Author Topic: Calling out MMM [Get Rich with Science Blog Post]  (Read 31924 times)

MandalayVA

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1569
  • Location: Orlando FL
Re: Calling out MMM [Get Rich with Science Blog Post]
« Reply #50 on: October 12, 2014, 04:56:01 AM »
One of the few diets I would say is completely unsustainable for most people in most regions is a completely vegan diet.  Simply the lengths vegans need to go through to get all essential nutrients is rather ridiculous. 

One of the most eye-opening books I've read is "The Vegetarian Myth" by Lierre Keith.  She was a hardcore vegan for twenty years, and being so destroyed her health.  I'll warn you that she's a hard-core feminist (the type that writes "womyn" instead of "women"--yeah, that annoys me too) but she's a very eloquent writer.

This was one of the most ridiculous books I've ever read. All sorts of vague health problems, none of which went away when she started eating meat again (which would suggest *drumroll* that they might have not been diet related to begin with!). "References" include google searches and personal blogs. Basically, the majority of her claims have been thoroughly debunked, and there are more healthy vegans today than ever before (I'm at 16 years so far).

You're also 28.  I do assume you're taking all the supplements and eating things other than tortilla chips, salsa and vegan cupcakes?  Don't laugh, I know a vegan whose diet consists of those "foods."

Zikoris

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4536
  • Age: 37
  • Location: Vancouver, BC
  • Vancouverstachian
Re: Calling out MMM [Get Rich with Science Blog Post]
« Reply #51 on: October 12, 2014, 10:19:31 AM »
One of the few diets I would say is completely unsustainable for most people in most regions is a completely vegan diet.  Simply the lengths vegans need to go through to get all essential nutrients is rather ridiculous. 

One of the most eye-opening books I've read is "The Vegetarian Myth" by Lierre Keith.  She was a hardcore vegan for twenty years, and being so destroyed her health.  I'll warn you that she's a hard-core feminist (the type that writes "womyn" instead of "women"--yeah, that annoys me too) but she's a very eloquent writer.

This was one of the most ridiculous books I've ever read. All sorts of vague health problems, none of which went away when she started eating meat again (which would suggest *drumroll* that they might have not been diet related to begin with!). "References" include google searches and personal blogs. Basically, the majority of her claims have been thoroughly debunked, and there are more healthy vegans today than ever before (I'm at 16 years so far).

You're also 28.  I do assume you're taking all the supplements and eating things other than tortilla chips, salsa and vegan cupcakes?  Don't laugh, I know a vegan whose diet consists of those "foods."

I drink fortified soy milk (which is pretty much the only type on the market anyways), and the veggie burgers I buy are fortified - otherwise, no "all the supplements" type of stuff.

I don't personally know any vegans who subsist on chips, salsa, and cupcakes - however, I see the non-vegan equivalent frequently, if you add in lots of alcohol and coffee.

SisterX

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3035
  • Location: 2nd Star on the Right and Straight On 'Til Morning
Re: Calling out MMM [Get Rich with Science Blog Post]
« Reply #52 on: October 13, 2014, 11:21:27 AM »
One of the few diets I would say is completely unsustainable for most people in most regions is a completely vegan diet.  Simply the lengths vegans need to go through to get all essential nutrients is rather ridiculous. 

One of the most eye-opening books I've read is "The Vegetarian Myth" by Lierre Keith.  She was a hardcore vegan for twenty years, and being so destroyed her health.  I'll warn you that she's a hard-core feminist (the type that writes "womyn" instead of "women"--yeah, that annoys me too) but she's a very eloquent writer.

This was one of the most ridiculous books I've ever read. All sorts of vague health problems, none of which went away when she started eating meat again (which would suggest *drumroll* that they might have not been diet related to begin with!). "References" include google searches and personal blogs. Basically, the majority of her claims have been thoroughly debunked, and there are more healthy vegans today than ever before (I'm at 16 years so far).

You're also 28.  I do assume you're taking all the supplements and eating things other than tortilla chips, salsa and vegan cupcakes?  Don't laugh, I know a vegan whose diet consists of those "foods."

I drink fortified soy milk (which is pretty much the only type on the market anyways), and the veggie burgers I buy are fortified - otherwise, no "all the supplements" type of stuff.

I don't personally know any vegans who subsist on chips, salsa, and cupcakes - however, I see the non-vegan equivalent frequently, if you add in lots of alcohol and coffee.

I knew this would bring out the vegans!  I was not trying to compare a crap "American" diet with a crap vegan diet.  No, a diet rich in meat is not necessarily a good one.  In fact, it's probably a pretty terrible one.  When I said sustainable I was referring, in part, to environmentally sustainable practices, which are just as awful for vegan products as they are for any other processed foods.  Perhaps not as bad as CAFOs, but still awful.
And any diet which needs fortified foods on a regular basis, simply to maintain health and not because you're in a special circumstance (like pregnancy), is not sustainable.  If you need those inputs, then your diet is, by all definitions, lacking in something.
By all means, eat less meat.  Eat no meat, go pescetarian or ovo-lacto vegetarian or whatever else you want.  But veganism is a diet for the rich world, and not sustainable on a global level.

Zikoris

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4536
  • Age: 37
  • Location: Vancouver, BC
  • Vancouverstachian
Re: Calling out MMM [Get Rich with Science Blog Post]
« Reply #53 on: October 13, 2014, 12:03:27 PM »
Quote
I knew this would bring out the vegans!  I was not trying to compare a crap "American" diet with a crap vegan diet.  No, a diet rich in meat is not necessarily a good one.  In fact, it's probably a pretty terrible one.  When I said sustainable I was referring, in part, to environmentally sustainable practices, which are just as awful for vegan products as they are for any other processed foods.  Perhaps not as bad as CAFOs, but still awful.

Animal products are the most environmentally devastating food item humans produce. Sure, it's possible to produce small amounts in environmentally sustainable ways, but not nearly enough to feed even a fraction of the population regular servings - definitely nowhere near the amounts people eat today and the factory farmed stuff.

Quote
And any diet which needs fortified foods on a regular basis, simply to maintain health and not because you're in a special circumstance (like pregnancy), is not sustainable.  If you need those inputs, then your diet is, by all definitions, lacking in something.

The only thing vegans need to supplement is B12, which is extremely easy to produce from bacteria and add to food or take in supplements. Why do you see that as a negative? Why is B12 from meat "better" than B12 from bacteria (which is where the B12 in meat comes from anyways)? Heck, tons of people who eat meat can't even absorb B12 from food (apparently most people eventually lose their ability somewhat or completely with age), and get shots instead. We use modern technology to benefit humanity and the environment in so many other ways, why is this one such a sticking point?

Quote
By all means, eat less meat.  Eat no meat, go pescetarian or ovo-lacto vegetarian or whatever else you want.  But veganism is a diet for the rich world, and not sustainable on a global level.

Interestingly enough, I have a much easier time traveling as a vegan in third world countries than rich ones. This is because meat is a luxury in poor places, and the cuisine of those cultures reflects that fact. As far as cost goes in "rich" countries, it is certainly cheaper to be vegan than not.
« Last Edit: October 13, 2014, 01:01:04 PM by Zikoris »

senecando

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 480
  • Age: 34
  • Location: Madison, Wi
Re: Calling out MMM [Get Rich with Science Blog Post]
« Reply #54 on: October 13, 2014, 12:48:53 PM »
I'd be interested to see pollution statistics on a grass-fed, grass-finished cow, raised and slaughtered locally. That's been our primary source of meat for the last month or so.

