Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Adding a metre between meals boosts vegetarian appeal – study

cam.ac.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 103 posts

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

#71

Post by marcyb5st »

cik2e wrote: post #67
loceng wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 f…

Hey, I have been doing OMAD since January. I usually eat around noon +-1h depending on meetings.

I faced the same issues and for me what really helped is drinking a lot of Camomille (0.5L) sweetened with sugar alcohols. I guess it does two things. Camomille has some calming effects, especially when warm. This immediately gets my stomach rumblings to stop. Secondly, the sugar alcohols might trick your brain in releasing some dopamine since it has a sweet taste (not sure, that's my theory). This helps me soldier through the adrenaline and hunger spikes.

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

#72

Post by tomjakubowski »

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…

Calorie counts are better, but still gloss over all the nutritional differences between e.g. beef and carrots. Comparing ingredients piecemeal when they aren't nearly perfect substitutes doesn't make very much sense. If you reduced your meat intake by 1kg of beef per week or month, what would you replace it with to sustain your nutrition?

It seems like it would be a fairer comparison to drum up reasonable examples of complete vegetarian, vegan, and omnivorous diets and work out a carbon footprint (or whatever ecological impact measure you prefer) of each backwards, from the plated food back to the source. Then look at the complete diets that have the lowest impact. I would still expect that vegan, vegetarian and very low-meat diets would do better than the typical diet in the US.

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

#73

Post by tashoecraft »

MiguelHudnandez wrote: post #51
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…

"Committing 100% is easier than committing 98%." Paraphrased from: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vj-91dMvQQo

I’ve found the opposite. I don’t buy meat or dairy groceries so the high majority of my meals are vegan, but if I’m out at a place that doesn’t have a vegan option I’m fine ordering a meat or vegetarian option.

I think going majority meat and dairy less without committing 100% would make a much bigger effect in aggregate. We don’t need everyone becoming vegan, actually we can’t even support that. But if having meat and dairy at every single meal wasn’t a requirement, then we’d make a lot of change.

Vegetarians and vegans who have meat/dairy rarely shouldn’t be shunned or considered “failed”.

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

#74

Post by tashoecraft »

cik2e wrote: post #69
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 tr…

I think you saying it’s too much effort to replace beef is really just covering for you liking beef. Which is totally fine, but it’s really not much effort to replace beef out of your diet

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

#75

Post by moron4hire »

andersource wrote: post #48
coderintherye wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm curious if you've tried Beyond Meat? Not saying it is comparable, but it is quite good in my opinion, much better than the old veggie burger options. Just interested in subjective opinions of people of how close it gets to being a viable alternative to people who currently eat meat.

I've tried it (not OP), and as someone who loves meat (not fanatic though), if I'd been told it's a regular burger there's a decent chance I wouldn't have suspected. Don't remember if the nutritional content is similar to meat but taste-wise, for me, it's definitely a viable alternative.

I had the same experience. It wasn't a great burger, mind you, but it still tasted like hamburger. I was reminded of Burger King burgers.

But it also cost $15. I'd rather spend that kind of money on a really good portabello burger than something that tastes "exactly" like a fast food burger.

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

#76

Post by adrianmonk »

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…

> After being meat and dairy free for awhile my cravings changed.

I think this may work for any dietary change that you stick with consistently. I'm not a vegetarian, but I completely revamped my diet several years back, and at first I craved the old foods, but now I crave the new ones.

I'd bet part of it is as simple as being hungry, eating something, and then not feeling hungry anymore. Satiating your hunger is a good feeling, and over time you're going to learn to associate that good feeling with its causes, which are whatever you eat regularly.

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

#78

Post by coderintherye »

moron4hire wrote: post #75
andersource wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've tried it (not OP), and as someone who loves meat (not fanatic though), if I'd been told it's a regular burger there's a decent chance I wouldn't have suspected. Don't remember if the nutritional content is similar to meat but taste-wise, for me, it's definitely a viable alternative.

I had the same experience. It wasn't a great burger, mind you, but it still tasted like hamburger. I was reminded of Burger King burgers. But it also cost $15. I'd rather spend that kind of money on a really good portabello burger than something that tastes "exactly" like a fast food burger.

If you buy them from the store, it's about $10/lb. I usually make four 1/4 burger patties out of it.

Granted, that is still about 2x - 3x the cost of beef locally (depending on which quality level you want to compare it to). But the price also seems to keep coming down over time so I imagine it will eventually be competitive on price.

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

#79

Post by glogla »

cj wrote: post #28
gvjddbnvdrbv wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn't it rather exaggerated? Doesn't agriculture as a whole cause around 11% of emissions but car driving and heating/cooling causes around 30%? So if we all stopped eating meat we could cut emissions but a couple of % but if we all stopped driving and turned our heating down/up we could actually make a real difference? Edited with real numbers from https://www.c2es.org/content/international-emissions/

Quick googling: “ Livestock takes up nearly 80% of global agricultural land, yet produces less than 20% of the world’s supply of calories” It’s not just about emissions. It’s also about the massive amount of land required to produce meat vs. crops for human consumption. Re: cutting out meat vs. driving, only one of those activities is necessary to survive for the very high percentage of the population who don’t have…

But how much of that agricultural land is pastures unsuitable for growing things for human consumption?

You can probably give corn to people instead of cows in the US (yay more HFCS!) but you can't ask the sheep and goat herders to graze themselves.

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

#80

Post by jiofih »

Ma8ee wrote: post #19
gvjddbnvdrbv wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Being pedantic. If we eat the stuff they feed to the cows I eat we would die. Grass is not human digestible. My point being the problem is not meat which is a natural part of our diet (and is traditionally raised on land not well suited to crops) but the crazy frankenmeat many are reduced to eating due to overpopulation.

And as you well know, no one is suggesting that, so why is it worth to mention?

Pretty sure the parent comment was suggesting that. Hé even said “it’s what vegetarians do”.
Post reply on HN