7 ms·
Farmed salmon leads to loss of nutrients, instead eat 'feed fishes' directly
- meristohm 3y agoAuthor Bren Smith recommends this in his book Eat Like a Fish. He also recommends eating seaweed and mollusks, and that the water of the eastern seaboard may have been mostly clear due to all the filter-feeders. My general recommendation is to treat meat like a luxurious delicacy and to instead rely on sprouted seeds (legumes, nuts) and other plant parts for protein, until human population and customs can scale back to a point where the carrying capacity of the land and sea can support not only us but so much other life we share the planet with. Strength and resilience through diversity of species. I'm willing to give up a lot of luxuries for this. At the end of the day it's nice to settle down in a shelter with loved ones, all having eaten enough.
- Solvency 3y ago[flagged]
- Unconstrained 3y agoThis is complete pseudo-science BS.
- Solvency 3y agoHow do plants defend themselves? Do you know what apple seeds contain? Have you researched cashews yet? Do you cherry pick what science you think is real science!
- goncalo-r 3y agoBut this is obviously not scalable/sustainable. If everyone wanted to eat grassfed beef that lives in free range fields multiple times a week, we'd very quickly run out of space and other resources. Not to mention you're still contributing heavily to climate change, unless "bio-regenerative" also means restoring the atmosphere for a zero carbon impact. At the end of the day, we all need to eat less meat.
- groestl 3y agoClassic tragedy of the commons.
- BurningFrog 3y agoThese "if everyone did X" arguments are very tricky. If everyone went to buy food at my local grocery store, the 7 billion people in such a small building would cause an enormous humanitarian catastrophe. I don't think that means there is anything wrong with me shopping there, and I don't think there is anything wrong in eating grassfed free range beef either.
- AlecSchueler 3y ago> I don't think that means there is anything wrong with me shopping there, and I don't think there is anything wrong in eating grassfed free range beef either. Why? The first example is absurd and the logic that someone would rely on in making an argument against you shopping somewhere would also be absurd. But the second point is not absurd, as enough people are already eating meat to the point that ecosystems are severely strained.
- exitb 3y agoThere is not enough resources for everyone to eat sustainable beef. Some people need to eat unsustainably, so others can eat the sustainable stuff. Which is, obviously, unsustainable.
- __MatrixMan__ 3y agoWe have many grocery stores. We have one planet. It's quite reasonable to discuss whether certain people tax it beyond their share. It's really the size of the range that's a problem. Eating food that eats food is a really inefficient way to get your energy, so you have to offset it by letting that cow range widely. You have to ask: what this that space not doing because it's currently supporting a cow instead? What have you taken away that other people need?
- belorn 3y ago
- FredPret 3y agoCows do an outstanding job turning grass and other inedible things into a foodstuff that not only has extreme nutritional value, but resonates with me on a cellular level. It'd be cool if we can grow steak in future, but I think it'd be very hard to replicate an actual cow without adding toxins, and I worry that they'll make some ridiculous low-fat or low-cholesterol version based on nutritional "science".
- Unconstrained 3y agoCows are extremely inefficient. How can you say they do an outstanding job? Outstandingly high emission of Methane belching?
- FredPret 3y agoEfficiency isn't the only way to do an outstanding job. When Michelangelo painted the Sistine Chapel, it took him forever to paint a small surface. Any old housepainter could have been more efficient. The point is that grass is inedible and grows all over the place, and cows turn this abundant and useless resource into wonderful steaks.
- cube2222 3y agoCows are literally one of the least calorie-per-CO2 efficient means of getting meat. Here's some actual data: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/ghg-kcal-poore https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/ghg-kcal-poore You'll note that beef is by far the worst. Here's one that better describes the components of that CO2 footprint (whether it's methane production, or transport overhead, etc.): https://ourworldindata.org/food-choice-vs-eating-local https://ourworldindata.org/food-choice-vs-eating-local
- FredPret 3y agoI refer you to my reply to your sibling comment. Michelangelo did a less efficient job painting the Sistine Chapel per square meter than a housepainter would have.
