81–90 of 129 posts
I wonder how true this is. I have been trying to switch to a more carnivore diet - more red meat eg steak - for rumored benefits of lowering inflammation and boosting immune system. This is stating the reverse.
Animal protein is highly inflammatory. This is about the worst thing you can do if you are concerned about inflammation. Load up on fresh vegetables and fruits instead.
One day I had this niggling doubt that I continued to be a vegetarian for cultural rather than ethical reasons. I tested that hypothesis by eating a hamburger. It was literally the worst thing I had ever tasted. I had to try hard not to throw up and offend my hosts.
Then I tasted bacon, hot dogs pastrami sandwiches and fried chicken and I understood why people like meat. That continued for a few more months.
About six months after the hamburger episode, I had another epiphany that I don't like eating animals since I don't like animals being eaten. I turned vegan. All's well that ends well.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Animal protein is highly inflammatory What is the basis for this belief? >Load up on fresh vegetables and fruits instead. Many fresh vegetables are inflammatory. Plants evolved chemicals to hinder herbation. Roots/tubers and fruit are generally fine, but leaves/stems/flowers are generally full of inflammatory anti-nutrients and should be cooked.
Not true. https://www.health.harvard.edu/staying-healthy/foods-that-fi...
Please post sources.
Thank you.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Of course there exist low-quality or over-salted meals. But I just took a look in my freezer at two bog-standard ready meals I have there just in case - macaroni and cheese, and a beef lasagne. They’re each about 1.5g of salt, and there’s nothing notable about the ingredients.
Anything more than like 700-900 mg/day is less than ideal. 1.5g leaves you no budget for the rest of the day. (Though some sources say you just need to be below 2.5g. Still, that’s not much higher than 1.5g when we’re talking an entire rest of the day to eat.)
NHS guidelines in the UK are <6g of salt (2400mg sodium) per day. US guidelines are 2300mg. Salt and sodium are not the same; 1.5g of salt is about 600mg sodium, or about 1/4 of the recommended daily limit. That seems entirely reasonable for a main meal.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There’s really no amount of nice treatment that makes taking a calf away from its mother alright. I’m not aware of any ways to produce dairy without systematic animal abuse.
I found a method that leaves them together for 3 months. That's an improvement at least. (Of course that means that the calf will take most -but not all- of the milk during that time. But then it is stated that the cost for the vet goes down a lot in exchange.) Another option I found is to give several calves to one cow for 6 months, which has advantages and disadvantages compared to the first way. (Longer time with…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's nutritional science, so the error bars are big, the effect sizes are small and the confounding variables numerous. At least a plant-based diet reduces your GHG footprint, so there's that. If you want to switch to a more carnivorous diet, I'd suggest chicken instead of beef. The evidence for mammalian meat being slightly carcinogenic seems to be pretty solid, and the climate impact of beef is about ten times that…
You also cause way less suffering in the world, which is something I believe is very much worth striving for.
- rodents die in wheat field during harvest
- recently there was an article on HN of olive harvests killing hundreds of birds
- entire forests are destroyed with wildlife by burning to grow palms for palm oil
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's nutritional science, so the error bars are big, the effect sizes are small and the confounding variables numerous. At least a plant-based diet reduces your GHG footprint, so there's that. If you want to switch to a more carnivorous diet, I'd suggest chicken instead of beef. The evidence for mammalian meat being slightly carcinogenic seems to be pretty solid, and the climate impact of beef is about ten times that…
>At least a plant-based diet reduces your GHG footprint That isn't actually true. It is a very misleading claim spread to promote veganism. It comes from comparing the raw caloric value of field corn, to the caloric value of beef. In reality, We do not actually eat field corn, we turn it into HFCS and corn oil, this reduces the energy efficiency of corn dramatically. A plant based diet also should not be based on HFC…
- rodents die in wheat field during harvest
- recently there was an article on HN of olive harvests killing hundreds of birds
- entire forests are destroyed with wildlife by burning to grow palms for palm oil
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I found this site to be helpful: https://nutritionfacts.org
That site is run by a well known quack, and is full of misrepresented "evidence" and even outright lies. It used to be called the "vegan research institute" until he renamed it so it was less obvious as a propaganda outlet. https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/death-as-a-foodborne-illnes...
And btw you linked an article with the following conclusion : "The video confirmed what I already knew from evaluating the published evidence: it is healthier to eat more plant-based foods and less red meat."
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You also cause way less suffering in the world, which is something I believe is very much worth striving for.
And during plant collection lots of animals die: - rodents die in wheat field during harvest - recently there was an article on HN of olive harvests killing hundreds of birds - entire forests are destroyed with wildlife by burning to grow palms for palm oil
Not nearly as many, of course, and the same products are eaten by meat eaters as well, and most plants are grown for animal feeding, but yes, it's impossible to live a regular human life and not indirectly hurt animals, humans or the environment. You can try to minimize it, though.