Likely it's not too bad. The problem is there is no way that model can meet the present demand for meat. The only way to do that, is intensively farm most of our "good" land to feed animals, when it could be used more efficiently to feed us directly. With a lot less pollution too.

That's not a foregone conclusion. I don't have the book near me, but Gene Logsdon's All Flesh is Grass has some interesting sections about the comparative efficiency of hay crops versus corn for producing animal meat on the best land. And then there's the fact that it can be usefully combined with acres devoted to fruit trees and other perennials.

It's not obvious either way. One thing that's worth thinking about is that our land grant colleges have been researching ways to improve the current grain-transport-based system for what, 70 years? Pasture hasn't received a quarter of the same sort of research attention.

The vast majority of pasture farming going on now is on land that was in corn for decades. It'll take years to improve that soil again, and each year pasture gets more productive.

SisterX

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3035
  • Location: 2nd Star on the Right and Straight On 'Til Morning
Re: Calling out MMM [Get Rich with Science Blog Post]
« Reply #55 on: October 13, 2014, 01:03:22 PM »
Quote
I knew this would bring out the vegans!  I was not trying to compare a crap "American" diet with a crap vegan diet.  No, a diet rich in meat is not necessarily a good one.  In fact, it's probably a pretty terrible one.  When I said sustainable I was referring, in part, to environmentally sustainable practices, which are just as awful for vegan products as they are for any other processed foods.  Perhaps not as bad as CAFOs, but still awful.

Animal products are the most environmentally devastating food item humans produce. Sure, it's possible to produce small amounts in environmentally sustainable ways, but not nearly enough to feed even a fraction of the population regular servings - definitely nowhere near the amounts people eat today and the factory farmed stuff.

Yes, agreed.  However, your soy milk is also environmentally devastating.  I never said that one was as bad as the other, but the industrial soy milk you almost certainly buy is having a huge, devastating toll on our environment as well.

Quote
And any diet which needs fortified foods on a regular basis, simply to maintain health and not because you're in a special circumstance (like pregnancy), is not sustainable.  If you need those inputs, then your diet is, by all definitions, lacking in something.

The only thing vegans need to supplement is B12, which is extremely easy to produce from bacteria and add to food or take in supplements. Why do you see that as a negative? Why is B12 from meat "better" to B12 from bacteria (where the B12 in meat comes from anyways)? Heck, tons of people who eat meat can't even absorb B12 from food (apparently most people eventually lose their ability somewhat or completely with age), and get shots instead. We use modern technology to benefit humanity and the environment in so many other ways, why is this one such a sticking point?[/quote]

I have honestly never even heard of someone needing a B12 shot.  However, supplements are just as damaging to produce as most processed food products, and they generate a lot of waste.  Furthermore, you never addressed the fact that most of the population, at some point, cannot be vegan.  Children, pregnant and lactating women, the elderly, people with certain health problems, etc, all CANNOT be vegan for health reasons.  I try to stay away from any diet which is not generally applicable.
And I still have not heard a reputable doctor advising vegan diets.  More plants, I think we can all agree on.  But any doctor I've heard or talked to has hesitated a very, very long time before giving their honest opinion on veganism.  It usually starts with, "Well, you can do it, but...."
To reduce all meat consumption, btw, to simply getting B12 is missing out on a lot of other nutrients, both known and unknown, which are also good for us.  I think we have a real problem in our country, our way of eating, by simply reducing food to a set of nutrients.  Nutrition is an incredibly complex field and there's so much we don't yet know.  I'd rather skip the fad or complex diets and simply eat a healthful diet full of plant foods with a little side of animal based foods and some carbs.

Quote
By all means, eat less meat.  Eat no meat, go pescetarian or ovo-lacto vegetarian or whatever else you want.  But veganism is a diet for the rich world, and not sustainable on a global level.

Interestingly enough, I have a much easier time traveling as a vegan in third world countries than rich ones. This is because meat is a luxury in poor places, and the cuisine of those cultures reflects that fact. As far as cost goes in "rich" countries, it is certainly cheaper to be vegan than not.
[/quote]

I still think that veganism is just as much a rich-world diet as people who eat tons of meat.  It's because we can afford to stick our noses up at certain forms of food; we have the time and energy and food sources to quibble about which is "best".
I would have an incredibly expensive, difficult time trying to be vegan in my area.  I know several people who tried very hard to make it work and in the end, all went back to some milder form of vegetarianism or pescetarianism because it was simply so expensive and time consuming, trying to find what they needed. 

justajane

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2146
  • Location: Midwest
Re: Calling out MMM [Get Rich with Science Blog Post]
« Reply #56 on: October 13, 2014, 01:21:12 PM »
It turns out that the Paleo almond fetish is also environmentally devastating:

http://www.motherjones.com/tom-philpott/2014/07/your-almond-habit-sucking-califoirnia-dry

Zikoris

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4536
  • Age: 37
  • Location: Vancouver, BC
  • Vancouverstachian
Re: Calling out MMM [Get Rich with Science Blog Post]
« Reply #57 on: October 13, 2014, 01:35:49 PM »
Quote
Furthermore, you never addressed the fact that most of the population, at some point, cannot be vegan.  Children, pregnant and lactating women, the elderly, people with certain health problems, etc, all CANNOT be vegan for health reasons.

According to the American Dietetic Association, "It is the position of the American Dietetic Association that appropriately planned vegetarian diets, including total vegetarian or vegan diets, are healthful, nutritionally adequate, and may provide health benefits in the prevention and treatment of certain diseases. Well-planned vegetarian diets are appropriate for individuals during all stages of the life cycle, including pregnancy, lactation, infancy, childhood, and adolescence, and for athletes."

Philociraptor

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1131
  • Age: 34
  • Location: NTX
  • Eat. Sleep. Invest. Repeat.
Re: Calling out MMM [Get Rich with Science Blog Post]
« Reply #58 on: October 13, 2014, 01:42:07 PM »
It turns out that the Paleo almond fetish is also environmentally devastating:

http://www.motherjones.com/tom-philpott/2014/07/your-almond-habit-sucking-califoirnia-dry

"Paleo almond fetish"? WTF?

Paleo guy here who does not fetishize almonds.
« Last Edit: October 13, 2014, 01:43:44 PM by Philociraptor »

justajane

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2146
  • Location: Midwest
Re: Calling out MMM [Get Rich with Science Blog Post]
« Reply #59 on: October 13, 2014, 02:04:16 PM »
It turns out that the Paleo almond fetish is also environmentally devastating:

http://www.motherjones.com/tom-philpott/2014/07/your-almond-habit-sucking-califoirnia-dry

"Paleo almond fetish"? WTF?

Paleo guy here who does not fetishize almonds.

Then you're in the minority. Nuts in general are touted pretty frequently.

Philociraptor

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1131
  • Age: 34
  • Location: NTX
  • Eat. Sleep. Invest. Repeat.
Re: Calling out MMM [Get Rich with Science Blog Post]
« Reply #60 on: October 13, 2014, 02:06:18 PM »
It turns out that the Paleo almond fetish is also environmentally devastating:

http://www.motherjones.com/tom-philpott/2014/07/your-almond-habit-sucking-califoirnia-dry

"Paleo almond fetish"? WTF?

