5 ms·

For a counter argument to the "Locavore" movement, I recommend reading "Just Food: Where Locavores Get It Wrong and How We Can Truly Eat Responsibly" by Jame E

For a counter argument to the "Locavore" movement, I recommend reading "Just Food: Where Locavores Get It Wrong and How We Can Truly Eat Responsibly" by Jame E McWilliams.[1] As others more knowledgeable on the subject than me have stated (in various places), eating less red meat greatly improves the environment and your health. An example of eating less red meat would be treat it as a side dish instead of the main dish. 1. http://www.amazon.com/Just-Food-Where-Locavores-Responsibly/dp/031603374X/ref=sr_1_3?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1309361841&sr=1-3 http://www.amazon.com/Just-Food-Where-Locavores-Responsibly/...

ericmoritz 15y ago
There was a study released last week that basically stated the same thing. Refined grains, potatoes and meat attribute to greater weight gain vs diets centered around vegetables. It's really looking like the best meal ecologically, economically and for your health is one where the primary calories come from vegetables.
- deleted 15y ago
  [deleted]
- 127001brewer 15y ago
  Here's one article that discussed the study: http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/potatoes-bad-nuts-good-for-staying-slim-harvard-study-finds/2011/06/17/AGRWmIgH_story.html http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/potato...
- dmm 15y ago
  > where the primary calories come from vegetables A kilogram of spinach has 230 cals. How many kilos do you plan to eat? Fats are a more practical source of calories.
  - lukesandberg 15y ago
    It is true that fats are among the most calorie dense food in existence but that doesn't make them necessarily 'practical'. If animal fats have lots of external costs (in terms of environmental damage) then they aren't very practical. The costs are just not well understood. As for the spinach straw man argument...I don't think anyone is suggesting that you eat 10 kilos of spinach, that would be extremely unhealthy. I think the OP was suggesting simply that calories come mostly from plants. This includes nuts (peanut butter is very high calorie), fruits (also high calorie) and vegetables.
    - sliverstorm 15y ago
      If you allow "plants", then yes- starchy staples, nuts, fruits all have you covered on calories. It's up to the OP though to clarify whether he meant plants or celery.
  - jessedhillon 15y ago
    Some sources of plant fats: avocados, olives, coconuts, almost all nuts. Bonus: 0mg cholesterol.
    - Evgeny 15y ago
      Dietary cholesterol has not yet been shown to be harmful. Some well-researched books on the subject include "Fat and Cholesterol are good for you" by Uffe Ravnskov and "The Great Cholesterol con" by Anthony Colpo.
      - jessedhillon 15y ago
        That's right. High levels are correlated with atherosclerosis and cardiovascular disease, but they haven't been shown to cause those conditions. Some cholesterols are also "good" (high density) in that they have positive effects for people with high cholesterols -- they can lower levels.
dkastner 15y ago
Here are some great rebuttals to "Just Food:" http://www.grist.org/article/2009-09-08-mcwilliams-locavore-polemic http://www.grist.org/article/2009-09-08-mcwilliams-locavore-... http://sharonastyk.com/2009/09/11/start-by-asking-the-right-questions-setting-the-terms-for-the-debate-on-local-and-organic-food/ http://sharonastyk.com/2009/09/11/start-by-asking-the-right-...
scythe 15y ago
>and your health As far as I am aware, the data on this claim is conflicting, and most studies are plagued by confounding variables. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meat#Health http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meat#Health See? This article is a freakin' yo-yo. It causes heart disease, it does not cause heart disease, it causes cancer, it does not cause cancer, everyone is jumping on everyone else's methodology, and sometimes it seems as though the conclusions were decided before the study was performed. Here it causes heart disease: >a survey ,conducted in 1960, of 25,153 California Seventh-Day Adventists, found that the risk of heart disease is three times greater for 45-64 year old men who eat meat daily, versus those who did not eat meat. Here it does not: >In another study[84] in 2010 involving over one million people who ate meat found that only processed meat had an adverse risk in relation to coronary heart disease. The study suggests that eating 50g (less than 2oz) of processed meat per day increases risk of coronary heart disease by 42%, and diabetes by 19%. Equivalent levels of fat, including saturated fats, in unprocessed meat (even when eating twice as much per day) did not show any deleterious effects, leading the researchers to suggest that "differences in salt and preservatives, rather than fats, might explain the higher risk of heart disease and diabetes seen with processed meats, but not with unprocessed red meats." The lack of attention given to statistical confounding in the diets of the people studied is concerning. The fact that new studies appear to refute previous studies suggests that one of three things is going on: -the new studies are wrong -the old studies are wrong -the physical laws of the Universe have changed in some fundamental manner I cannot hope to be convinced on this topic without hopefully a thorough examination of the methodology of the researchers and potential biases. It is not becoming of a scientist to make an assertion of knowledge without a thorough examination of the data and its origins, and I have my doubts about the quality of any of the current data, whether it condemns or acquits meat consumption. The work regarding heterocyclic amines and the recommendation to microwave meat before it is cooked seems now as a tiny ignored candle flame in a dark room full of people claiming to see the light. I do, however, have the intuition that studying something as broad as "meat consumption" is almost inherently inclined to error and bias, and that it would be better to perform multiple specific analyses and hopefully even experiments involving perhaps directed diets, so that the question can be laid to rest, and people can make a decision based on evidence, fact, and their own relative valuation of health and hedonism. Not from dogma.

