3 ms·
Look: Feeding the world on Paleo diet is impossible (right now ... with increased use of insects and sustainable ocean farming not based on rainforest soy that
by dagss 9y ago
Look: Feeding the world on Paleo diet is impossible (right now ... with increased use of insects and sustainable ocean farming not based on rainforest soy that may change).
When one choice is to recommend a diet that will significantly increase green house gas emissions and yet still be totally unavailable to poor people; and another diet which might be marginally worse, then yes the burden of proof should be on the former.
Everyone switching to Paleo diet would be disastrous; and people HAVE attained 100+ years on grain diets, i.e. it is a matter of microoptimization not outright toxicity.
(Also you say "only change you made", but did you really measure calorie intake exactly before the change of diet? A lot of diets lead to weight reduction simply due to people starting to think about what they eat and calculate calories...the act of thinking about what you eat and counting calories itself will reduce calorie intake and increase healthiness of food consumed, leaving most people with no comparison point, hence a lot of hyped diets. Did you try using as much mental energy on a healthy diet containing grains as a comparisonr point? Otherwise you do not even have an anecdote).
- DiabloD3 9y agoExcept none of that's true. We already grow sufficient amounts of common vegetables like carrots, and the members of the cabbage family, and potatoes, and onions, and garlic, and whatever else. Corn and rice and cereal grains are extremely poor uses of the farm land we have. They are nutrient poor, and the last thing we need to be feeding to poor/starving people is nutrient poor foods. Most of the reason we have starving people in the world is mismanagement of what we already grow, not that we don't grow enough. I also don't care what the statistical outliers do. The average American lives far shorter lives than our medical and technological prowess would otherwise indicate.
- dagss 9y agoSorry, I thought I was reading about the kind of diet where a potato would be the worst thing ever. I.e. avoid carbohydrates. Apologies. I agree that we grow more than enough food today but we also do not live sustainably, we must reduce resource consumption or hit the wall at some point. At some point there is no more rainforest to burn.
- hycaria 9y agoThere are way too many things that changed recently to have conclusions on diets. Environment and chemical residues, sedentary lifestyles, lack of exercise, use of drugs (antibiotics and guts flora are now suspected to have interactions) and even more insidious stuff like our social structure changes. And yet many people still manage to live a pretty long and healthy life nowadays with "regular" diets (ie with cereal, yet home prepared and with the right quantity), but not so much while being morbidly obese, drinking water full of lead or smoking... I mean I'm not all against special diets, and to each his own, but this focus on diet as some kind of miracle remedy that let us live better without having to put other efforts into it makes no sense to me.
- sokoloff 9y ago> When one choice is to recommend a diet that will significantly increase green house gas emissions and yet still be totally unavailable to poor people; and another diet which might be marginally worse, then yes the burden of proof should be on the former. We have choice Ac with drawbacks Ad and choice Bc with drawbacks Bd. How is it remotely reasonable that the burden of proof is exclusively on Ac/Ad?