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

Being vegan isn’t as good for humanity as you think

qz.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 80 posts

Re: Being vegan isn’t as good for humanity as you think

#71

Post by tkvtkvtkvtkv »

cryodesign wrote: post #15

A pretty weak article and omits any new developments in the future of food production. The main argument of the article appears to be that some farm land won't be used (perennial cropland) when people are on a vegan diet. Well, then use that space to build some aeroponic or hydroponic farms [1]. You'll get produce all year around. Other studies have shown that it's not sustainable if we'd have to rely on meat to feed…

In future all meat will be genetically engineered and grown in bioreactors, and it will be cheaper higher quality and suffering-free. As a result, the line between meat and vegetable will blur as to become irrelevant. We will engineer custom food according to nutritional needs and taste. That's assuming the corporations don't fuck everything up with their stupid greedy patent laws.

Re: Being vegan isn’t as good for humanity as you think

#72

Post by chris_va »

tjl wrote: post #16
chris_va wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If I am reading the original paper correctly, there is a bottleneck with the vegan diet that essentially requires you to only use cultivated cropland to get enough of a balanced diet. The vegan curve never flattens out, because it is entirely dependent on cultivated cropland, unlike the other diets: https://images.elementascience.org/611000.elementa.f005.PNG_...

Except you can use perennial sunflower which is an oilseed crop for crop rotation.

I was assuming the bottleneck was protein output, but I cannot find the info in the paper at a glance.

Re: Being vegan isn’t as good for humanity as you think

#73

Post by crustygirl »

mrob wrote: post #49
crustygirl wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

USA eats excessive amounts of sugar, fat and calories. 3500kcal per person per day 150kg of meat per person per year (compared to chinese of 60kg, or world average of 40kg). overconsumption is the word. there was not a hint of criticism of meat being "unhealthy" -- it was mentioned in the frame of overconsumption.

150kg of meat/year is 411g/day. Making the conservative assumption that it's all 20% fat ground beef (in practice it's likely leaner), that's only 1041kcal/day. This is well below the minimum calorie requirement for a healthy adult, so for it to be "overconsumption" there must be something unhealthy about meat specifically.

add to that 250kg of milk and 15kg of cheese and you'll soon have no space for any kind of beans, legumes, vegetables and fruits.

as I've said before, problem is overconsumption of everything and animal products take a huge part of that 3500kcal intake.

reducing intake of calorically dense foods is a good step towards battling the rise of killer diseases since most of them are obviously caused by unhealthy lifestyle.

Re: Being vegan isn’t as good for humanity as you think

#74

Post by crustygirl »

jahewson wrote: post #42
hoggleboggle wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Land is not a problem if vegetables come to reign, hydroponics and aeroponics will easily substitute the inefficient land-use. Tom et al. (2015) [1] also show that in the US the switch to a vegan diet would be less efficient. But it's natural, from an economic perspective, that existing processes are optimized for efficiency and low costs and given the high demand for vegetables and fruits there would obviously be a…

> Overall, it's quite obvious that the medical costs of today are extremely large mostly due to overconsumption of animal products. Whoa there, you have no evidence for that claim. The medical impacts of sugar and corn syrup for example have been a disaster. Probably more so than excessive meat. You can't single-out meat, Americans overconsume everything.

There's no evidence for sugar and corn syrup that is better than evidence for animal products.

Robert Lustig's bitter truth is a complete lie.

Fact-checking bunch of his "extraordinary" statements, like those about Japanese not consuming fructose, and similar, points that he has an agenda to share.

Re: Being vegan isn’t as good for humanity as you think

#75

Post by marricks »

swiley wrote: post #45
marricks wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fish get their Omega 3 from algae, and so that's probably the best and most direct way to get it. That's what Soylent does for Omega 3's using bio reactors. Also, vegans are healthier than the average population with lower rates of death in major categories like heart disease[1]. In other words, from the standard american diet to veganism, it's generally much healthier which I think is the better comparison to make.…

I would argue that the reason vegans are much healthier isn't their specific diet but that they're paying so much attention to their diet.

That sounds less of an argument and more of an opinion. Throwing out anecdotal evidence, I'm a vegan and I know a couple dozen vegans, most of us don't pay any attention to what we eat except making sure it doesn't include an animal product.