Paleo guy here who does not fetishize almonds.

Then you're in the minority. Nuts in general are touted pretty frequently.
I doubt that, knowing quite a few folks in the ancestral health community. Sounds like a strawman conjured up to make Paleo folks look bad in light of that article.

Aphalite

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 425
Re: Calling out MMM [Get Rich with Science Blog Post]
« Reply #61 on: October 13, 2014, 02:17:13 PM »
So then were all in agreement. Everything we do/eat is bad for our health and the environment. Jolly good, carry on then

SisterX

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3035
  • Location: 2nd Star on the Right and Straight On 'Til Morning
Re: Calling out MMM [Get Rich with Science Blog Post]
« Reply #62 on: October 13, 2014, 02:30:45 PM »
Quote
Furthermore, you never addressed the fact that most of the population, at some point, cannot be vegan.  Children, pregnant and lactating women, the elderly, people with certain health problems, etc, all CANNOT be vegan for health reasons.

According to the American Dietetic Association, "It is the position of the American Dietetic Association that appropriately planned vegetarian diets, including total vegetarian or vegan diets, are healthful, nutritionally adequate, and may provide health benefits in the prevention and treatment of certain diseases. Well-planned vegetarian diets are appropriate for individuals during all stages of the life cycle, including pregnancy, lactation, infancy, childhood, and adolescence, and for athletes."

That goes counter to everything I've heard/read, so good to know.  Thanks.
Still think that any diet which requires outside inputs (from supplements) is the definition of unsustainable, but I'm not actually trying to change anyone's mind.  If you're vegan and it works for you, well done.

Zikoris

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4536
  • Age: 37
  • Location: Vancouver, BC
  • Vancouverstachian
Re: Calling out MMM [Get Rich with Science Blog Post]
« Reply #63 on: October 13, 2014, 02:42:15 PM »
Quote
Furthermore, you never addressed the fact that most of the population, at some point, cannot be vegan.  Children, pregnant and lactating women, the elderly, people with certain health problems, etc, all CANNOT be vegan for health reasons.

According to the American Dietetic Association, "It is the position of the American Dietetic Association that appropriately planned vegetarian diets, including total vegetarian or vegan diets, are healthful, nutritionally adequate, and may provide health benefits in the prevention and treatment of certain diseases. Well-planned vegetarian diets are appropriate for individuals during all stages of the life cycle, including pregnancy, lactation, infancy, childhood, and adolescence, and for athletes."

That goes counter to everything I've heard/read, so good to know.  Thanks.
Still think that any diet which requires outside inputs (from supplements) is the definition of unsustainable, but I'm not actually trying to change anyone's mind.  If you're vegan and it works for you, well done.

Again, on the "outside inputs" thing - why is this a bad thing? Living anywhere outside of the tropics requires "outside inputs" of clothing and heating of some sort to sustain human life, yet I don't see people claiming living in Canada or Europe or most of the US is unsustainable because of this. Why is modern technology a negative when it comes to diet?

justajane

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2146
  • Location: Midwest
Re: Calling out MMM [Get Rich with Science Blog Post]
« Reply #64 on: October 13, 2014, 02:55:39 PM »
It turns out that the Paleo almond fetish is also environmentally devastating:

http://www.motherjones.com/tom-philpott/2014/07/your-almond-habit-sucking-califoirnia-dry

"Paleo almond fetish"? WTF?

Paleo guy here who does not fetishize almonds.

Then you're in the minority. Nuts in general are touted pretty frequently.
I doubt that, knowing quite a few folks in the ancestral health community. Sounds like a strawman conjured up to make Paleo folks look bad in light of that article.

I didn't realize that saying Paleo folks have an obsession with almonds makes them look bad. It was news to me as well that almonds take so much water to grow. This thread originally started with "calling out MMM" regarding the environmental effects of his diet, and since he and others often discuss their love of almonds, I thought I would add this to the discussion. I'm not sure how that's a straw man. 

Philociraptor

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1131
  • Age: 34
  • Location: NTX
  • Eat. Sleep. Invest. Repeat.
Re: Calling out MMM [Get Rich with Science Blog Post]
« Reply #65 on: October 13, 2014, 03:00:05 PM »
It turns out that the Paleo almond fetish is also environmentally devastating:

http://www.motherjones.com/tom-philpott/2014/07/your-almond-habit-sucking-califoirnia-dry

"Paleo almond fetish"? WTF?

Paleo guy here who does not fetishize almonds.

Then you're in the minority. Nuts in general are touted pretty frequently.
I doubt that, knowing quite a few folks in the ancestral health community. Sounds like a strawman conjured up to make Paleo folks look bad in light of that article.

I didn't realize that saying Paleo folks have an obsession with almonds makes them look bad. It was news to me as well that almonds take so much water to grow. This thread originally started with "calling out MMM" regarding the environmental effects of his diet, and since he and others often discuss their love of almonds, I thought I would add this to the discussion. I'm not sure how that's a straw man.

The word "fetish" is rarely used as a positive, so the usage clearly indicated disdain for whom it was used to describe, in this case Paleo advocates. And you're right, not strawman, but based on what you said, I believe "MMM Almond fetish" would have been more appropriate, yes?
« Last Edit: October 13, 2014, 03:03:00 PM by Philociraptor »

justajane

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2146
  • Location: Midwest
Re: Calling out MMM [Get Rich with Science Blog Post]
« Reply #66 on: October 13, 2014, 03:04:59 PM »
The word "fetish" is rarely used as a positive, so the usage clearly indicated disdain. And you're right, not strawman, but based on what you said, I believe "MMM Almond fetish" would have been more appropriate, yes?

Probably. I was trying to be nice by not picking on him. In my attempt to not directly call out our generous forum host, I obviously offended others. Not my original intention. But google any Paleo site and you will almost always find mention of nuts as being a central part of a Paleo diet.   

SisterX

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3035
  • Location: 2nd Star on the Right and Straight On 'Til Morning
Re: Calling out MMM [Get Rich with Science Blog Post]
« Reply #67 on: October 13, 2014, 03:16:41 PM »
Quote
Furthermore, you never addressed the fact that most of the population, at some point, cannot be vegan.  Children, pregnant and lactating women, the elderly, people with certain health problems, etc, all CANNOT be vegan for health reasons.

According to the American Dietetic Association, "It is the position of the American Dietetic Association that appropriately planned vegetarian diets, including total vegetarian or vegan diets, are healthful, nutritionally adequate, and may provide health benefits in the prevention and treatment of certain diseases. Well-planned vegetarian diets are appropriate for individuals during all stages of the life cycle, including pregnancy, lactation, infancy, childhood, and adolescence, and for athletes."

That goes counter to everything I've heard/read, so good to know.  Thanks.
Still think that any diet which requires outside inputs (from supplements) is the definition of unsustainable, but I'm not actually trying to change anyone's mind.  If you're vegan and it works for you, well done.

Again, on the "outside inputs" thing - why is this a bad thing? Living anywhere outside of the tropics requires "outside inputs" of clothing and heating of some sort to sustain human life, yet I don't see people claiming living in Canada or Europe or most of the US is unsustainable because of this. Why is modern technology a negative when it comes to diet?

