3 ms·

> I think the main reason we don’t hear more about just how goddamn efficient a bowl of lentils and rice is, or oatmeal, is because it’s not sexy. No, we don't

> I think the main reason we don’t hear more about just how goddamn efficient a bowl of lentils and rice is, or oatmeal, is because it’s not sexy. No, we don't hear about it more because it's not healthful. If it were, the human digestive system would be like that of cattle, but it's not. You can feed everyone carby, fibrous meals, but that's not optimal and not even necessarily better for the environment. The reason algae is proposed as a way to feed people is that it's not dumping a bunch of carbs, fiber, and incomplete protein down everyone's gullets. Humans don't need to be consuming these things, and there's drawbacks to diets that aren't based on what our species developed to primarily consume over the last 4 or so million years. There's aspects of algae that are preventing it from being a serious food source across the world, but if those roadblocks can be overcome then it can be a game changer because of where it can be grown and what kinds of nutrients it's capable of producing. In the present, there's no good reason to believe that "everyone" needs to eat more plants and less meat. Meat is a part of the atmospheric carbon cycle, just as are crops. On the contrary to what you're suggesting, and putting aside the fact that fossil fuels are being used throughout livestock and agriculture, individuals can eat whatever they see fit for themselves.

bobbylarrybobby 4y ago
Lentils and rice are a complete protein. While they don't provide 100% of the nutrients you need, if you throw in a few green vegetables you'll be absolutely fine. Crops use something like 1% of the resources to grow that meat does. It's not just about where carbon is stored, but land and water usage and where carbon is produced (cows fart. a lot.). Overall plant-based diets are far superior for the planet than meat-based diets, and contrary to popular opinion they don't have to suck.
- BlargMcLarg 4y ago
  There is token research that creatine supplements are especially beneficial for vegans, and creatine isn't the only thing mostly found in animal-based foods. Given nutritional sciences has a history of being a rollercoaster ride, maybe it isn't the best idea to make wild claims which don't mirror how the world behaves at large. Water and land usage is also A: grossly overstated (you can't grow anything except grass on most land) and B: cited as something against all meat when chickens, goats, ducks, geese and pigs use far less of both. At that point, substantiate or correct your statement to 'beef'.
  - gruez 4y ago
    >A: grossly overstated (you can't grow anything except grass on most land) The overwhelming majority of soy grown globally is fed to livestock. That's definitely does not fall under your category of "can't grow anything except grass on most land". "More than three-quarters (77%) of global soy is fed to livestock for meat and dairy production. Most of the rest is used for biofuels, industry or vegetable oils. Just 7% of soy is used directly for human food products" The proportion is lower for corn, but only because a huge chunk is being used for fuel. If we exclude that, it would still be the overwhelming majority. https://www.ers.usda.gov/webdocs/charts/104842/corn_dom_use.png?v=3850.4 https://www.ers.usda.gov/webdocs/charts/104842/corn_dom_use....
    - Gordonjcp 4y ago
      That's because soy isn't really suitable for human consumption, and about 80% of the soy plants that you grow consist of stuff that humans can't eat. How do you plan on solving the problem of eating the bits of soy plants that humans can't eat?
      - ac29 4y ago
        > How do you plan on solving the problem of eating the bits of soy plants that humans can't eat? Is this really a problem? No one is suggesting we stop eating fruit just because we cant eat the leaves, branches, and roots.
        Gordonjcp 4y ago
        Well, it's roughly 80% of the soy that we grow and it's what animal feed is made from. You could feed it to cows, in which case it gets turned into cow and fertiliser, or you can let it pile up and rot, emitting massive amounts of carbon dioxide and methane.
- hannofcart 4y ago
  > Lentils and rice are a complete protein. While they don't provide 100% of the nutrients you need, if you throw in a few green vegetables you'll be absolutely fine. Sounds like the South Indian Sambar with rice meets this criteria. Or rice-dal-subji combo in North Indian cuisine.
CuriouslyC 4y ago
Sorry, but lentils are pretty much the closest thing to a single food that meets all of a human's nutritional needs in existence. If you pair lentils with a small amount of spinach and eggs that gets you there. Your comments about what "people" were designed to eat also sounds pretty ignorant, since we're not genetically homogenous for starters. Most humans of European descent have evolved for seasonal carbohydrate consumption, which is why they make you fat in excess (good luck surviving a hard winter lean). The only people who really shouldn't be eating carbs are indigenous people from very cold areas with a primarily marine diet. There are pockets of indigenous Americans from desert regions who don't do fantastically with carbs either, but those people mostly have issues with a caloric surplus in general. Seaweed is a better food (and habitat) for fish than humans. We should create artificial reefs and forests to feed fish, then sustainably harvest fish from those manmade "farms".
- gruez 4y ago
  >Your comments about what "people" were designed to eat also sounds pretty ignorant, since we're not genetically homogenous for starters. ... Source for this? I don't doubt that there are groups with genetic adaptations to food (eg. genes for lactase persistence), but I'm not aware of anything for carbs.
  - CuriouslyC 4y ago
    It's not about a specific gene that says "you can/can't digest carbs" rather it's many variants of metabolic genes that dictate what hormones get triggered and what pathways get upregulated in such a way that eating carbohydrates causes fat gain/causes thermogenesis.
- Gordonjcp 4y ago
  And that's great, but how far do the lentils travel to get to your kitchen?

