91–100 of 129 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not true. https://www.health.harvard.edu/staying-healthy/foods-that-fi...
That’s just a blog post on Harvard.edu domain. Has no cred on its own. Not backed up by scientific references. Please post sources. Thank you.
Which is more authoritative than a comment on HN. I believe it’s on you to find a more authoritative source that contradicts the above.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's all the additional steps and products added. A lot of processed meat are juste a slime of bones, skin, organs, ligaments whatever was left on the carcass of the animal. On top of that it comes from low quality (cheap) animals in the first place which doesn't help. It's like eating a fruit vs drinking a juice, or eating raw veggies vs a broth. The original material is the same but it doesn't mean it holds the sam…
I don't believe that this matters. Why would it? Offal has great nutritional value. The inuit did perfectly well on an all-meat diet. The issue is more likely curing with nitrites and smoking. >It's like eating a fruit vs drinking a juice Another thing that doesn't matter. What exactly do you think magically happens when you put an orange into a blender and mix with a bit of water that would make it lose its nutritio…
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.
> Another thing that doesn't matter. What exactly do you think magically happens
Many things happen and none of them are magical. The glycemic index of a raw fruit isn't the same as a juice from the same fruit for example, you don't get the fibers, &c.
> The inuit did perfectly well on an all-meat diet.
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?
With more and more people switching to vegetarian and vegan fake meats, I'd be interested in understanding what is the wisdom on highly processed vegetable-based foods.
Processing foods is what likely helped Homo to get enough energy to evolve big brains. So, processing foods isn’t all that bad, and it may even be hard-wired in many of us. But, Humans tend to take things too far, and inventing new ways of processing is really fun! So, most food today is over-processed. It’s acceptable to grind, dice, tear, smash, smush, squeeze, ferment, spice, salt, and cook veggies, lightly. Any m…
Hm cooked food maybe; processed food, not really, at least according to the current definition of it.
https://www.foodindustry.com/articles/the-4-categories-of-pr...
To be honest, I don't get the mania for processed meat substitutes when there's excellent vegetarian/vegan fare from cuisines that have been doing it for millennia. As an Indian brought up in a vegetarian family, I had no inkling or desire to eat meat until I came to the US for grad school. One day I had this niggling doubt that I continued to be a vegetarian for cultural rather than ethical reasons. I tested that hy…
There's a term for vegans who don't actually eat whole foods: "french fry vegan". It's as derisive as it sounds. If you're eating processed meat substitutes all the time as a vegetarian, IMO you aren't doing it right. I'm sure plenty of other people would agree.
And yet, vegetarians do eat those things sometimes. It's cultural. In the West (not just in the USA, in much of Europe as well), a lot of traditional foods are either meat-based or contain meat. My friends and I want to go out for a burger and a milkshake, because that's fun for us; I want a damn burger. A grilled mushroom on a roll is equally delicious, but it just isn't the same.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Animals eating other animals is natural evolutionary behavior. If carnivore animals had the same concerns and turned to tofu, they'd be dead. Let's concentrate of the suffering of our fellow human beings...
Eating animals (some of which can`t reproduce naturaly anymore) raised in CAFOS, fed unnatural foods and pumped with hormones and antibiotics is all but natural evolutionary behavior and hurts both animals and humans.
Just not for throwing the whole eating animals thing altogether.
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Animals eating other animals is natural evolutionary behavior. If carnivore animals had the same concerns and turned to tofu, they'd be dead. Let's concentrate of the suffering of our fellow human beings...
Humans are not carnivores, and lions don't have grocery stores. If ducks stopped raping other ducks, they'd go extinct too. Not really sure if that's an argument in favor of human rapists, though.
Yes, we're omnivores. Or it's complicated [1].
> and lions don't have grocery stores.
Sucks to be them.
But we have been eating meat for millennia, naturally, before we ever concerned ourselves about reading/writing and math, so there's that.
>If ducks stopped raping other ducks, they'd go extinct too. Not really sure if that's an argument in favor of human rapists, though.
That would have mattered only if the same conditions applied (e.g. extinction threat otherwise), which they don't. So it's looks more like a way to force the argument against eating meat based on a strong association with something obviously negative ("think of the children" style argument).
[1] https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Are_humans_omnivores_or_herb...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Humans are not carnivores, and lions don't have grocery stores. If ducks stopped raping other ducks, they'd go extinct too. Not really sure if that's an argument in favor of human rapists, though.
Lions have no concept of morality either. We should care about unnecessary suffering because we can.
"We should because we can"? There are many things that we "can" do that we better not do. There's no automatic logical deduction from "we can" to "so we should".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Animals eating other animals is natural evolutionary behavior. If carnivore animals had the same concerns and turned to tofu, they'd be dead. Let's concentrate of the suffering of our fellow human beings...
“Animals eating other animals is natural evolutionary behavior.” Whether something is “natural” has no bearing on its goodness. And certainly plenty of the behaviors that cause human suffering are 100% natural. “If carnivore animals has the same concerns and turned to tofu, they’d be dead.” We’re not obligate carnivores so this is a non-sequitor. “Let’s concentrate on the suffering of our fellow human beings...” This…
Well, goodness also is not a logical argument. Good according to what, some arbitrary morals? Other people find it perfectly good to eat burgers.
>And certainly plenty of the behaviors that cause human suffering are 100% natural.
Only in the contrived sense, that we are part of nature as a species.
But we have long made the distinction that our more advanced developments concerning invention, historical developments, innovation, etc, are part of "civilization", and it's the behaviors that we already had before we developed those that are our "natural" part.
And we did ate meat before we had writing, and mobile phones.
>This is a fine conclusion that just doesn’t happen to follow from anything else you said.
Isn't not meant to be a logical deduction from something said earlier, it's meant to be about prioritization.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>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…
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