I never put any value judgement on it at all.  I meant unsustainable in terms of needing a secondary input, that's all.  As in, I eat food and it gives me all the nutrients I need.  Vegans eat food + secondary sources of certain vitamins.  The only real problem I see with that is that the secondary sources are vulnerable to supply chain issues, such as natural disasters.  This is honestly something I think about, since my entire state only has about 1 week of food on store shelves, and there have been instances (lots) where, for whatever reason, shipping was disrupted for days or even weeks and certain products have run out.  If I was relying on any of those products (such as vegan burgers or whatnot, which they don't stock too many of to begin with) for nutrition, I'd be in a world of hurt.  And that's just in a normal winter.  If we had another major earthquake in the state, or a tsunami, something like that, shipping could be out for a long, long time.  I'd rather not rely on something which has to come from Outside.

Zikoris

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4536
  • Age: 37
  • Location: Vancouver, BC
  • Vancouverstachian
Re: Calling out MMM [Get Rich with Science Blog Post]
« Reply #68 on: October 13, 2014, 03:31:44 PM »
Quote
I never put any value judgement on it at all.  I meant unsustainable in terms of needing a secondary input, that's all.  As in, I eat food and it gives me all the nutrients I need.  Vegans eat food + secondary sources of certain vitamins.  The only real problem I see with that is that the secondary sources are vulnerable to supply chain issues, such as natural disasters.  This is honestly something I think about, since my entire state only has about 1 week of food on store shelves, and there have been instances (lots) where, for whatever reason, shipping was disrupted for days or even weeks and certain products have run out.  If I was relying on any of those products (such as vegan burgers or whatnot, which they don't stock too many of to begin with) for nutrition, I'd be in a world of hurt.  And that's just in a normal winter.  If we had another major earthquake in the state, or a tsunami, something like that, shipping could be out for a long, long time.  I'd rather not rely on something which has to come from Outside.

The human body stores several years worth of B12 in the liver (we need THAT little), so you'd have to be looking at a catastrophe of 5+ years. Something on the level of complete obliteration of all technology and knowledge and a huge amount of the human population, beyond all hope of recovery - maybe a nuclear war between every nation that had the ability? Not impossible for sure, but if that really happened, I think B12 deficiency would be the least of your worries.

sol

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8433
  • Age: 47
  • Location: Pacific Northwest
Re: Calling out MMM [Get Rich with Science Blog Post]
« Reply #69 on: October 13, 2014, 04:02:04 PM »
The human body stores several years worth of B12 in the liver (we need THAT little), so you'd have to be looking at a catastrophe of 5+ years. Something on the level of complete obliteration of all technology and knowledge and a huge amount of the human population, beyond all hope of recovery - maybe a nuclear war between every nation that had the ability? Not impossible for sure, but if that really happened, I think B12 deficiency would be the least of your worries.

I think we should start a website called vegansfornuclearadisarmament.com to rally other B12-deficient souls to the cause of averting nuclear holocaust.  Think of the (vegan) children.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 23128
  • Age: 42
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Calling out MMM [Get Rich with Science Blog Post]
« Reply #70 on: October 14, 2014, 09:09:37 AM »
An interesting aside regarding veganism and nutrients . . . if you check the research, vegans tend to perform mental tests about as well as meat eaters.  If you give vegans some creatine (something lacking in typical vegetarian diet that the body doesn't synthesize very well), they have a dramatic increase in brain ability and will outperform all of their previous tests.

VirginiaBob

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 429
    • LRJ Discounters
Re: Calling out MMM [Get Rich with Science Blog Post]
« Reply #71 on: October 14, 2014, 09:18:56 AM »


The word "fetish" is rarely used as a positive, so the usage clearly indicated disdain for whom it was used to describe, in this case Paleo advocates. And you're right, not strawman, but based on what you said, I believe "MMM Almond fetish" would have been more appropriate, yes?

Fetish?  Maybe if he were shoving the almonds up his butt.

dcheesi

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1309
Re: Calling out MMM [Get Rich with Science Blog Post]
« Reply #72 on: October 14, 2014, 09:39:57 AM »
An interesting aside regarding veganism and nutrients . . . if you check the research, vegans tend to perform mental tests about as well as meat eaters.  If you give vegans some creatine (something lacking in typical vegetarian diet that the body doesn't synthesize very well), they have a dramatic increase in brain ability and will outperform all of their previous tests.
Assuming the tests replicate useful real-world skills, it's possible that the vegan brain is compensating in a way similar to that seen in groups with mild head trauma.

Career football players who perform normally in mental tests have been found to use far more raw brain-power for a given test than non-player controls. The theory is that brain plasticity is kicking, compensating for damage to specialized brain regions by co-opting more and more adjacent brain circuits. This hides the cognitive deficit, but is far less efficient in terms calories spent, etc. It's only when the repeated damage becomes too severe to compensate for that you see the collapse in mental ability seen in clinical CTE cases.

In the case of the vegans, they would be compensating for poor brain performance due to nutrient deficiency, rather than overt tissue damage. So it makes sense that when adequate nutrition is restored, their brains might perform better than average for a time; they're still marshalling all of those extra resources out of 'habit', while the relevant specialized circuit is also performing closer to 100%.

It would be interesting to know whether the effect continues over the long term, or if they eventually re-normalize as their brains return to a more resource-efficient cognitive strategy...

SisterX

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3035
  • Location: 2nd Star on the Right and Straight On 'Til Morning
Re: Calling out MMM [Get Rich with Science Blog Post]
« Reply #73 on: October 14, 2014, 12:14:05 PM »
Quote
I never put any value judgement on it at all.  I meant unsustainable in terms of needing a secondary input, that's all.  As in, I eat food and it gives me all the nutrients I need.  Vegans eat food + secondary sources of certain vitamins.  The only real problem I see with that is that the secondary sources are vulnerable to supply chain issues, such as natural disasters.  This is honestly something I think about, since my entire state only has about 1 week of food on store shelves, and there have been instances (lots) where, for whatever reason, shipping was disrupted for days or even weeks and certain products have run out.  If I was relying on any of those products (such as vegan burgers or whatnot, which they don't stock too many of to begin with) for nutrition, I'd be in a world of hurt.  And that's just in a normal winter.  If we had another major earthquake in the state, or a tsunami, something like that, shipping could be out for a long, long time.  I'd rather not rely on something which has to come from Outside.

The human body stores several years worth of B12 in the liver (we need THAT little), so you'd have to be looking at a catastrophe of 5+ years. Something on the level of complete obliteration of all technology and knowledge and a huge amount of the human population, beyond all hope of recovery - maybe a nuclear war between every nation that had the ability? Not impossible for sure, but if that really happened, I think B12 deficiency would be the least of your worries.

Don't poop on my zombie apocalypse preparations and fears!

(^Tongue firmly in cheek.)

