731–740 of 947 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Meat provides far more nutritional value than any plant Completely wrong
What is one plant that contains menaquinone or eicosapentaenoate?
As for omega-3, I believe it's been a few decades since we found it in a ton of different seeds, nuts and oils.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It is well documented that once cows are switched to the pure corn diets we now feed them, their health starts immediately declining and they start dying. Factory farms time it so that they grow up on grass and similar, then are switched to grain to fatten them, and are slaughtered before becoming too ill. There are many unhealthy modifications made to their diet and environment to force them to consume corn. This is…
The same happens when humans switch to a largely corn diet. Corn and wheat (maybe just grains) just don't seam healthy. If I had to drop meat, I'd primarily eat beans/legumes.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It may be that the extra nutritional benefits of meat can be matched by plant products. But the Beyond Meat offerings do not achieve anything close to that. They are made of highly processed industrial ingredients that are designed to approximate the texture of meat but not the nutritional profile. Pea proteins are not as complete nor bio-available as meat proteins, and the fatty acid profile is very different (and I…
The incomplete protein thing is a myth [1]. With anything close to a normal diet with a sufficient quantity of protein, the completeness of that protein has no effect on your physiology. Completeness becomes important only in severely deficient diets, where essential amino acids remain deficient for days or weeks. Likewise, bioavailability is not an important consideration in any reasonable diet. Your body can use on…
A vegetarian advocacy site now counts as a source against meat? If that doesn't count as bias, then I don't know what does.
> With anything close to a normal diet with a sufficient quantity of protein, the completeness of that protein has no effect on your physiology. Completeness becomes important only in severely deficient diets, where essential amino acids remain deficient for days or weeks.
Leucine is a key AA in muscle building [1]. Try finding a reasonable plant based diet with enough leucine. Not only this will be incredibly tough, but it would introduce a myriad of plant toxins and pesticides.
> Likewise, bioavailability is not an important consideration in any reasonable diet. Your body can use only a finite amount of protein daily, and the vast majority of people in the developed world consume more protein than they can use.
Let's ignore for a moment this utterly false for protein [2], and just point out the superiority of meat in providing bioavailable vitamins. Let's take a trivial and essential nutrient such as vitamin A as an example. A serving of beef liver contains the an abundant amount of the most active form of vitamin A - retinol. Plants such as carrots, on the other hand, only produce precursors such beta-carotene, that must be converted to retinol. Unfortunately, some people are incredibly poor converters of beta-carotene, and must rely on the complete form of the vitamin [3]
> What makes you think the fats in beef are superior to those in Beyond or Impossible?
That's a separate can of worms. Let's just say that I would much prefer to eat saturated beef fat over seed oil derived slop.
[1] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10418071/ [2] https://academic.oup.com/af/article/9/4/18/5575466 [3] https://academic.oup.com/ajcn/article/96/5/1193S/4577160
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Meat provides far more nutritional value than any plant Completely wrong
Do you have something more substantial to add? I do imagine that to match meat on a value per gram measurement, you'd have to have either spend way more or be lucky with where you live, but something to check would be great.
Take for example potatoes. Dense in calories, has almost all of the nutrient groups you need and is dirt-cheap. Nutrition is a very unclear science for now, but the fact that meat has this godlike status of an apex food is definitely a product of lobbying and marketing, not facts.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> large mammal farts going on now is probably not that much higher than it always has been I believe a big part of it has to do with the feedlot diet— when they're eating a high-calorie diet of mostly corn/grain instead of their natural diet of grass, it puts their digestive system into overdrive. EDIT: I looked into it a bit more after posting this, and it looks like it's not clear-cut— for example, it takes a cow a…
> for example, it takes a cow a lot longer to reach slaughter weight eating grass, so even if they're belching less during that time, it's a long enough time that it may be a wash, or even worse For that cow, yes. However, the entire herd will reach slaughter faster on a high calorie diet, there's greater turnover in the herd and more methane gets produced for a smaller number of total cows.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm less inclined to believe a blog post than I am to believe published & cited articles. Most estimates I've found put overall GHG from diet at about 15-20% of total per capita. And sources like [1] indicate that switching to a plant-based diet cuts that number in half for western countries (the UK in this study). That's 3x your number. Granted, meat substitutes are higher on GHG than eating straight plant-based mea…
One estimate probably includes shipping emissions for food and one doesn’t would be my guess. Of course, plant based burgers might not reduce total final product shipping emissions but they might reduce a lot of the intermediary shipping emissions since cattle require feed. Also, there’s that thing where we apparently ship chicken to china to be cleaned and then back sometimes? That seems bad, but I don’t really know…
Emission wise, bulk and container shipping are among the most efficient means of transport on a per unit basis. And that is without taking any emission reduction plans into account.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Meat provides far more nutritional value than any plant Completely wrong
Probably exaggerated and imponderable, as it really depends on how you would rank such a thing. But it is really nutritious in that it packs a great density of protein and micronutrients.
But to be 100% sure that this one food is beating every single other food is just stupid.
This is the best news I've heard all week. The more widely vegan "meat" is available, the more likely it is to be adopted by average people and not just dedicated vegans. Reducing the demand for real beef is probably one of the best things we can do in the short term for the environment, due to the amount of land required for cattle farming, and due to the surprising amount of methane emitted by cattle. (see the docu…
I agree that this is important, and less meat consumption is good, but I am kind of upset that the entire American culinary experience is being reduced to "burgers, pizza, and fried chicken." I say that because most of the articles on meat alternatives are written from the perspective of "if only Americans can stop eating hamburgers!" First off, in terms of global solutions, that isn't going to fly. Try going to Ital…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Every greenhouse gas counts, whether it's part of the preexisting baseline or something recent we started emitting. The goal isn't a return to how things were, the goal is to keep the temperature from climbing too high too quickly.
So let's aim to reduce the source that emits the least and get to transport and industry later?
This is the best news I've heard all week. The more widely vegan "meat" is available, the more likely it is to be adopted by average people and not just dedicated vegans. Reducing the demand for real beef is probably one of the best things we can do in the short term for the environment, due to the amount of land required for cattle farming, and due to the surprising amount of methane emitted by cattle. (see the docu…