4 ms·
Author 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 ha
by meristohm 3y ago
Author 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.