4 ms·

I'm on keto too. But people do have valid, non-health reasons for avoiding meat, including ethical and sustainability concerns. Keto is great for your own perso

I'm on keto too. But people do have valid, non-health reasons for avoiding meat, including ethical and sustainability concerns. Keto is great for your own personal health, but in some ways people who choose to incorporate large amounts of meat into their diets (like you and I) are basically choosing these personal benefits over the greater good for everyone else.

HorizonXP 14y ago
Depends on how you look at it though. If you keep your view narrow (not meant as an insult), you're right, our impact on the environment and economy via agriculture is probably higher. Fact is, an animal requires more nutrients and care to raise than a plant. That takes a lot of energy and resources. If you expand your view, you can actually begin to argue that we might have a reduced impact in comparison to others. There is anecdotal and limited empirical evidence that suggests that people that strictly follow a low-carb diet actually have better blood chemistry that those on a low-fat diet. Lower LDL cholesterol and triglycerides, and higher HDL cholesterol levels usually lead to a reduced risk of cardiovascular disease. Not to mention that it's practically impossible to have diabetes. Those on a low-carb diet are usually trying to lose weight, so that helps too, since maintaining a "normal" weight has wider health implications. My point is that being overweight likely has a larger impact than simply eating meat. Being overweight, you're more likely to have higher healthcare costs, eat more, and require more energy and resources to sustain. If you're lighter, most of these negatives go away. Whether you achieve your lower weight by low-carb or low-fat doesn't really matter. But there are plenty of people that eat low-carb as an actual lifestyle, and their blood chemistry generally indicates that they're healthier overall. Anyway, to each their own. But this fallacy that meat-eaters are creating an unethical and unsustainable environment is specious. You really need to look at the big picture. (I wish I had actual sources to cite.)

HorizonXP 14y ago

Depends on how you look at it though. If you keep your view narrow (not meant as an insult), you're right, our impact on the environment and economy via agriculture is probably higher. Fact is, an animal requires more nutrients and care to raise than a plant. That takes a lot of energy and resources. If you expand your view, you can actually begin to argue that we might have a reduced impact in comparison to others. There is anecdotal and limited empirical evidence that suggests that people that strictly follow a low-carb diet actually have better blood chemistry that those on a low-fat diet. Lower LDL cholesterol and triglycerides, and higher HDL cholesterol levels usually lead to a reduced risk of cardiovascular disease. Not to mention that it's practically impossible to have diabetes. Those on a low-carb diet are usually trying to lose weight, so that helps too, since maintaining a "normal" weight has wider health implications. My point is that being overweight likely has a larger impact than simply eating meat. Being overweight, you're more likely to have higher healthcare costs, eat more, and require more energy and resources to sustain. If you're lighter, most of these negatives go away. Whether you achieve your lower weight by low-carb or low-fat doesn't really matter. But there are plenty of people that eat low-carb as an actual lifestyle, and their blood chemistry generally indicates that they're healthier overall. Anyway, to each their own. But this fallacy that meat-eaters are creating an unethical and unsustainable environment is specious. You really need to look at the big picture. (I wish I had actual sources to cite.)