Re: Being vegan isn’t as good for humanity as you think

#76

Post by passivepinetree »

toasterlovin wrote: post #61
watchtheworld wrote: post #14

The idea of the vegan diet being "good for humanity" isn't solely about land use which this article focuses on. It's mostly about use of energy. Vegan diet: food from land -> truck -> grocery store -> my mouth. Meat/dairy/what have you: food from land -> truck -> animal's mouth -> truck -> grocery store -> my mouth. And when it comes to meat it means years feeding and water etc. until the product can actually be sent…

It's a pretty common trope that meat requires more resources to produce than plants, but it is wildly inaccurate. Rather than breaking things down by meat or plant, we should just be looking at cost per calorie. There are classes of plants which use much less resources than meat to produce a single calorie. These are generally grains, potatoes, and anything which produces edible oils (olive oil, canola oil, etc.) The…

Your grocery bill point isn't valid because of a) the complicated state of farming subsidies (in the U.S. at least) and b) the interests certain companies take in pricing various items (for example, at McDonald's a burger is much cheaper than a salad, but one could argue this is because McDonald's has invested much more in making their burger production efficient and has a vested interest in making their customers eat burgers rather than salads).

The bottom line is that your food bill in no way accurately reflects the cost required to produce your food.

Re: Being vegan isn’t as good for humanity as you think

#77

Post by toasterlovin »

passivepinetree wrote: post #76
toasterlovin wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a pretty common trope that meat requires more resources to produce than plants, but it is wildly inaccurate. Rather than breaking things down by meat or plant, we should just be looking at cost per calorie. There are classes of plants which use much less resources than meat to produce a single calorie. These are generally grains, potatoes, and anything which produces edible oils (olive oil, canola oil, etc.) The…

Your grocery bill point isn't valid because of a) the complicated state of farming subsidies (in the U.S. at least) and b) the interests certain companies take in pricing various items (for example, at McDonald's a burger is much cheaper than a salad, but one could argue this is because McDonald's has invested much more in making their burger production efficient and has a vested interest in making their customers ea…

Yeah, but we're talking orders of magnitude here, not a few percent.

So, lettuce, for example, is an order of magnitude (10x) more expensive per calorie than ground beef. And ground beef is almost an order of magnitude more expensive per calorie than cereal grains.

My guess as to the reason for these differences is some aspect of the chemistry involved in creating the foods, combined with how easily they spoil during transport. And I don't think it's any accident that the advent of human civilization coincides with domestication of grains.

Re: Being vegan isn’t as good for humanity as you think

#78

Post by crustygirl »

madaxe_again wrote: post #53
crustygirl wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They are rich in mercury in my waters, so I don't want to consume them :D Although eating animals that do not have a central nervous system is equivalent to eating plants, so it should be vegan.

Forgive my ignorance, but is the presence of a nervous system really the defining factor? What about mycelium in mushrooms, which operates as a signalling network? I know a guy who will only eat windfall foods - plants that have died a natural death or fruit that have fallen from the tree (super hardcore fruitarian), and won't eat germplasm (I.e. Seeds - wheat, nuts, etc.) which seems to me, if the reason is ethical,…

Central is the key word. Mushrooms have no chance of being sentient in any sense we consider significant.

Baby cows can be traumatized by separation from their mother and scarred for life. Cows are also mourning the loss of their best friends for a long time. Many other animals that human use for agriculture clearly fit the description of sentient beings that have a "wish" to live.

Re: Being vegan isn’t as good for humanity as you think

#79

Post by eggy »

toasterlovin wrote: post #77
passivepinetree wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your grocery bill point isn't valid because of a) the complicated state of farming subsidies (in the U.S. at least) and b) the interests certain companies take in pricing various items (for example, at McDonald's a burger is much cheaper than a salad, but one could argue this is because McDonald's has invested much more in making their burger production efficient and has a vested interest in making their customers ea…

Yeah, but we're talking orders of magnitude here, not a few percent. So, lettuce, for example, is an order of magnitude (10x) more expensive per calorie than ground beef. And ground beef is almost an order of magnitude more expensive per calorie than cereal grains. My guess as to the reason for these differences is some aspect of the chemistry involved in creating the foods, combined with how easily they spoil during…

I think focusing on calorie cost is a good start, but has its caveats. A cup of lettuce is 8 calories, an ounce of beef is 70 calories. People generally eat a cup or less of lettuce in their serving of salad. Whereas they eat 8 oz. or more of beef per serving (16 oz. burgers anyone?).

