4 ms·

... and also starve, yea?

wffurr 3y ago
If you call eating less meat and more plants “starving”.
myshpa 3y ago
https://ourworldindata.org/land-use https://ourworldindata.org/land-use We already get 82% calories and 63% proteins from plants, but animal agriculture takes 80-90% of all agriculture lands, and is a leading driver of deforestation, biodiversity loss and droughts. https://talkveganto.me/en/facts/suitable-for-all/ https://talkveganto.me/en/facts/suitable-for-all/ We don't need to eat animal products for sustenance or health. https://ourworldindata.org/land-use-diets https://ourworldindata.org/land-use-diets Animals are really inefficient in converting plants into calories. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5899434/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5899434/ "Plant-based replacements for each of the major animal categories in the United States (beef, pork, dairy, poultry, and eggs) can produce twofold to 20-fold more nutritionally similar food per unit cropland. Replacing all animal-based items with plant-based replacement diets can add enough food to feed 350 million additional people, more than the expected benefits of eliminating all supply chain food loss." https://www.wri.org/data/animal-based-foods-are-more-resource-intensive-plant-based-foods https://www.wri.org/data/animal-based-foods-are-more-resourc... Animal-based Foods are More Resource-Intensive than Plant-Based Foods https://www.eurekalert.org/news-releases/917471 https://www.eurekalert.org/news-releases/917471 Feeding 10 billion people by 2050 within planetary limits may be achievable A global shift towards healthy and more plant-based diets, halving food loss and waste, and improving farming practices and technologies are required to feed 10 billion people sustainably by 2050, a new study finds.
- nradov 3y ago
  Ruminant animals are very efficient at converting plants into high quality protein. Getting the optimal mix of essential amino acids is crucial for health. This is just as important as number of calories. https://peterattiamd.com/donlayman/ https://peterattiamd.com/donlayman/
  - delecti 3y ago
    Most cows raised in the US are not raised on grazed grass, they're raised on corn and soy. That process is very inefficient when compared to growing plants that we eat directly. And we don't really need an optimal mix of amino acids as long as we get enough amino acids. Fretting about precisely balancing the mix is unnecessary.
    - nradov 3y ago
      Nope, you've got that mostly wrong from a dietary standpoint. It's really tough to get enough leucine, lysine, and methionine for optimal health and building muscle while eating a plant based diet without also getting too many carbohydrates. The ratios in most plants are not great. I mean in principle it can be done through careful meal planning (and perhaps some supplements) but most people just don't have time for that. Seriously, listen to the interview I linked above and then read the referenced journal articles. That will clear up some of your misconceptions. I do agree that we should shift away from monocrop agriculture to produce fodder for cattle feedlots and toward regenerative agriculture. Some farms are now doing that with productivity comparable to factory farming so it will be interesting to see if that model can be scaled up enough to cheaply feed a huge population.
      - myshpa 3y ago
        > I mean in principle it can be done through careful meal planning (and perhaps some supplements) but most people just don't have time for that. That's not true. 25% of your plate should be proteins (lentils, beans, tofu, tempeh, seitan, peas ...), 25% whole grains (brown rice, quinoa, whole wheat bread, whole grain pasta), 30% vegetables (variety of colors to get different nutrients), 10-15% fruit (apple, banana, berries), 5-10% fats (avocados, nuts, seeds, or a drizzle of olive oil). That's it. Variety is the key. The only supplement you need is B12, which you can get from either pills or fortified milk, yogurt, cereals, and other sources.
        nradov 3y ago
        Nope. You have no idea what my nutritional needs are, nor are you numbers even close to optimal. To start with, the notion of dividing a plate based on percentages is ridiculous and displays a clear ignorance of the basics. For optimal performance we need at least a certain minimum amount of high quality protein (right essential amino acids) based on a ratio to lean body mass regardless of how much we are eating. That's a fixed number, not a percentage. It's sad how confidently wrong many HN users are whenever we have discussions about diet and nutrition. People read something somewhere that aligns with their preconceived biases and then they repeat it back without doing real validation. If your want to see empirically what actually works then ignore the gurus and junk science you see online, and instead look at the diets of masters athletes who have been competing at high levels for decades (including recovering from injuries). The percentages on their plates are substantially different from your numbers, and the majority eat a significant amount of animal products.
barbazoo 3y ago
The idea is to eat less meat and use feed those calories to people directly instead. Not the solution but contributing to it.

