Adding a metre between meals boosts vegetarian appeal

Re: Adding a metre between meals boosts vegetarian appeal – study

#61

Post by mjcohen » Sat, Aug 15, 2020, 6:27 PM UTC

fortran77 wrote: post #58

avdempsey wrote: post #31

The temporal dimension is just as important as space. Adding a year between eating meat and a plant-based diet also makes the alternatives more appealing. After being meat and dairy free for awhile my cravings changed. I guess our brains are plastic? I ate (and loved!) meat for 28 years, but today I don't even crave it, and can report I enjoy food just as much as I used to. If being plant-based required will-power, I…

Another problem is reducing the amount of food people eat: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/global-shift-obes...

Right now, they are not.

Re: Adding a metre between meals boosts vegetarian appeal – study

#62

Post by sunkenvicar » Sat, Aug 15, 2020, 6:27 PM UTC

This university found a marketing angle to boost profits.

Re: Adding a metre between meals boosts vegetarian appeal – study

#63

Post by CuriouslyC » Sat, Aug 15, 2020, 6:29 PM UTC

renaicirc wrote: post #16

CuriouslyC wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because no vegetable farm ever caused habitat destruction or environmental damage...

It's interesting how your response to the point that farming plants is far more efficient and sustainable than farming animals is "but some vegetable farms are bad for the environment, too!"

Mixed permaculture habitats that mimic nature and incorporate animals are sustainable. The vegatarian mafia would be happy with endless rows of unsustainable conventional monoculture agriculture, I know this because of the blank look so many vegans have give me when I start to talk about permaculture. You're a hypocrite.

Re: Adding a metre between meals boosts vegetarian appeal – study

#64

Post by loceng » Sat, Aug 15, 2020, 6:29 PM UTC

war1025 wrote: post #2

> Meat-heavy diets not only risk our health but that of the planet, as livestock farming on a massive scale destroys habitats and generates greenhouse gases. Well that's a bit over the top... Seems like they could have stuck with the "vegetables are good for you" line and had just as relevant of an article.

> Meat-heavy diets not only risk our health

That meat is bad for our health is a myth perpetuated by the health industry, as well as by bad research that isn't accounting for processed meat vs. high quality unprocessed meat, nor do the studies account for confounding factors like other unhealthy food that many meat eaters eat.

Dr. Georgia Ede is someone to look up on YouTube who's been spending her time debunking bad research on meat.

> but that of the planet, as livestock farming on a massive scale destroys habitats and generates greenhouse gases.

Monocultures are really terrible, and based on the latest thought leaders and their knowledge, the trend needs to move towards allowing animals to roam the land again - which helps aerate and maintain the quality of soil.

My guess for future is free-roaming animals in their natural habitat, and vertical farming for vegetables, etc.

Re: Adding a metre between meals boosts vegetarian appeal – study

#65

Post by dang » Sat, Aug 15, 2020, 6:30 PM UTC

fortran77 wrote: post #60

Ma8ee wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Agriculture causes around 10%, while transportation, including freight and flights causes around 30%. Among the most effective things you can do yourself with minimal impact of your way of life is choosing to eat less meat. Edit: the numbers I remembered was for Europe. Globally food production is 25%

You can also eat less food if you're obese or overweight. That's will even save you money! https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/global-shift-obes...

Please don't start on this theme again. Your posts are fine otherwise, and we value you as a user! But this was a big problem before and it's best if it doesn't start up again.

Re: Adding a metre between meals boosts vegetarian appeal – study

#66

Post by kebman » Sat, Aug 15, 2020, 6:33 PM UTC

_Microft wrote: post #17

xwdv wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What unit of energy? Calories?

They are talking about this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trophic_level#Biomass_transfer...

My BS-O-metre just went off big time. First off, this is an extreme generalization that does not pick up local differences. Take the Northeren hemisphere for instance, where meat is in many instances the most effective way to utilize our growing conditions to produce edible food. [1] It's just not possible to efficibely use our climate to make sustainable production of vegetables, so meat is in fact a better way to make the most of our growing conditions.

The alternative would be to let tons of cultured pastures go to waste, and instead develop extremely expensive and wasteful greenhouse altnernatives that would suck our energy reserves dry. That is why meat production is in fact preferrable in the North. It's just not feasible to produce enough food without spending a lot of resources on imports, due to growing conditions that favour greens that aren't edible for humans, so our best option is then meat for local and "short-travelled" sustenance. [2]

Second, there's obviously a place for meat eaters in this biodiversity. Of course, we're "too many" humans (who are of course meat eaters), but on the other hand we're sustaining our current population nicely with progresses made within both environmentally friendly transportation and not to mention advances within industrialized and automated farming. [3] Add to this that the population growth is in fact slowing down. [4]

Long story short, the world has a giant surplus of food. [5] The amount of food here isn't the problem. It's the adverse effects local politics, production and transportation that are the problems the grand level, and to that end you can't as a general rule suggest that veggies are the "best" option. Well, it clearly isn't in the northeren hemisphere.