SisterX

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3035
  • Location: 2nd Star on the Right and Straight On 'Til Morning
Re: Calling out MMM [Get Rich with Science Blog Post]
« Reply #74 on: October 16, 2014, 10:56:59 PM »
I've been mulling this all over in my head for a couple of days to try to explain myself more properly.  (If that can really be done via the internet, especially when people's core values are being called into question.)  At least, explain why I think veganism is/can be rather silly.
First, let's be clear on this, it's as much of a cult as the paleo and locavore crowds are.  Question anyone on those diets and answers amount to "la la la nope nope nope DON'T QUESTION IT!"  (For reference, I skew locavore myself, but I try to challenge my own beliefs and I'm frankly not going to beat myself up if I don't adhere 100% to eating locally.  That's just silly.)  It is also, yes, a rich world diet.  People might have an easier time eating vegan in third world countries, but you have that choice.  They do not, and would likely welcome a bit of animal protein into their diets if it could be afforded.
My biggest problem with veganism is that it sets itself up not only as the healthiest of all diets, but also the most morally sound.  But, the morals inherent in it just bring up more questions which seem to be glossed over by its adherents.  Like, why is eating bacteria like yeast (a living organism) ok, but honey (not a living organism) isn't?  You don't have to kill the bees to harvest honey, so that can't be the problem.  And plenty of studies have shown that backyard beekeepers are actually staving off colony collapse disorder, thus preventing the deaths of all those bees and consequently ensuring that all of our plants continue to get pollinated.  If the beekeepers take some honey in exchange, I consider it to be more of a symbiotic relationship than an exploitative one.  The bees live, the beekeepers get a bit of food and wax and all the gardens for a 3 mile radius get a pollination boost.
No matter how I eat, something is going to die, whether it's a plant or an animal.  Why do animals get special dispensation, but plants are disposable?  Is it just the idea of  sentience in one group?  If so, please refer back to my comment about yeast and honey.  Honey isn't sentient, but who's to say that bacteria aren't somewhat sentient?  And what's to say plants can't feel?  They turn their leaves toward sunlight.  They might not be "smart" in the way we think of it, but they are still living organisms and they show an amazing ability to adapt to circumstances in their efforts to survive and reproduce.  Not unlike people.
Animals eat other animals all the time.  We are nothing if not animals.  Rather intelligent ones, but I think we frequently overestimate our own smarts on both an individual and species wide basis.  (Everyone knows that mice are the smartest, after all.  :P )  So, why should we be any different from other animals?  Doesn't that just put us in a special category, a way to actually differentiate us from all other animals?
If it's just the death of the animals which is the sticking point, eggs and milk require that the animals remain alive to continue producing the food.  What's wrong with someone keeping chickens and eating their eggs?  Would you have us relegate all eggs to simply being a waste product?  We can't turn back the clock and make chickens go back to being wild creatures, and in a world with so much hunger it seems flat out irresponsible to say that people shouldn't eat a perfectly nutritious food because it came from an animal.  It's not like the chickens are going to stop ovulating if we all decide not to eat the eggs, and unless there's a rooster handy the eggs aren't going to magically become baby chickens so nothing is being harmed.
Rail against CAFOs all you want, I am with you there.
If you still don't approve of humans eating chicken eggs, could a person feed them to their dog?  It would avoid the waste, and it's incredibly healthy for dogs to eat eggs.  But then, why is it ok for a dog to eat and not a human?  Wouldn't you then effectively be divorcing yourself from animals once again, keeping them 'other'?
As for animal products such as leather, if all of them were made from animal hides from animals which had died naturally, would you still object to them?  If so, what could be the purpose?  We wouldn't be killing animals, just using a resource that's available and, in fact, honoring the animal by making it useful after death.  The holdup can't be for environmental reasons, because the textile industry is a huge polluter, without even getting into the environmental toll of growing the crops, such as cotton.
As someone who eats animals, I also wear shoes made of leather and don't feel bad.  I mean, I know the leather industry is awful, sickening, but I feel better about using as much of the animal as possible to avoid waste.  And if I could change the industry itself to something a bit better, I would snap my fingers and make it happen.
If you're vegan because it's somehow better for the environment, I can promise you that the mitigation from not eating meat is severely lessened by the supplements and additives which you eat (very costly in every sense--money, environment, the fact that they need to be transported and manufactured and purchased, the raw materials harvested and grown....) and the costs of the milk replacement drinks you consume, like almond milk and soymilk.
If it's for health, if you feel great then it's probably fine.  However, in terms of longevity a whole food diet of any stripe, so long as fruits and vegetables are at the core of the diet, is the way to go.  (http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2014/03/science-compared-every-diet-and-the-winner-is-real-food/284595/)  So, giving up all animal products is no more likely to cause you to live longer.
From a farming perspective, animals can be grown on land which is marginal and not good for food crops, so it becomes more productive.  Also, a polyculture farm is far, far more productive and efficient than pretty much any other type of agriculture.
I'm certain that I've offended some people, but if you'd like to enlighten me, please feel free to do so.  You're not going to change my opinion on this matter any more than I think I've changed yours, but it's interesting to get a discussion going.

Mods, if you think this should be moved to a new thread, do so with my blessing.  This one seemed to have stopped, so I didn't feel bad posting it here.  Also, I figured the context would (hopefully) make it less offensive.

Zikoris

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4536
  • Age: 37
  • Location: Vancouver, BC
  • Vancouverstachian
Re: Calling out MMM [Get Rich with Science Blog Post]
« Reply #75 on: October 17, 2014, 12:02:04 AM »
Long post, I'll do my best!

Quote
My biggest problem with veganism is that it sets itself up not only as the healthiest of all diets, but also the most morally sound.  But, the morals inherent in it just bring up more questions which seem to be glossed over by its adherents.  Like, why is eating bacteria like yeast (a living organism) ok, but honey (not a living organism) isn't? 

Yeast is a fungus, same as mushrooms. In my 16 years as a vegan, I have yet to meet anyone who thinks eating mushrooms is immoral (not to say they don't exist). There's actually a lot of debate on the issue of honey, and a number of vegans are fine with it provided the farmers aren't doing things like killing off a bunch of bees over the winter, etc.

Quote
No matter how I eat, something is going to die, whether it's a plant or an animal.  Why do animals get special dispensation, but plants are disposable?  Is it just the idea of  sentience in one group?  If so, please refer back to my comment about yeast and honey.  Honey isn't sentient, but who's to say that bacteria aren't somewhat sentient?  And what's to say plants can't feel? 

There's no evidence to suggest plants have sentience. The only "research' done on that is overwhelmingly considered garbage in the scientific community. But even if you choose to believe plants have fully developed nervous systems and feel HORRIBLE AGONY when they're killed, you still come out ahead by being a vegan, since the alternative is to kill 10X the plants to feed to animals, then also kill the animals.

Quote
Animals eat other animals all the time.  We are nothing if not animals.  Rather intelligent ones, but I think we frequently overestimate our own smarts on both an individual and species wide basis.  (Everyone knows that mice are the smartest, after all.  :P )  So, why should we be any different from other animals?  Doesn't that just put us in a special category, a way to actually differentiate us from all other animals?

We should operate different from other animals because we have the ability to. They don't know any better. You should see some of the stuff my cat does if he gets the chance - torturing small animals to death, sinking his teeth into other animals that look at him the wrong way, etc. My childhood pet rabbits were even worse - they randomly decided to eat their babies. Can you imagine what a mess society would be in if we based our critical decisions on "What would a wild animal do?" How much better would it be to think "What would a kind and civilized person do?"