- ch4s3 3y agoThis is almost certainly not true. Outside of heavy metals there are very few things that "accumulate" in the body and I can't find any papers mentioning nut toxins having this effect.
- Solvency 3y agoThere is literally an article on the front page about PFAS bio accumulating. Look harder.
- Unconstrained 3y agoWhere is the evidence that these are higher in nuts and fruit than in meat and dairy? The article you mention doesn't answer this question. Read harder https://medicalxpress.com/news/2024-03-pfas-blood-ubiquitous-cardiovascular-diseases.html https://medicalxpress.com/news/2024-03-pfas-blood-ubiquitous...
- sf_rob 3y agoThe first study[1] I could find that included analysis of vegan vs non-vegan diets' correlation with blood PFAS levels suggest that vegan diets are negatively correlated with some classes of PFAS (and neutral with the other classes analyzed): "The strongest correlations with food groups, derived from a food frequency questionnaire, were observed between levels of PFOA and water consumption (in case of the total study population, n = 72), and between levels of PFOS as well as PFNA and the consumption of ‘meat and meat products’". I'm not proposing that a single study is proof, but I'm default-skeptical of dietary claims without strong evidence, especially ones that comport with other aspects of worldview or preference. [1] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1438463921001231#abs0010 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S143846392...
- mistercow 3y agoPFAS is a “plant defense mechanism”?
- 3y ago
- dayjaby 3y agoToxins get accumulated in animals in around a 10:1 ratio. 1kg meat contains 10x more toxins than 1kg plants. A good rule of thumb to remember.
- xenonite 3y agoDepends on the toxin. For example, tuna is loaded with heavy metals because it is at the end of the food chain. However, I think the OP rather meant plant defense chemicals like phytic acid, oxalic acid etc., which as far as I know are not found in meat.
- TheHumanist 3y agoTigers better watch out too... I hear tuna are working on developing a series of breathing apparatus so they can go on land to hunt and kill tigers.
- micromacrofoot 3y agoThese are all mitigated by a balanced diet, while deriding diets high in nut content you also neglect to mention that eating large amounts of beef significantly raises your risk of multiple forms of cancer. Not to mention that side effects like those caused by almond consumption, would require eating hundreds of grams of almonds a day. So you're not quite being fair here.
- markstos 3y agoWhat amount of optional toxins is balanced? Why not just eat less toxins?
- AlecSchueler 3y agoSimply avoid all protein sources?
- markstos 3y agoDo you mean animal protein sources? Yes, that's a good idea. There's plenty of protein in plant foods.
- AlecSchueler 3y agoI thought we agreed above that plants were also toxic.
- KMag 3y agoYou'd be hard pressed to find anything absolutely toxin-free. Many toxins have non-linear effects, negligible at very low doses, so there are advantages to diversification. Even if you could find a handful of foods that are absolutely toxin-free, eating only those would greatly reduce the diversity in your diet. The obvious optimum is a diet minimal in the effect-weighted sum of its toxins, subject to the constraint of also providing healthy levels of all essential nutrients... which the GP is attempting to reasonably approximate without requiring years of research into the exact diet by proposing toxin risk diversification.
- voisin 3y agoTwo can play at this game: Animal protein raises pressure on your kidneys for hours after consumption. By eating that you are inflaming your kidneys and increasing the likelihood of a wide range of consequences. Turns out living has consequences no matter how you live. Choose what you are willing to die for.
