4 ms·
>"Two reasons, it's the only thing that does seem to consistently match across all the studies." Not saying I agree (I haven't looked, but surely "all" is an e
by nonbel 8y ago
>"Two reasons, it's the only thing that does seem to consistently match across all the studies."
Not saying I agree (I haven't looked, but surely "all" is an exaggeration...), but if you don't trust the researchers to know what they are doing this could easily be due to bias or including mcdonalds/etc as "meat". Ie, eating less fast food is correlated with not eating meat.
>"The other one is environmental efficiency. While I don't buy that a vegan diet is the most sustainable"
This has nothing to do with health.
- zzzeek 8y ago> This has nothing to do with health Are you an agricultural scientist? How do you know that? How do you know the quality and purity of the soil from which the food grows and the aquifiers which hydrate it didn't affect the nutritional quality of the food itself? I think such impacts have already been observed.
- nonbel 8y ago>"Are you an agricultural scientist? How do you know that?" Ok, I should have spoken more carefully. First, I believe that literally every single thing we can observe is correlated with every other thing (although this correlation may be weak/negligible). So there is nothing that has nothing to do with any other thing. >"How do you know the quality and purity of the soil from which the food grows and the aquifiers which hydrate it didn't affect the nutritional quality of the food itself? I think such impacts have already been observed." Definitely, there seems to have been a great amount of vitamin/mineral depletion. Usually this is chalked up to intensively farming (high-carb) grains (rice, wheat, corn) that really no animal should be eating much of: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S221451411500121X https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S221451411... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_Revolution https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_Revolution