Quote
If it's just the death of the animals which is the sticking point, eggs and milk require that the animals remain alive to continue producing the food.  What's wrong with someone keeping chickens and eating their eggs?  Would you have us relegate all eggs to simply being a waste product?  We can't turn back the clock and make chickens go back to being wild creatures, and in a world with so much hunger it seems flat out irresponsible to say that people shouldn't eat a perfectly nutritious food because it came from an animal.  It's not like the chickens are going to stop ovulating if we all decide not to eat the eggs, and unless there's a rooster handy the eggs aren't going to magically become baby chickens so nothing is being harmed.

A lot of vegans would have no issue with someone keeping chickens in their back yard if they were well cared for and not killed for food. Hell, I'd love to have pet chickens if I didn't live in a downtown highrise! But commercially, it's just not possible to run dairy and egg production without killing a lot of animals. Egg farms have to kill off male chicks since they're worthless on a commercial scale. Dairy farms have to do something with the excess calves they end up with - the veal and dairy industries depend on each other.

To my understanding, cats and dogs need animal products for health (anyone feel free to correct me if I'm wrong). I feed my cat meat, and would feed a dog whatever his vet recommended.

Quote
As for animal products such as leather, if all of them were made from animal hides from animals which had died naturally, would you still object to them?  If so, what could be the purpose?  We wouldn't be killing animals, just using a resource that's available and, in fact, honoring the animal by making it useful after death.  The holdup can't be for environmental reasons, because the textile industry is a huge polluter, without even getting into the environmental toll of growing the crops, such as cotton.

I like where you're coming from, but logistically I don't think it would be possible. Animals dying naturally would start to decompose pretty quickly in most environments. Unless you followed around old, sick animals in the bush? I'm not sure how this would even work.

Quote
As someone who eats animals, I also wear shoes made of leather and don't feel bad.  I mean, I know the leather industry is awful, sickening, but I feel better about using as much of the animal as possible to avoid waste.  And if I could change the industry itself to something a bit better, I would snap my fingers and make it happen.

Depends what type of leather you get, but the higher quality stuff is from different types of cows entirely, raised just for that. But... veganism aside, why would you buy products from ANY industry you describe as "awful and sickening" when there are alternatives? I don't get that.

Quote
If you're vegan because it's somehow better for the environment, I can promise you that the mitigation from not eating meat is severely lessened by the supplements and additives which you eat (very costly in every sense--money, environment, the fact that they need to be transported and manufactured and purchased, the raw materials harvested and grown....) and the costs of the milk replacement drinks you consume, like almond milk and soymilk.

There's no diet that's perfect for the environment. Veganism overall seems to be one of the better options (among others) for the environment, but a vegan who eats primarily imported tropical fruit and processed food is going to have a different environmental impact than a vegan who has a big garden and gets a B12 shot a few times a year.

MandalayVA

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1569
  • Location: Orlando FL
Re: Calling out MMM [Get Rich with Science Blog Post]
« Reply #76 on: October 17, 2014, 06:52:36 AM »
Quote
Furthermore, you never addressed the fact that most of the population, at some point, cannot be vegan.  Children, pregnant and lactating women, the elderly, people with certain health problems, etc, all CANNOT be vegan for health reasons.

According to the American Dietetic Association, "It is the position of the American Dietetic Association that appropriately planned vegetarian diets, including total vegetarian or vegan diets, are healthful, nutritionally adequate, and may provide health benefits in the prevention and treatment of certain diseases. Well-planned vegetarian diets are appropriate for individuals during all stages of the life cycle, including pregnancy, lactation, infancy, childhood, and adolescence, and for athletes."

That's the problem--for every vegetarian/vegan who does go to the trouble of meal planning and making sure their nutrition is good there's a hundred others who eat garbage.  The entry above where I talked about eating nothing but tortilla chips, salsa and vegan cupcakes?  I know a girl whose diet consists of exactly that.  But because I eat meat in her mind she's the better person.  Never mind that she's obese, pasty and constantly sniffling with a cold or allergies, she's saving the planet!

Philociraptor

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1131
  • Age: 34
  • Location: NTX
  • Eat. Sleep. Invest. Repeat.
Re: Calling out MMM [Get Rich with Science Blog Post]
« Reply #77 on: October 17, 2014, 07:58:39 AM »
Quote
Furthermore, you never addressed the fact that most of the population, at some point, cannot be vegan.  Children, pregnant and lactating women, the elderly, people with certain health problems, etc, all CANNOT be vegan for health reasons.

According to the American Dietetic Association, "It is the position of the American Dietetic Association that appropriately planned vegetarian diets, including total vegetarian or vegan diets, are healthful, nutritionally adequate, and may provide health benefits in the prevention and treatment of certain diseases. Well-planned vegetarian diets are appropriate for individuals during all stages of the life cycle, including pregnancy, lactation, infancy, childhood, and adolescence, and for athletes."

That's the problem--for every vegetarian/vegan who does go to the trouble of meal planning and making sure their nutrition is good there's a hundred others who eat garbage.  The entry above where I talked about eating nothing but tortilla chips, salsa and vegan cupcakes?  I know a girl whose diet consists of exactly that.  But because I eat meat in her mind she's the better person.  Never mind that she's obese, pasty and constantly sniffling with a cold or allergies, she's saving the planet!

Yeah, but the 1:100 planner to nonplanner ratio extends to folks on every diet. Let her be self-righteous, who cares? If she doesn't view her bodily health as important, it's not your concern.

MandalayVA

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1569
  • Location: Orlando FL
Re: Calling out MMM [Get Rich with Science Blog Post]
« Reply #78 on: October 17, 2014, 08:16:16 AM »
Quote
Furthermore, you never addressed the fact that most of the population, at some point, cannot be vegan.  Children, pregnant and lactating women, the elderly, people with certain health problems, etc, all CANNOT be vegan for health reasons.

According to the American Dietetic Association, "It is the position of the American Dietetic Association that appropriately planned vegetarian diets, including total vegetarian or vegan diets, are healthful, nutritionally adequate, and may provide health benefits in the prevention and treatment of certain diseases. Well-planned vegetarian diets are appropriate for individuals during all stages of the life cycle, including pregnancy, lactation, infancy, childhood, and adolescence, and for athletes."

That's the problem--for every vegetarian/vegan who does go to the trouble of meal planning and making sure their nutrition is good there's a hundred others who eat garbage.  The entry above where I talked about eating nothing but tortilla chips, salsa and vegan cupcakes?  I know a girl whose diet consists of exactly that.  But because I eat meat in her mind she's the better person.  Never mind that she's obese, pasty and constantly sniffling with a cold or allergies, she's saving the planet!

Yeah, but the 1:100 planner to nonplanner ratio extends to folks on every diet. Let her be self-righteous, who cares? If she doesn't view her bodily health as important, it's not your concern.

Actually it's somewhat amusing to me that every vegan I know--and I volunteer for a project that involves a lot of college-age girls so I know a lot of them--has never mentioned health as the reason they're vegan.  It always has something to do with saving the planet or "meat is murder." 

Russ

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2211
  • Age: 32
  • Location: Boulder, CO
Re: Calling out MMM [Get Rich with Science Blog Post]
« Reply #79 on: October 17, 2014, 08:29:26 AM »
Quote
Furthermore, you never addressed the fact that most of the population, at some point, cannot be vegan.  Children, pregnant and lactating women, the elderly, people with certain health problems, etc, all CANNOT be vegan for health reasons.

