Less Processed Meat, More Plant-Based Foods May Boost Longevity

It seems you didn't even bother to read the article to check if it would make good segue into your vegan epiphany story: there is no mention of processed meat substitutes.

It also seems like the hamburger you tried was quite poorly prepared if hot dogs made a more compelling case for eating meat.

Does arithmetic count? The stats are available to look up yourself, the math is simple to do. But there's nobody funding publishing "debunk vegan nonsense" papers like there are people funding "make up vegan nonsense". So the only people you can find doing the math for you are just random people like the blog I link to later in this post.

>I agree that we don't eat much corn directly, but if it weren't used to feed livestock, we could use the land for something else, like potatoes or lentils or whatever grows in similar climate to corn, which are actually eaten

Most of those alternatives produce far fewer calories per acre than corn, which is the issue. An honest comparison shows most plant crops produce very low calories per acre, and require lots of diesel to produce and transport. Yes, you could grow something else. And almost all of those something elses are worse than corn fed chicken from an energy efficiency standpoint. If vegans want to argue the impact of meat vs plants in this way, then they need to apply the same standard to plants, and that means demanding that the vast majority of crops being grown are abandoned in favor of the tiny number that meet corn's energy output: corn, sugarcane, potatoes, palm. There's your acceptable vegan diet if we're going to limit things for being less efficient than corn.

>The usual rule of thumb for going up one level in the food chain is that you lose 9/10th of the energy

We're not talking about a natural ecosystem, which is what that rule of thumb is for. We're talking about animals that have been bred specifically to grow very large very quickly on very little food.

>and corn only produces on the order of 12 million calories per acre

No, corn produces 12 million calories per acre in human edible calories when converted to corn oil and HFCS. It produces 15 million calories per acre as livestock feed.

>This random google result here [2] indeed claims about 1.4 million calories per acre for chicken.

And it is very wrong. It is making up a silly number by using the human figure for corn calories per acre not the livestock feed figure. Then assuming chickens are fed 50/50 corn and soy when in reality their feed is almost entirely corn. It is also assuming a feed conversion ratio of 3, which is nearly double the actual ratio of 1.6 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feed_conversion_ratio#Poultry

Here's a post that shows math for why this vegan meme is wrong: https://bovinepracticum.weebly.com/ruminations/the-beef-vs-v...

>And btw you linked an article with the following conclusion

Yes. The point is that even plenty of vegans, who agree with his premise, know he openly lies to promote veganism.

https://www.thatnerdysciencegirl.com/2015/11/13/the-case-aga...

Only if you buy a juice concentrate. Making your own juice is equivalent to chewing an orange.

>You're free to believe what you want. A slime of chicken skin, fat and ligaments isn't digested the same way as a chunk of chicken breast. The nutritional values are just a small part of a big equation.

Of course not, I'm not arguing for that. What I am arguing for is that there's nothing inherently unhealthy about eating any of those things, and that offal is actually very nutritious.

>That's another side of my point, they evolved on that diet, most people didn't. Do you think the lifestyle of the average first worlder has anything to do with inuit lifestyle?

If an American adopted the diet of an inuit in such a way that their caloric needs are satisfied then I doubt it would matter. It is definitely possible that the inuit have evolved in some ways to accomodate for their diet, do you have any sources for that?