- AlexandrB 3y agoAlso heme iron is carcinogenic[1]. [1] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21209396/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21209396/
- CarRamrod 3y ago[flagged]
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- belorn 3y agoI always read general recommendation for diets as conditioned under the culture for which the author lives in. Without the cultural aspect, it always sound like telling people in rice eating cultures that they should all shift to wheat because of lower methane emissions (or asking wheat eating cultures to switch to rice because of lower CO2 emissions, both arguments has a point). I do want to see a cultural change towards seaweed and mollusks on a global scale. Nutrition rich runoff from farms create a lot of damage in oceans, lakes and rivers, and both seaweed and mollusks are great in picking up that excess nutrition. I would also like to see a change towards consuming overpopulated fish. It is a completely cultural phenomenon that we can have both overfishing and fish overpopulations at the same time (usually not the same type of fish). I would also like to see a return towards using domesticated animals in order to replace combustion. Waste food should be prioritized towards animal feed rather than bio gas. Household animals used to be a common practice, and it allowed people to eat meat with much smaller footprint. Chickens are also excellent lawnmowers that do not operate on fossil fuels.
- _3u10 3y agoAgreed most countries don’t appreciate meat like Brazil, Paraguay, and Argentina. If everyone lived like us the planet would be a lot more healthy and enjoyable. Ideally Europe would stop farming and restore its forests to an equal percentage of the land as Brazil. Sadly Europe has ignored the environment for millennia and is unwilling to change its ways.
- rickydroll 3y ago> sprouted seeds (legumes, nuts) and other plant parts for protein Doing so will drive demand for better diabetes treatments. Managing diabetes is a longer and more nuanced conversation than one can have here. The rule of thumb is that all carbohydrates harm blood glucose control. The best diet is based on your body type. For me (and many others), a low-carb, inulin-rich diet (unprocessed meats, low-starch vegetables) seems to give lower blood glucose increases. Some claim a low-fat vegan diet will put diabetes into remission, and I'm sure it does for some body types. I can not judge the validity of that claim except that I do not have that body type, and it made my diabetes control significantly worse.
- molloy 3y ago> The rule of thumb is that all carbohydrates harm blood glucose control. This is untrue. Only simple carbohydrates harm blood glucose control. Complex carbs such as whole grains and fruit aid in it, in part thanks to their fiber. If you have a source that supports your claim, please share it, it must be bleeding edge nutritional science.
- rickydroll 3y agoI've not seen any research showing that whole-grain carbohydrates have a lower impact on blood glucose than quick carbohydrates. We have only proof by repeated assertion. My freestyle Libra CGM has recorded the impact of whole-grain products on my body. Whole-grain products consistently spike my blood sugar. 40 g of oatmeal or Bob's Red Mill 10-grain mix will push me up to 100-120 milligrams per deciliter. Whole-wheat pasta, 60g, will push me up about 150-200 mg/dL. Eating more than 25 g carbs per meal pushes me up beyond 50 mg/dL at the one-hour mark. If I consistently let my blood sugar climb between 75 and 100 mg/dL at the one-hour mark, my fasting blood sugar starts to climb. This is how I learned that low-fat vegan was a bad diet for me. My A1c went from 6 to 7.8 in less than a year. Too much dietary advice for diabetics is, at best, mythology.
- senorqa 3y agoFishing in the wild without restocking the fish population is simply a form of poaching.
- guccigav 3y agoI'm pretty sure wild fish restock themselves by reproducing, it's more about finding the equilibrium it converges to and not overfishing.
- lo_zamoyski 3y agoIn Vietnam, marine wildlife sanctuaries help enormously. Fisherman are banned from fishing in certain areas, but can fish with great success around those areas. The protected areas allow stock to be replenished. It’s the goose that laid the golden egg phenomenon.
- makeitdouble 3y agoRestocking could have the same effect as replanting trees: numbers stay the same so it absolves the industry. But the ecosystem is still getting worse as it gets devastated by the constant churn and artificially restored new areas are not as diverse as the original one.
- tokai 3y agoOne should just stop eating fish as far as possible. Between all the worlds ocean ecosystems being in trouble and the risk of ingesting heavy metals it is just not worth it.
- makeitdouble 3y agoThere's a geopolitical issue regarding countries with ample farm land and islands for instance with moatly sea resources though.
- bell-cot 3y agoYes...but hunting/eating further up the food chain is a timeless way to demonstrate that you are further up the human social pyramid. Similar for more heavily processed & elaborately prepared foods.