According to the American Dietetic Association, "It is the position of the American Dietetic Association that appropriately planned vegetarian diets, including total vegetarian or vegan diets, are healthful, nutritionally adequate, and may provide health benefits in the prevention and treatment of certain diseases. Well-planned vegetarian diets are appropriate for individuals during all stages of the life cycle, including pregnancy, lactation, infancy, childhood, and adolescence, and for athletes."

That's the problem--for every vegetarian/vegan who does go to the trouble of meal planning and making sure their nutrition is good there's a hundred others who eat garbage.  The entry above where I talked about eating nothing but tortilla chips, salsa and vegan cupcakes?  I know a girl whose diet consists of exactly that.  But because I eat meat in her mind she's the better person.  Never mind that she's obese, pasty and constantly sniffling with a cold or allergies, she's saving the planet!

Yeah, but the 1:100 planner to nonplanner ratio extends to folks on every diet. Let her be self-righteous, who cares? If she doesn't view her bodily health as important, it's not your concern.

except that nobody has shown that a vegan diet + B12 is any less healthy than any other diet?

Russ

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2211
  • Age: 32
  • Location: Boulder, CO
Re: Calling out MMM [Get Rich with Science Blog Post]
« Reply #80 on: October 17, 2014, 08:33:42 AM »
Quote
Furthermore, you never addressed the fact that most of the population, at some point, cannot be vegan.  Children, pregnant and lactating women, the elderly, people with certain health problems, etc, all CANNOT be vegan for health reasons.

According to the American Dietetic Association, "It is the position of the American Dietetic Association that appropriately planned vegetarian diets, including total vegetarian or vegan diets, are healthful, nutritionally adequate, and may provide health benefits in the prevention and treatment of certain diseases. Well-planned vegetarian diets are appropriate for individuals during all stages of the life cycle, including pregnancy, lactation, infancy, childhood, and adolescence, and for athletes."

That's the problem--for every vegetarian/vegan who does go to the trouble of meal planning and making sure their nutrition is good there's a hundred others who eat garbage.  The entry above where I talked about eating nothing but tortilla chips, salsa and vegan cupcakes?  I know a girl whose diet consists of exactly that.  But because I eat meat in her mind she's the better person.  Never mind that she's obese, pasty and constantly sniffling with a cold or allergies, she's saving the planet!

Yeah, but the 1:100 planner to nonplanner ratio extends to folks on every diet. Let her be self-righteous, who cares? If she doesn't view her bodily health as important, it's not your concern.

Actually it's somewhat amusing to me that every vegan I know--and I volunteer for a project that involves a lot of college-age girls so I know a lot of them--has never mentioned health as the reason they're vegan.  It always has something to do with saving the planet or "meat is murder."

I assume your point is that vegans categorically don't care about their health? Correct me if I'm wrong.

Interestingly enough, all the vegans I know eat that way for their health and no other reason. Actually factually. How's that for a counter-anecdote

Philociraptor

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1131
  • Age: 34
  • Location: NTX
  • Eat. Sleep. Invest. Repeat.
Re: Calling out MMM [Get Rich with Science Blog Post]
« Reply #81 on: October 17, 2014, 08:36:58 AM »
except that nobody has shown that a vegan diet + B12 is any less healthy than any other diet?

Never attempteed to show that. Almost any diet that fits your individual ethics can be made healthy with proper planning.

Russ

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2211
  • Age: 32
  • Location: Boulder, CO
Re: Calling out MMM [Get Rich with Science Blog Post]
« Reply #82 on: October 17, 2014, 08:39:06 AM »
Ah dang I totally misread your post above. My bad.

FreeWheel

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 131
  • Location: Chicagoland
Re: Calling out MMM [Get Rich with Science Blog Post]
« Reply #83 on: October 17, 2014, 08:40:13 AM »
No matter what we eat it will have some effect on animals and the environment. We can never totally eliminate our impact, but we can and should take steps to reduce it.

As a long time vegetarian, the killing of animals is not so much the problem for me. I agree that man is just another animal, (albeit the fanciest one) and as such it is perfectly normal for him to seek out any food source that may benefit him.

In order to meet the huge and growing market demand for low cost animal products, every factor of animals existence is manipulated by us humans to raise “productivity” and lower costs. As long as a high enough percentage of the animals grow fast and survive, little else matters. I’m not going to list the many abominations of the meat industry in the name of productivity… do your own search and find out the truth for yourself. Billions of thinking feeling creatures simply do not live a life worth living.

It’s this poor life most of our food animals are forced to endure that concerns me enough to make reductions in the animal products I consume.

While I personally couldn’t do it, if you hunt, fish, or raise your own animal products in a sensitive manner, I have no problem with it. These animals got to live a natural, or at least low stress life up until the day they were killed.

FreeWheel

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 131
  • Location: Chicagoland
Re: Calling out MMM [Get Rich with Science Blog Post]
« Reply #84 on: October 17, 2014, 08:43:03 AM »
Is this where I'm supposed to post the shitty omnivore diets of people I know who are getting fatter and more unhealthy every year?

SisterX

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3035
  • Location: 2nd Star on the Right and Straight On 'Til Morning
Re: Calling out MMM [Get Rich with Science Blog Post]
« Reply #85 on: October 17, 2014, 12:00:12 PM »
No matter what we eat it will have some effect on animals and the environment. We can never totally eliminate our impact, but we can and should take steps to reduce it.

As a long time vegetarian, the killing of animals is not so much the problem for me. I agree that man is just another animal, (albeit the fanciest one) and as such it is perfectly normal for him to seek out any food source that may benefit him.

In order to meet the huge and growing market demand for low cost animal products, every factor of animals existence is manipulated by us humans to raise “productivity” and lower costs. As long as a high enough percentage of the animals grow fast and survive, little else matters. I’m not going to list the many abominations of the meat industry in the name of productivity… do your own search and find out the truth for yourself. Billions of thinking feeling creatures simply do not live a life worth living.

It’s this poor life most of our food animals are forced to endure that concerns me enough to make reductions in the animal products I consume.

While I personally couldn’t do it, if you hunt, fish, or raise your own animal products in a sensitive manner, I have no problem with it. These animals got to live a natural, or at least low stress life up until the day they were killed.

I totally agree.  CAFOs are one of the worst inventions ever, in every way.  They're not even good for human health (manure lagoons, resistant strains of bacteria), let alone animals.
And, my husband's family both hunts (mostly moose) and fishes.  We get a majority of our meat that way, but what we do buy we try to get as ethically (and as far away from industrial sources) as possible.  So we get eggs from a friend who keeps chickens, and until it burned down (really sad story) we got our purchased meat from a local place which specialized in getting products locally, from people who were raising small numbers of animals or large amounts of vegetables.

Yeast is a fungus, same as mushrooms. In my 16 years as a vegan, I have yet to meet anyone who thinks eating mushrooms is immoral (not to say they don't exist). There's actually a lot of debate on the issue of honey, and a number of vegans are fine with it provided the farmers aren't doing things like killing off a bunch of bees over the winter, etc.