If you call eating less meat and more plants “starving”.

https://ourworldindata.org/land-use https://ourworldindata.org/land-use We already get 82% calories and 63% proteins from plants, but animal agriculture takes 80-90% of all agriculture lands, and is a leading driver of deforestation, biodiversity loss and droughts. https://talkveganto.me/en/facts/suitable-for-all/ https://talkveganto.me/en/facts/suitable-for-all/ We don't need to eat animal products for sustenance or health. https://ourworldindata.org/land-use-diets https://ourworldindata.org/land-use-diets Animals are really inefficient in converting plants into calories. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5899434/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5899434/ "Plant-based replacements for each of the major animal categories in the United States (beef, pork, dairy, poultry, and eggs) can produce twofold to 20-fold more nutritionally similar food per unit cropland. Replacing all animal-based items with plant-based replacement diets can add enough food to feed 350 million additional people, more than the expected benefits of eliminating all supply chain food loss." https://www.wri.org/data/animal-based-foods-are-more-resource-intensive-plant-based-foods https://www.wri.org/data/animal-based-foods-are-more-resourc... Animal-based Foods are More Resource-Intensive than Plant-Based Foods https://www.eurekalert.org/news-releases/917471 https://www.eurekalert.org/news-releases/917471 Feeding 10 billion people by 2050 within planetary limits may be achievable A global shift towards healthy and more plant-based diets, halving food loss and waste, and improving farming practices and technologies are required to feed 10 billion people sustainably by 2050, a new study finds.

nradov 3y ago
Ruminant animals are very efficient at converting plants into high quality protein. Getting the optimal mix of essential amino acids is crucial for health. This is just as important as number of calories. https://peterattiamd.com/donlayman/ https://peterattiamd.com/donlayman/
- delecti 3y ago
  Most cows raised in the US are not raised on grazed grass, they're raised on corn and soy. That process is very inefficient when compared to growing plants that we eat directly. And we don't really need an optimal mix of amino acids as long as we get enough amino acids. Fretting about precisely balancing the mix is unnecessary.
  - nradov 3y ago
    Nope, you've got that mostly wrong from a dietary standpoint. It's really tough to get enough leucine, lysine, and methionine for optimal health and building muscle while eating a plant based diet without also getting too many carbohydrates. The ratios in most plants are not great. I mean in principle it can be done through careful meal planning (and perhaps some supplements) but most people just don't have time for that. Seriously, listen to the interview I linked above and then read the referenced journal articles. That will clear up some of your misconceptions. I do agree that we should shift away from monocrop agriculture to produce fodder for cattle feedlots and toward regenerative agriculture. Some farms are now doing that with productivity comparable to factory farming so it will be interesting to see if that model can be scaled up enough to cheaply feed a huge population.
    - myshpa 3y ago
      > I mean in principle it can be done through careful meal planning (and perhaps some supplements) but most people just don't have time for that. That's not true. 25% of your plate should be proteins (lentils, beans, tofu, tempeh, seitan, peas ...), 25% whole grains (brown rice, quinoa, whole wheat bread, whole grain pasta), 30% vegetables (variety of colors to get different nutrients), 10-15% fruit (apple, banana, berries), 5-10% fats (avocados, nuts, seeds, or a drizzle of olive oil). That's it. Variety is the key. The only supplement you need is B12, which you can get from either pills or fortified milk, yogurt, cereals, and other sources.
      - nradov 3y ago
        Nope. You have no idea what my nutritional needs are, nor are you numbers even close to optimal. To start with, the notion of dividing a plate based on percentages is ridiculous and displays a clear ignorance of the basics. For optimal performance we need at least a certain minimum amount of high quality protein (right essential amino acids) based on a ratio to lean body mass regardless of how much we are eating. That's a fixed number, not a percentage. It's sad how confidently wrong many HN users are whenever we have discussions about diet and nutrition. People read something somewhere that aligns with their preconceived biases and then they repeat it back without doing real validation. If your want to see empirically what actually works then ignore the gurus and junk science you see online, and instead look at the diets of masters athletes who have been competing at high levels for decades (including recovering from injuries). The percentages on their plates are substantially different from your numbers, and the majority eat a significant amount of animal products.

barbazoo 3y ago

The idea is to eat less meat and use feed those calories to people directly instead. Not the solution but contributing to it.