bobbylarrybobby 4y ago

Lentils and rice are a complete protein. While they don't provide 100% of the nutrients you need, if you throw in a few green vegetables you'll be absolutely fine. Crops use something like 1% of the resources to grow that meat does. It's not just about where carbon is stored, but land and water usage and where carbon is produced (cows fart. a lot.). Overall plant-based diets are far superior for the planet than meat-based diets, and contrary to popular opinion they don't have to suck.

BlargMcLarg 4y ago
There is token research that creatine supplements are especially beneficial for vegans, and creatine isn't the only thing mostly found in animal-based foods. Given nutritional sciences has a history of being a rollercoaster ride, maybe it isn't the best idea to make wild claims which don't mirror how the world behaves at large. Water and land usage is also A: grossly overstated (you can't grow anything except grass on most land) and B: cited as something against all meat when chickens, goats, ducks, geese and pigs use far less of both. At that point, substantiate or correct your statement to 'beef'.
- gruez 4y ago
  >A: grossly overstated (you can't grow anything except grass on most land) The overwhelming majority of soy grown globally is fed to livestock. That's definitely does not fall under your category of "can't grow anything except grass on most land". "More than three-quarters (77%) of global soy is fed to livestock for meat and dairy production. Most of the rest is used for biofuels, industry or vegetable oils. Just 7% of soy is used directly for human food products" The proportion is lower for corn, but only because a huge chunk is being used for fuel. If we exclude that, it would still be the overwhelming majority. https://www.ers.usda.gov/webdocs/charts/104842/corn_dom_use.png?v=3850.4 https://www.ers.usda.gov/webdocs/charts/104842/corn_dom_use....
  - Gordonjcp 4y ago
    That's because soy isn't really suitable for human consumption, and about 80% of the soy plants that you grow consist of stuff that humans can't eat. How do you plan on solving the problem of eating the bits of soy plants that humans can't eat?
    - ac29 4y ago
      > How do you plan on solving the problem of eating the bits of soy plants that humans can't eat? Is this really a problem? No one is suggesting we stop eating fruit just because we cant eat the leaves, branches, and roots.
      - Gordonjcp 4y ago
        Well, it's roughly 80% of the soy that we grow and it's what animal feed is made from. You could feed it to cows, in which case it gets turned into cow and fertiliser, or you can let it pile up and rot, emitting massive amounts of carbon dioxide and methane.
hannofcart 4y ago
> Lentils and rice are a complete protein. While they don't provide 100% of the nutrients you need, if you throw in a few green vegetables you'll be absolutely fine. Sounds like the South Indian Sambar with rice meets this criteria. Or rice-dal-subji combo in North Indian cuisine.

CuriouslyC 4y ago

Sorry, but lentils are pretty much the closest thing to a single food that meets all of a human's nutritional needs in existence. If you pair lentils with a small amount of spinach and eggs that gets you there. Your comments about what "people" were designed to eat also sounds pretty ignorant, since we're not genetically homogenous for starters. Most humans of European descent have evolved for seasonal carbohydrate consumption, which is why they make you fat in excess (good luck surviving a hard winter lean). The only people who really shouldn't be eating carbs are indigenous people from very cold areas with a primarily marine diet. There are pockets of indigenous Americans from desert regions who don't do fantastically with carbs either, but those people mostly have issues with a caloric surplus in general. Seaweed is a better food (and habitat) for fish than humans. We should create artificial reefs and forests to feed fish, then sustainably harvest fish from those manmade "farms".

gruez 4y ago
>Your comments about what "people" were designed to eat also sounds pretty ignorant, since we're not genetically homogenous for starters. ... Source for this? I don't doubt that there are groups with genetic adaptations to food (eg. genes for lactase persistence), but I'm not aware of anything for carbs.
- CuriouslyC 4y ago
  It's not about a specific gene that says "you can/can't digest carbs" rather it's many variants of metabolic genes that dictate what hormones get triggered and what pathways get upregulated in such a way that eating carbohydrates causes fat gain/causes thermogenesis.
Gordonjcp 4y ago
And that's great, but how far do the lentils travel to get to your kitchen?