- FredPret 3y agoIt's not demonstrative - food from higher up the pyramid is actually denser in nutrients and taste vastly better in my mind (we're talking beef vs lentils, not plankton vs lion).
- Unconstrained 3y ago... But if they are higher up the food chain they also accumulate far, far higher levels of heavy metals. This is true for meats and fish.
- bell-cot 3y agoTrue, and I vaguely recall a case or few where people showed off their rich tastes (for swordfish steaks, etc.) until their nerves & muscles didn't particularly work together. But, back during the formative millennia of human nature, that wasn't a problem.
- AlexandrB 3y agoPlenty of counterexamples. I think scallops are probably the best tasting seafood if not one of the best tasting foods period and they're filter feeders. Shrimp is pretty good as well. Meanwhile, bear tastes pretty bad.
- FredPret 3y agoI quite like bear - tastes like a beefier beef. Depends on what the bear ate.
- bell-cot 3y agoStatistically true. But are herring, pigeons, and rabbits meaningfully less nutrition-dense than large/dangerous/brag-worthy game?
- yieldcrv 3y agoFish fed to farmed salmon should be part of our diet, too, study suggests is the actual title
- healsdata 3y agoAnd "leads to loss of nutrients" definitely makes it sound like "this is leeching nutrients from your body", not "there isn't a 100% transfer of nutrients from feeder fish to salmon to you"
- helboi4 3y agoBig salmon (I say that in a somewhat tongue-in-cheek way) seems to have a chokehold on all food suppliers. I swear salmon makes up 90% of the fish I see sold almost anywhere apart from a specialised fishmonger. I find it really wierd
- FredPret 3y agoSalmon is tasty
- BugsJustFindMe 3y agoIt's because almost all other fish tastes kinda bad except for trout, which is basically salmon. This is the market catering properly to the buyers.
- htek 3y agoHave you tried fresh halibut? I don't like fish generally, including salmon, but actual Alaskan halibut (not flounder deliberately mislabeled as halibut) is quite tasty, to me.
- helboi4 3y agoThis is such a narrow-minded view. The reason you think that is because you're from a country that lacks fish culture, where very few fish dishes are served. In Japan or Italy, they eat every single type of sea creature that could possibly exist and they eat them fresh and its a big part of their culture. In japan, there is sushi of every single sea creature that can possibly be eaten. Salmon is one option. So your view that salmon is the only good fish is completely cultural. I'm from the UK and despite being an island we have no fish culture. We used to have more, but the supermarkets that have a total chokehold on our food lives have severely limited the variety (and freshness) of fish available, making us squeamish about foods that were an integral part of our culture (eels, cockles, smoked fishes of many kinds). This is a horrible horrible loss to the diversity of our diets and to the populations of the few fish people still eat (cod and salmon). The lack of fish culture that makes you state such an opinion is most likely caused by unsustainable, monopolistic supply chains that have shaped culture, it is not an objective fact. Luckily, I have carribean heritage and a degree in Japanese and so I have exposure to good fish from other cultures. You know, people make fun of the fact that the British used to eat eels, but in Japan, eel is seen as the most premium, most delicious food you could possibly eat? It's more expensive than steak to eat at a restaurant, it's so sought after. Salmon doesn't hold a candle to eel.
- aaron695 3y ago[dead]
- nytesky 3y agoSardines are awesome, they make boneless skinless fillet now which substitute well for tuna (I seem to always get a bone stuck in a tooth so prefer no bones despite being tasty). That said, sushi from sardines seems dicey.
- locallost 3y agoAbout their recommendation: one thing I never understood was, how can we at the same time say we are overfishing and that people should eat more wild fish?
- DarkNova6 3y agoNot all fish are overfished. Even salmon isn't overfished in all regions.
- faitswulff 3y agoIt's been a while since I read "The Perfect Protein" by Andy Sharpless, but IIRC their argument is that it's not just fish, but particular populations of fish. Some wild fish are fine to eat - others are either at risk or are keystone species that shouldn't be wiped out. Also the method of fishing makes a difference as well. Hence the contrasting advice.
