5 ms·

How do you arrive at the conclusion that the best thing to do in the US is switch your meats? Every form from animal protein is going to be less efficient than

How do you arrive at the conclusion that the best thing to do in the US is switch your meats? Every form from animal protein is going to be less efficient than plant protein and result in more emissions [1]. There are some amazing Kurzgesagt videos exposing how and why that is true [2]. So since we know that eating animals is not required to be healthy at any stage of life [3] (assuming basic access to required nutrients and what not which is very easy in developed countries) how did you arrive to conclusion that eating chicken is better than eating lentils, beans, etc? I don’t think what you’re saying is based in fact. I’d love if you tried to prove me wrong though. 1. https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/ghg-per-protein-poore https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/ghg-per-protein-poore 2. https://youtu.be/F1Hq8eVOMHs https://youtu.be/F1Hq8eVOMHs 3. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19562864/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19562864/

trention 4y ago
>how did you arrive to conclusion that eating chicken is better than eating lentils, beans, etc I haven't made such a claim (here "better" would be solely in terms of emissions). What was implied was that the delta of the emissions from switching from beef to chicken/fish is (far) larger than the delta from switching from them to veganism (it's important to note that per grams of protein, dairy is comparable in emmissions to non-beef meats - so really veganism (or veganism + eggs) is required). Also, this claim "we know that eating animals is not required to be healthy at any stage of life" is most likely false at the margin.
- sweetheart 4y ago
  If switching from beef to chicken is an option, and switching from beef to lentils is an option, and you say that switching from beef to chickens is the best option then you are indeed implying that switching from beef to chicken is better than switching from beef to lentils. You need not explicitly state exactly that; it logically follows from what you said. Also you refute the general scientific consensus among all major nutrition and dietetic institutions worldwide that animal products are not required to be healthy at any stage of life by saying “that’s probably not true”. You’ve got to admit how silly that is, right? Unless the “at the margin” part of what you said means something I don’t understand?
  - trention 4y ago
    >the general scientific consensus I would advise you to read up on the history of the advice ADA has been giving throughout the years (spoiler alert: they were wrong about fats and complex carbohydrates) before putting your money in that basket that this is the "general scientific consensus". But this is a topic I don't want (or need) to argue about.
    - kcplate 4y ago
      Exactly. “A low fat diet including fruits, pasta, and cereals, supplemented with copious amounts of extraneous insulin.”
      - sweetheart 4y ago
        But even if we concede that the ADA is entirely untrustworthy, they are only one of many nutrition and dietetic institutions who have officially stated the same thing. That’s why it’s the general consensus, not just the theories of the ADA
        kcplate 4y ago
        The point is that it’s wrong, particularly for type 2 diabetics, and not just a little wrong, it’s dangerously wrong for type 2 diabetics to eat the way the organization that the medical establishment was relying on for providing sound diabetes advice was actually distributing dangerous advice. The general consensus for years relied on an assumption and confirmation bias driven by marketing rather than any actual science.
        sweetheart 4y ago
        The claim I made wasn’t about saying what everyone needs to eat, though, so your point doesn’t make sense in the context of the discussion. The point that I was making is that these dietetic institutions state that animal products aren’t necessary. Not that diabetics are required to eat things that risk their lives… If you believe that diabetics cannot be vegan, then that’s a separate and equally untrue argument.

trention 4y ago

>how did you arrive to conclusion that eating chicken is better than eating lentils, beans, etc I haven't made such a claim (here "better" would be solely in terms of emissions). What was implied was that the delta of the emissions from switching from beef to chicken/fish is (far) larger than the delta from switching from them to veganism (it's important to note that per grams of protein, dairy is comparable in emmissions to non-beef meats - so really veganism (or veganism + eggs) is required). Also, this claim "we know that eating animals is not required to be healthy at any stage of life" is most likely false at the margin.

sweetheart 4y ago
If switching from beef to chicken is an option, and switching from beef to lentils is an option, and you say that switching from beef to chickens is the best option then you are indeed implying that switching from beef to chicken is better than switching from beef to lentils. You need not explicitly state exactly that; it logically follows from what you said. Also you refute the general scientific consensus among all major nutrition and dietetic institutions worldwide that animal products are not required to be healthy at any stage of life by saying “that’s probably not true”. You’ve got to admit how silly that is, right? Unless the “at the margin” part of what you said means something I don’t understand?
- trention 4y ago
  >the general scientific consensus I would advise you to read up on the history of the advice ADA has been giving throughout the years (spoiler alert: they were wrong about fats and complex carbohydrates) before putting your money in that basket that this is the "general scientific consensus". But this is a topic I don't want (or need) to argue about.
  - kcplate 4y ago
    Exactly. “A low fat diet including fruits, pasta, and cereals, supplemented with copious amounts of extraneous insulin.”
    - sweetheart 4y ago
      But even if we concede that the ADA is entirely untrustworthy, they are only one of many nutrition and dietetic institutions who have officially stated the same thing. That’s why it’s the general consensus, not just the theories of the ADA
      - kcplate 4y ago
        The point is that it’s wrong, particularly for type 2 diabetics, and not just a little wrong, it’s dangerously wrong for type 2 diabetics to eat the way the organization that the medical establishment was relying on for providing sound diabetes advice was actually distributing dangerous advice. The general consensus for years relied on an assumption and confirmation bias driven by marketing rather than any actual science.
        sweetheart 4y ago
        The claim I made wasn’t about saying what everyone needs to eat, though, so your point doesn’t make sense in the context of the discussion. The point that I was making is that these dietetic institutions state that animal products aren’t necessary. Not that diabetics are required to eat things that risk their lives… If you believe that diabetics cannot be vegan, then that’s a separate and equally untrue argument.