For decades my bodyweight would not go below 195 lbs. I turned vegetarian and now vegan, and my bodyweight is 178 lbs. I can do more pull ups, my body fat is at 14% vs. 21%, and I feel more energetic than before. I am very active compared with the average person.

One of the great revelations to me was how many calories I was actually consuming compared to what I thought I was consuming. When I was an omnivore, I was trying to keep my caloric intake to 1900 to 2200 calories per day given my activity level and weight. When I actually counted every piece of food put in my mouth for two weeks, I realized I was generally consuming 2500 to 2800 calories. It was cultural and habitual.

When I went vegetarian, and became more conscious of what I was putting in my mouth, I was down to 1850 or less calories a day. My body has stabilized at this weight. All of my standard blood tests show I am in good health.

My point of this expose was to point out that at 10x the expense eating green or vegan gets chipped away at by:

1. I only eat one-tenth of the lettuce or leafy greens based on calories vs. old beef consumption. 2. I eat 33% less calories per day as a healthy, active person. 3. If everyone ate healthier, and more greens (but less calorically), I think the numbers work out better.

Re: Being vegan isn’t as good for humanity as you think

#80

Post by eggy »

crustygirl wrote: post #73
mrob wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

150kg of meat/year is 411g/day. Making the conservative assumption that it's all 20% fat ground beef (in practice it's likely leaner), that's only 1041kcal/day. This is well below the minimum calorie requirement for a healthy adult, so for it to be "overconsumption" there must be something unhealthy about meat specifically.

add to that 250kg of milk and 15kg of cheese and you'll soon have no space for any kind of beans, legumes, vegetables and fruits. as I've said before, problem is overconsumption of everything and animal products take a huge part of that 3500kcal intake. reducing intake of calorically dense foods is a good step towards battling the rise of killer diseases since most of them are obviously caused by unhealthy lifestyle.

Yes, I agree. It's all about balance and proportions.

If the average American counted everything they put in their mouth for two weeks, they would be surprised as I was when I did it.

I am from Brooklyn, and grew up and lived their and in Manhattan until my thirties. I was raised on a typical meat and potatoes, with the occasional over-cooked vegetable (no salads) diet.

I remained at +195 lbs and 19 to 22% body fat even when active. I had thought I had cut my caloric consumption down, but when I really counted it for two weeks, I was consuming 2500 to 3000 calories per day. The only reason I was not too obese was that I was very active. I was not a soda drinker or a fast food person. I did like my eggs and cheeses, and pizza, and burritos with cheese and sour cream. My cholesterol levels were very high, and my sugars were out of whack even if I looked healthy to my American friends, but fat to my SE Asian peers.

I have been living in SE Asia for 8 years now. For the last year, I have been living in the rice fields of East Java. Food, rice and fruits, are not transported, they are within reach of my doorstep. One of the benefits of locally-grown produce. This is why I think city rooftop gardens, hydroponics, and other tech will ameliorate some of the energy use in food transport.

I went vegetarian, and then vegan, almost 3 years ago. My weight has stabilized at 178 lbs at 14% body fat. My blood work was all good last I checked. I feel healthier and stronger. I still bench 190 lbs. which is 18 lbs over my bodyweight now, and was under my bodyweight before, so yes, I am stronger by that comparison. I can run further with less fatigue, and do more pullups. I make it a habit to not sit for extended periods (read standing up, squatting Asian-style with heels on the floor, or reclined on the floor).

My Mom always pushed for good posture. She would turn in her grave at all of the youngsters with craned heads down peering at their phones ;) That and shoulders back, and no slouching!

I think that genetics plays a role in some people's weight issues, but after having my own, and listening and watching my peers, a LOT is just diet. It has even been proven that exercise only 'polishes' off the last 10% or so. It is diet that has the largest effect. I still like exercise for the other benefits it has in reducing stress, helping me to sleep better, and maintaining or building bone, joint and muscle strength.

Post reply on HN