- locallost 3y agoThose are good points. I guess it's still possible to tilt things in the wrong direction, but we can always adjust.
- AlecSchueler 3y agoThey're giving advice based on that's good for the individual, which can be at odds with what's good for the collective.
- boxed 3y agoWe can't. The fishing fleets are on a path to totally wiping out Herring in the Baltic Sea for example. So the article misses the point on that front too. The government of Sweden is doing nothing while the population collapses.
- makeitdouble 3y agoI wonder if anchovy and mackerels are overfished. I'm not sure as we don't see them often on the table and there's few reports outside of California. In this specific case, even if they wouldn't be the best food source in general, they would still be better than salmons (which we eat plenty of) in terms of food efficiency. This notion of shortcuting the production cycle is really intersting to me. If for instance instead of drinking milk we'd get equivalent nutriments from straight eating grass based products, that would open a lot of ways for improvement.
- markstos 3y agoIt's the same story on the land. It's healthier and better for the environment eat lower down the food chain. A science-based book on the topic is How Not to Die by Dr. Michael Greger, which review nutrition studies related to a range of terminal diseases. Primarily plant-based diets come out as being best for longevity. Folks who study longevity specifically reached the same conclusion that a 95% to 100% plant-based diet was good for longevity. https://www.bluezones.com/recipes/food-guidelines/ https://www.bluezones.com/recipes/food-guidelines/
- BurningFrog 3y agoFor ~200k years, humans got food from hunting and gathering. You went out in nature and caught the food you could find growing wild there. That supported a global population of ~50M. 10k years ago we started figuring out how top make food ourselves (farming), and now we can comfortably feed 7000M. But we still harvest the oceans like hunters and gatherers. I don't think this can or should go on. We need to farm the oceans!
- opwieurposiu 3y agoYes, much of the ocean is basically a desert due to a lack of iron. Low iron leads to low plankton which leads to low fish counts. Ocean fertilization could 10x the number of fish, and possibly store some carbon also.
- lo_zamoyski 3y agoSee my comment above. Marine wildlife sanctuaries are very effective at replenishing stock. Also, it’s not always realistic to farm fish. It’s not always possible. And the quality is often much worse given farming practices.
- BurningFrog 3y ago> Also, it’s not always realistic to farm fish. It’s not always possible. That's completely true with current technology. I'm talking about the long term future. It took 10k of farming before fertilizers were invented in 1913 and doubled food production.
- dappermanneke 3y agois this a joke? yes, there is obviously a loss of energy and material as waste when go a step, just like in real ecological networks where one animal eating another does not absorb everything its body has to offer for nutrients
- markstos 3y agoIt's not a joke, because people continue to eat inefficiently higher up on the food chain.
- PeterisP 3y agoWe aren't so starved so as to have to prioritize eating efficiently, people will eagerly prioritize aspects of taste and eat inefficiently, and it's great that they can do that - it would be horrific and a symptom of unacceptable overpopulation if people couldn't afford to eat "inefficiently" and would have to resort at eating whatever as long as it has sufficient nutrients.
- markstos 3y agoAnimal agriculture is a major driver of climate change, so we are already at the point where food choices made a significant difference. Thankfully, there are plenty of great tasting plant-based foods.
- dappermanneke 3y agoi’ll take my farmed salmon and you can eat what you want, including the bony and not very tasty feed fish if you so desire
- _3u10 3y agoI’d be willing to eat more meat to reduce the population of carbon producing animals.
- humbleferret 3y agoOverall, this suggests that farmed salmon loses some nutrients compared to the wild fish it eats and that we're better off eating a more varied diet of the wild fish species that are fed to farmed salmon, such as sardines, mackerel, and anchovies.
- west0n 3y agoIn East Asian cuisine, such as Japanese dishes, mackerel is a common ingredient. Grilled mackerel is delicious. Generally speaking, salmon is a fish with relatively low mercury content, much lower than that of tuna, making it a healthy choice among seafood.