71–80 of 281 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Wait till you find out how the peanut butter industry has fooled you for years! How dare they call it butter? Or hamburgers, which contain no ham?! Surely at least coconut milk is real milk right?
Do you actually use peanut butter as a substitute for butter?
Almost all studies of this kind are extremely confounded because food survey data is close to universally bad. It is especially bad on this topic in the US and UK, because many people's idea of a serving of meat is actually closer to fried breaded bread, with condiment levels of meat on top. It would be crazy to lump those people in with the "steak and eggs for dinner 3 times a week" crowd, but they always are. Resul…
Food surveys and food diaries are hilariously bad[1]. I'm surprised any studies based on them are still getting published. There was literally a reality TV show in England based around how terribly inaccurate food diaries are. It's on YouTube[2]. [1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4527547/figure/... [2] https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=secret+eaters
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Wait till you find out how the peanut butter industry has fooled you for years! How dare they call it butter? Or hamburgers, which contain no ham?! Surely at least coconut milk is real milk right?
Do you actually use peanut butter as a substitute for butter?
Let's follow the money. Said "scientific study" is funded by Wellcome. An arm of WHO, unelected crisis manufacturer supreme. On wellcome's site: "Reducing meat intake, particularly in the USA where meat consumption is highest, should be a global priority." Show me the incentives and I'll show you the outcome.
A proper -mediocracy- meritocracy (i.e. it's actual skills and qualification that counts) is preferable over any kind of popularity contest. That's not to say the WHO in particular works by this standard, I just find it very irritating if people insist on every position or institution - especially very specialised ones - being subject to elections.
That just doesn't make sense and can have horrifying consequences (see [1] for an example). There are positions (in my example: medical examiners), that simply cannot be adequately filled by laypeople and amateurs. That's not how a complex society works. It's not the middle ages anymore and most professions and many official positions require training, experience, and qualifications.
That's why I don't get the obsession with everyone needing to be "elected" (and by that I assume you mean by the general public, because WHO positions in particular are in fact awarded by elections).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It feels like you missed the point of his post or you're just responding in bad faith.
No, I fully understand their nonsensical argument and my comment was constructive, although with a less serious approach. Things are called by whatever is convenient. If something is intended as a meat/dairy substitute, it is perfectly natural to draw similarity to the thing it is replacing. Nobody is going to call it "oats soaked in water and then blended to a consistency and taste that you can use in your tea". It'…
Almost all studies of this kind are extremely confounded because food survey data is close to universally bad. It is especially bad on this topic in the US and UK, because many people's idea of a serving of meat is actually closer to fried breaded bread, with condiment levels of meat on top. It would be crazy to lump those people in with the "steak and eggs for dinner 3 times a week" crowd, but they always are. Resul…
The term "positive association" makes it hard to parse. The results state: "most of the positive associations observed for meat consumption and health risks were substantially attenuated after adjustment for body mass index (BMI)", but the Conclusion says: > Higher unprocessed red meat, processed meat, and poultry meat consumption was associated with higher risks of several common conditions; higher BMI accounted for…
Meatless is the new “low fat” boogieman. Coincidentally, industrial food producers have discovered that it is cheaper and more profitable to sell ground up peas and plant oil as “meat”, water rinsed through oats as milk, etc. All of the “problems” with meat are market issues. Animal welfare issues are due to industrial farming practices, which will get worse if the industry declines. Land use and environmental issues…
> The “solutions” of fake substitutes are PR driven narratives.
I think you are looking for a conspiracy where there is none. Those newer alternative meat products are not the basis of a healthy plant-based diet - they are treats that actually are marketed towards meat eaters. Ask any veg/ans you know what they eat as staples; it's not expensive Impossible or Beyond burgers, but tofu, tempeh, beans, legumes, and seitan.
I also doubt that the problems with meat can be fixed at its current scale. A trope in the vegan community is every meat eater has a neighbor raising organic grass-fed cattle on acres of land that he lovingly slaughters.
The reality is, almost all animal agriculture in the US is factory farming style CAFOs.
[0] "Using data from the 2017 USDA Census of Agriculture, which was released this month, it is estimated that 70.4 percent of cows, 98.3 percent of pigs, 99.8 percent of turkeys, 98.2 percent of chickens raised for eggs, and over 99.9 percent of chickens raised for meat are raised in factory farms"
Cattle especially are not grass fed, they are stuffed with corn, soy, and other food grown at a rapid clip with petro fertilizer. There is not enough grazing land in the country to produce meat at the scale it's consumed here.
[0] https://plantbasednews.org/culture/factory-farms-study/
You can dive into the USDA numbers yourself here.
https://www.nass.usda.gov/Publications/AgCensus/2017/Full_Re...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Since meat is seen as unhealthy nowadays, most people who still eat lots of it also tend to be part of the "don't care about health" crowd (smokers, drinkers, people who don't exercise...). What if don't drink, don't smoke, do regular exercise, not obese... and eat lots of high quality meat? I haven't seen anything that comes close to showing that this would be unhealthy. These studies are quick to point to conclusio…
When it was sugar all along? Er no, people were told to stop eating fat but of course they didn't and average calorie intake went up in all categories. Sugar intake in the US peaked years ago but Americans are fatter than ever. Chicken and cheese consumption is through the roof. Like the article says, being overweight is very unhealthy and almost any diet that keeps you from gaining weight is going to reduce your ris…
To fix that, most successful diets rely on increasing the ratio of protein you eat (wether it's fish, meat or poultry). It gets you to the same satiety but eating less carbs, and you lose weight.
Now enter plant based / animal free diets, how are people gonna get to satiety without all that dense meat / fish / chicken?
If you're some amazing diet expert, I have no doubt you can figure out a way to get to satiety without relying on carbs. But most people, what are they gonna do? Just get two more slices of bread, or 50% more pasta.
If you strictly oppose a meat only diet VS a plant only diet, people will be leaner on the first one.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I doubt it. The WHO recommendations are based on extensive research linking red meat consumption to increased risk of colorectal cancer. This article explores the association of meat consumption with various non-cancer conditions. (background section describes that in more detail)
It's it the searing that contains the problematic components and not so much the red meat in and of itself?
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15342453/
"Consumption of fresh red meat and processed meat seemed to be associated with an increased risk of rectal cancer. Consumption of chicken and fish did not increase risk."
(admittedly, that conclusion is a stronger statement than it should be. More precise: consumption of chicken and fish was not linked to increased risk, as they merely did not reject the null hypothesis.)
Some potential culprits are listed here: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4698595/
Loosely: curing, searing, heme iron (from blood; what gives red meat its color), fat content, and some other things that can't be summed up as nicely.
It's plausible that all of them contribute to some degree, leading to a more potent effect than any of them in isolation.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Since meat is seen as unhealthy nowadays, most people who still eat lots of it also tend to be part of the "don't care about health" crowd (smokers, drinkers, people who don't exercise...). What if don't drink, don't smoke, do regular exercise, not obese... and eat lots of high quality meat? I haven't seen anything that comes close to showing that this would be unhealthy. These studies are quick to point to conclusio…
>> These studies are quick to point to conclusions. Remember that time where every "scientific" study pointed at fat as the big culprit behind heart problems? When it was sugar all along? I mean there is just insurmountable evidence that fat is correlated to heart disease. What is so ironic is that some journalists with no medical backgrounds write a book about "The Big Fat Lie" and now it is sugar that is the cause…