ericmoritz 15y ago

There was a study released last week that basically stated the same thing. Refined grains, potatoes and meat attribute to greater weight gain vs diets centered around vegetables. It's really looking like the best meal ecologically, economically and for your health is one where the primary calories come from vegetables.

deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
127001brewer 15y ago
Here's one article that discussed the study: http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/potatoes-bad-nuts-good-for-staying-slim-harvard-study-finds/2011/06/17/AGRWmIgH_story.html http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/potato...
dmm 15y ago
> where the primary calories come from vegetables A kilogram of spinach has 230 cals. How many kilos do you plan to eat? Fats are a more practical source of calories.
- lukesandberg 15y ago
  It is true that fats are among the most calorie dense food in existence but that doesn't make them necessarily 'practical'. If animal fats have lots of external costs (in terms of environmental damage) then they aren't very practical. The costs are just not well understood. As for the spinach straw man argument...I don't think anyone is suggesting that you eat 10 kilos of spinach, that would be extremely unhealthy. I think the OP was suggesting simply that calories come mostly from plants. This includes nuts (peanut butter is very high calorie), fruits (also high calorie) and vegetables.
  - sliverstorm 15y ago
    If you allow "plants", then yes- starchy staples, nuts, fruits all have you covered on calories. It's up to the OP though to clarify whether he meant plants or celery.
- jessedhillon 15y ago
  Some sources of plant fats: avocados, olives, coconuts, almost all nuts. Bonus: 0mg cholesterol.
  - Evgeny 15y ago
    Dietary cholesterol has not yet been shown to be harmful. Some well-researched books on the subject include "Fat and Cholesterol are good for you" by Uffe Ravnskov and "The Great Cholesterol con" by Anthony Colpo.
    - jessedhillon 15y ago
      That's right. High levels are correlated with atherosclerosis and cardiovascular disease, but they haven't been shown to cause those conditions. Some cholesterols are also "good" (high density) in that they have positive effects for people with high cholesterols -- they can lower levels.

dkastner 15y ago

Here are some great rebuttals to "Just Food:" http://www.grist.org/article/2009-09-08-mcwilliams-locavore-polemic http://www.grist.org/article/2009-09-08-mcwilliams-locavore-... http://sharonastyk.com/2009/09/11/start-by-asking-the-right-questions-setting-the-terms-for-the-debate-on-local-and-organic-food/ http://sharonastyk.com/2009/09/11/start-by-asking-the-right-...

scythe 15y ago

>and your health As far as I am aware, the data on this claim is conflicting, and most studies are plagued by confounding variables. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meat#Health http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meat#Health See? This article is a freakin' yo-yo. It causes heart disease, it does not cause heart disease, it causes cancer, it does not cause cancer, everyone is jumping on everyone else's methodology, and sometimes it seems as though the conclusions were decided before the study was performed. Here it causes heart disease: >a survey ,conducted in 1960, of 25,153 California Seventh-Day Adventists, found that the risk of heart disease is three times greater for 45-64 year old men who eat meat daily, versus those who did not eat meat. Here it does not: >In another study[84] in 2010 involving over one million people who ate meat found that only processed meat had an adverse risk in relation to coronary heart disease. The study suggests that eating 50g (less than 2oz) of processed meat per day increases risk of coronary heart disease by 42%, and diabetes by 19%. Equivalent levels of fat, including saturated fats, in unprocessed meat (even when eating twice as much per day) did not show any deleterious effects, leading the researchers to suggest that "differences in salt and preservatives, rather than fats, might explain the higher risk of heart disease and diabetes seen with processed meats, but not with unprocessed red meats." The lack of attention given to statistical confounding in the diets of the people studied is concerning. The fact that new studies appear to refute previous studies suggests that one of three things is going on: -the new studies are wrong -the old studies are wrong -the physical laws of the Universe have changed in some fundamental manner I cannot hope to be convinced on this topic without hopefully a thorough examination of the methodology of the researchers and potential biases. It is not becoming of a scientist to make an assertion of knowledge without a thorough examination of the data and its origins, and I have my doubts about the quality of any of the current data, whether it condemns or acquits meat consumption. The work regarding heterocyclic amines and the recommendation to microwave meat before it is cooked seems now as a tiny ignored candle flame in a dark room full of people claiming to see the light. I do, however, have the intuition that studying something as broad as "meat consumption" is almost inherently inclined to error and bias, and that it would be better to perform multiple specific analyses and hopefully even experiments involving perhaps directed diets, so that the question can be laid to rest, and people can make a decision based on evidence, fact, and their own relative valuation of health and hedonism. Not from dogma.