other larger fish do. Were it not for these problems, then I too would advocate good canned sardines for health. They have higher calcium per weight than…
There's a balance between doing what's optimal for individual health and what can be sustained. Unfortunately, I don't know of any better or equal omega-3 source because plant-based and fish oil capsules are demonstrably inferior. Canned, sustainable-quotaed, wild-caught, extremely fresh sardines and anchovies caught around South America are precisely what were recommended by the documentary The Fish on My Plate. The amount of bioavailable omega-3 content in them is significantly higher than fish oil pills, and was confirmed with blood tests. The thing is, in order to have a clinical impact requires consuming several servings per week or everyday would be a minimum amount.
I think it's pointless diet-shaming and nibbling around the edges to demand everyone become strictly vegan when better alternatives and mixes exist that can improve health.
0. Monterery Sardine Story Richard H. Parrish (2000)
No, please don't. Commercial fishing is not good. Do some research to find the many reasons. Plastic is not something you want to eat, and fish have increasing amounts of plastic in them. Same goes for Mercury. Sardines (and probably anchovies) don't have much, but other larger fish do. Were it not for these problems, then I too would advocate good canned sardines for health. They have higher calcium per weight than…
No, please don't. Commercial fishing is not good. Do some research to find the many reasons. Plastic is not something you want to eat, and fish have increasing amounts of plastic in them. Same goes for Mercury. Sardines (and probably anchovies) don't have much, but other larger fish do. Were it not for these problems, then I too would advocate good canned sardines for health. They have higher calcium per weight than…
If people are going to eat meat (a couple of times a week), then fish is probably the way to go. Small fish, that is. But microalgal omega-3 EPA/DHA has all the benefits and none of the mercury/microplastics/environmental/ethical concerns. Less than a dollar a day[0], and the price continues to fall. [0] https://www.vegetology.com/shop/opti3-omega-3-epa-dha
You also might want to watch The Fish on My Plate, a Michael Pollan-like documentary, because the evidence points to taking fish oil pills in sufficient quantities to have a clinically-significant effect would risk cardiovascular dysfunction and metabolic issues long beforehand, and how, anecdotally, eating small, wild-caught, heavy-metals-free fish on a near-daily basis seems like the best approach without more data. They also go into detail about the horrors of fish farming, pros/cons of wild-caught.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> they calculated that if 100,000 people ate farmed salmon twice a week for 70 years, the extra PCB intake could potentially cause 24 extra deaths from cancer—but would prevent at least 7,000 deaths from heart disease Interesting tidbit from the article.
> twice a week That's the important part. I was eating tuna it pretty much every day for about a year until I found out that it was dangerous. They don't even have warnings on the can. Tony Robbins fried his brain doing that[0]. Still just hoping that I didn't do any damage to myself. The fishing industry lobbies have sued the FDA and other health organisations around the world to prevent then from requiring warnings…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
On windy.com they have several realtime graphics for CO2 pollution and it's cousins.
CO2 is not pollution no matter how many times this lie is perpetuated. CO2 is what we breathe out and it’s what plants breathe in.
Regardless of the effects of CO2, that's quite possibly the most inaccurate and unscientific argument I've ever heard on this subject. Humans breathing has never caused an excessive amount of CO2, so drawing any relation of our byproducts to the effects of CO2 generated from manufacturing, energy and transportation industries is absurd.
"human excrements have a net null effect on global warming, as they are offset by carbon fixation in photosynthesis. As a result, they do not contribute to increasing the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere."
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/11/101102131108.h...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So what’s the alternative? Beef? Chicken? Pork? Vegetarian? Every one of these has significant downsides to them (for you vegetarians out there, the phosphorous that leeches into the runoff is huge, affecting the ecosystem in ways we still don’t understand). I get every point you make, but honestly, what is the real alternative?
Most vegetables are grown for lifestock food, so I don't think that's valid concern about vegetarianism. If you eat a lot of meat, then you have all the vegetarian concerns you can come up with plus all the concerns directly tied to meat plus the rest of the indirect concerns.
No, please don't. Commercial fishing is not good. Do some research to find the many reasons. Plastic is not something you want to eat, and fish have increasing amounts of plastic in them. Same goes for Mercury. Sardines (and probably anchovies) don't have much, but other larger fish do. Were it not for these problems, then I too would advocate good canned sardines for health. They have higher calcium per weight than…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
CO2 is not pollution no matter how many times this lie is perpetuated. CO2 is what we breathe out and it’s what plants breathe in.
>CO2 is what we breathe out and it’s what plants breathe in. Regardless of the effects of CO2, that's quite possibly the most inaccurate and unscientific argument I've ever heard on this subject. Humans breathing has never caused an excessive amount of CO2, so drawing any relation of our byproducts to the effects of CO2 generated from manufacturing, energy and transportation industries is absurd. "human excrements ha…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So what’s the alternative? Beef? Chicken? Pork? Vegetarian? Every one of these has significant downsides to them (for you vegetarians out there, the phosphorous that leeches into the runoff is huge, affecting the ecosystem in ways we still don’t understand). I get every point you make, but honestly, what is the real alternative?
Most vegetables are grown for lifestock food, so I don't think that's valid concern about vegetarianism. If you eat a lot of meat, then you have all the vegetarian concerns you can come up with plus all the concerns directly tied to meat plus the rest of the indirect concerns.
For example grazing livestock using hilly land that only grows small grasses.