In the end the moral question is, should we really force people to eat this, that or the other? I mean, there's obviously no harm in making suggestions, but when those suggestions aren't met with enthusiasm, then change isn't liable to happen without the use of force. And I think can all agree that we are nowhere near a Soylent Green situation, so we still have the option to give people a choice.

Personally, my bet are on those developing succulent and protein-rich meat alternatives. The second they can make a product that similar enough, but without the environmental overhead, then people will flock to it.

[1]: http://www.fao.org/3/a-i3437e.pdf

[2]: Norwegian language source: https://www.agrianalyse.no/getfile.php/134664-1553523670/Dok...

[3]: https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/ipcc_wg3_ar5...

[4]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Projections_of_population_grow....

[5]: https://www.dw.com/en/the-global-food-surplus/a-15452289

Re: Adding a metre between meals boosts vegetarian appeal – study

#67

Post by cik2e » Sat, Aug 15, 2020, 6:40 PM UTC

loceng wrote: post #54

avdempsey wrote: post #31

The temporal dimension is just as important as space. Adding a year between eating meat and a plant-based diet also makes the alternatives more appealing. After being meat and dairy free for awhile my cravings changed. I guess our brains are plastic? I ate (and loved!) meat for 28 years, but today I don't even crave it, and can report I enjoy food just as much as I used to. If being plant-based required will-power, I…

I eat high fat, high quality steak and kale - that's all. It's pretty easy. I find it odd that meat is being described as or associated with a craving though. I've never craved plants or other foods. I'm at 67 hours of a planned 72 hour water fast and I'm not craving food, nor hungry, it's easy once you get past the first day or two to continue for 5-10+ days so long as supplementing for electrolytes. I'm curious wha…

Did you have any trouble with a longer fast on your first attempt? I do intermittent fasting and have gotten to 24 bracketed by evening meals. I can’t seem to fall asleep when I am hungry but find it very easy to skip breakfast and lunch. It’s true for me that after like 12 hours the hunger goes away and it becomes easy to go past the 16 hours that’s prescribed for IF. But the problem is that I start to get jittery from the adrenaline which is what ultimately gets me to eat in the evening even if I’ve done for 20 hours leading into that and don’t actually feel hungry.

Any tips from others who have the same issue around hunger impeding sleep would be appreciated.

Re: Adding a metre between meals boosts vegetarian appeal – study

#68

Post by palae » Sat, Aug 15, 2020, 6:53 PM UTC

kebman wrote: post #66

_Microft wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They are talking about this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trophic_level#Biomass_transfer...

My BS-O-metre just went off big time. First off, this is an extreme generalization that does not pick up local differences. Take the Northeren hemisphere for instance, where meat is in many instances the most effective way to utilize our growing conditions to produce edible food. [1] It's just not possible to efficibely use our climate to make sustainable production of vegetables, so meat is in fact a better way to m…

As it's a fairly long report, do you mind pointing out where in [1] your first claim is demonstrated?

Re: Adding a metre between meals boosts vegetarian appeal – study

#69

Post by cik2e » Sat, Aug 15, 2020, 6:58 PM UTC

tito wrote: post #35

A pound of meat isn't the same as a pound of carrots. In case you're wondering about climate impact per calorie instead of per pound/kg, here's an interesting article from the Washington Post: https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/food/vegetarian-or-... I see a lot of these charts that a pound of beef vs carrots. Just seems dumb, I would have to eat far more than a pound of carrots to match the calories of a pound…

The energy per calorie is a very good insight that I hadn’t considered. I do agree that beef is a significant culprit and I tend to eat it rarely. But the environmental concern isn’t a consideration in my diet because it’s not something I’m willing to compromise on. Not only because I like meat, but for the fact that it’s a nutritional powerhouse that would take too much effort to emulate with a vegetarian diet. I try to do my share with respect to carbon by driving a hybrid, and plan on using the most energy efficient options when I own a house.

Back to beef. My main reason for avoiding it is the cost. Especially with the more flavorful cuts being extra pricy. Perhaps the best way to lower consumption is a tax like what we have with cigarettes. But I can’t see any political will for this anytime soon in the US. It would be nice to see the more progressive countries in Europe lead the way, like they’ve done with other aspects of emissions control.

Edit: typo

Re: Adding a metre between meals boosts vegetarian appeal – study

#70

Post by sitkack » Sat, Aug 15, 2020, 7:04 PM UTC

avdempsey wrote: post #31

The temporal dimension is just as important as space. Adding a year between eating meat and a plant-based diet also makes the alternatives more appealing. After being meat and dairy free for awhile my cravings changed. I guess our brains are plastic? I ate (and loved!) meat for 28 years, but today I don't even crave it, and can report I enjoy food just as much as I used to. If being plant-based required will-power, I…

I still eat meat, but I stopped eating any sort of pork. I no longer crave it and it tastes bad, I no longer enjoy it.

It is amazing how fleeting our tastes are.