You're right!  I knew that yeast is a living organism and for some reason I always think of it as a bacteria.  My bad!
I had never heard of vegans eating honey.  Glad to know it's not just a hard line of "those poor bees, we can't steal their hard work!"

There's no evidence to suggest plants have sentience. The only "research' done on that is overwhelmingly considered garbage in the scientific community. But even if you choose to believe plants have fully developed nervous systems and feel HORRIBLE AGONY when they're killed, you still come out ahead by being a vegan, since the alternative is to kill 10X the plants to feed to animals, then also kill the animals.

I don't actually think that plants suffer horrible agony, at least not the way we think of it.  But I don't see why the lives of plants should be valued less.
And well managed grazing doesn't kill tons of plants.  Cows which are allowed to eat grass during the summer, and rotated so that they're not stuck in one field, never kill the grass.
I completely agree that we shouldn't eat as many cows as we do, or even drink as much cow's milk.  Goat's milk makes a great alternative and goats can be kept in many areas (even backyards) which aren't suitable for cows.  Not only that, but goats can be used in place of machines when it comes to brush clearing.  For me, I can understand if your problem with animals is how they're raised, but I've known plenty of vegans who, yes, do it because "meat is murder".  I always want to tell them, yes but at least I'm eating it, making use of it.  Plenty of animals (like well-fed cats) kill just because they can.  I don't think that means we should all become serial killers or start slaying all the animals, but well-managed animals are a benefit to society and to farming culture.  It's idealistic, I know, but I do dream of a day when all animals are well-cared for.  I think on that point, we can all agree.  I guess what I'm seeing most of is that all of us (the paleo eaters, the vegetarians/vegans, locavores, etc.) are really just hating on the stupid standard American diet.  I don't consider that a "diet" so much as it is "a system of consuming calories which will ensure that a person dies fat, sick, and poor while simultaneously making a bunch of rich corporations and people even wealthier and contributing to the impoverishment and disenfranchisement of farmers".  Agreed?

Depends what type of leather you get, but the higher quality stuff is from different types of cows entirely, raised just for that. But... veganism aside, why would you buy products from ANY industry you describe as "awful and sickening" when there are alternatives? I don't get that.

The short answer is, I really don't.  The only leather products I can think of which I own are shoes/boots (4 pairs, all but one pair were given to me, but they were all new).  My daughter has a pair of baby mukluks made of seal skin/fur, but they were also given to us by a friend who is part Native Alaskan, and made by Native Alaskans who ate the seals as part of a subsistence lifestyle.  I have a fur coat (never worn by me) passed down from my grandmother which is basically the same: made by Native Alaskans.  So, except for the shoes, I really don't buy those products.  (And the shoes are well-made enough that they should last me for another 20 years or so, at least.  I plan to get them re-soled when the time comes--the soles are not leather.) 
Again, I realize that the question I posed about leather was highly idealistic (it's just not possible, for so many reasons) but I've known plenty of people who never questioned their own beliefs/habits enough to think about all of the ins and outs, and people who draw a hard line simply because.  So I'm sure there are plenty of vegans (probably of the tortilla chips and cupcakes variety) who would still say that leather is terrible, even if the animals died naturally, simply because ANIMALS.  I figured the MMM community would be different, and I've enjoyed reading the answers people have posted.

Zikoris

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4536
  • Age: 37
  • Location: Vancouver, BC
  • Vancouverstachian
Re: Calling out MMM [Get Rich with Science Blog Post]
« Reply #86 on: October 17, 2014, 12:57:02 PM »
Quote
I don't actually think that plants suffer horrible agony, at least not the way we think of it.  But I don't see why the lives of plants should be valued less.
And well managed grazing doesn't kill tons of plants.  Cows which are allowed to eat grass during the summer, and rotated so that they're not stuck in one field, never kill the grass.

Why wouldn't they be valued less? They can't think or feel anything! Plants are the moral equivalent of meat grown in a vat (which I think is a great idea). But we can keep going through the thought-experiment rabbit hole of Plants Have Feelings for fun. If plants have sentience of some sort, wouldn't grazing be WAY more cruel than killing them outright? Like spending your entire life having parts of you chewed off, Prometheus-style?

Quote
but well-managed animals are a benefit to society and to farming culture.  It's idealistic, I know, but I do dream of a day when all animals are well-cared for.

I think animals are great and can contribute greatly to farming, but I'd just like to see that done in a way where they're not killed. Like how in the country some people have sheep mow their lawns and fertilize their gardens, or have pet chickens they keep even after they stop laying eggs.

Would I personally eat animal products myself if they were raised in this fashion? No, because at a basic level, regardless of everything else, I have a visceral reaction to breastfeeding from an animal, eating the bird equivalent of a period, and wearing  skin.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 23128
  • Age: 42
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Calling out MMM [Get Rich with Science Blog Post]
« Reply #87 on: October 17, 2014, 01:23:44 PM »
I have a bit of a visceral reaction to breastfeeding from an animal myself.  Unless I'm mistaken, most who drink milk tend to use a glass rather than mosey on up to the nipple however . . .

Zikoris

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4536
  • Age: 37
  • Location: Vancouver, BC
  • Vancouverstachian
Re: Calling out MMM [Get Rich with Science Blog Post]
« Reply #88 on: October 17, 2014, 02:08:49 PM »
I have a bit of a visceral reaction to breastfeeding from an animal myself.  Unless I'm mistaken, most who drink milk tend to use a glass rather than mosey on up to the nipple however . . .

Yeah, people typically don't suck eggs out of a chicken or take a bite out of a random animal either. Same thing to vegans though.

MandalayVA

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1569
  • Location: Orlando FL
Re: Calling out MMM [Get Rich with Science Blog Post]
« Reply #89 on: October 17, 2014, 02:30:43 PM »
I have a bit of a visceral reaction to breastfeeding from an animal myself.  Unless I'm mistaken, most who drink milk tend to use a glass rather than mosey on up to the nipple however . . .

LOL

Again, we are all fortunate to have a choice in what we eat and to argue about it with strangers on the internet.  Most of the world doesn't have that luxury.

SisterX

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3035
  • Location: 2nd Star on the Right and Straight On 'Til Morning
Re: Calling out MMM [Get Rich with Science Blog Post]
« Reply #90 on: October 17, 2014, 04:09:32 PM »
...the bird equivalent of a period...

I prefer to think of them as chicken seeds.  It's a form of ovulation, true, but that brings up in our minds the human experience of ovulation, which is obviously nothing like a chicken's experience of ovulation.  No blood, they're not shredding an internal organ to produce it the way humans do, etc.  So I think it's more roughly equivalent to a tree putting off seeds, except that these will never grow into trees...er, chickens.

Ditchmonkey

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 54
Re: Calling out MMM
« Reply #91 on: April 29, 2015, 12:38:36 PM »
But meat tastes good!.........

I'll consider vegetarian when it becomes as cheap and as easy to prepare as my current diet (currently $100-$150/month), and tastes as good (most vegetarian dishes/sandwiches/etc I've had in the past tasted pretty awful).

I'm a fan of "keeping it real". Yes, meat is tasty. Yes I eat it. But I often eat many vegetarian dishes that are also delicious. Like most of the badassity-related concepts discussed on this site, it's purely a matter of your own background and perception.

On the the main point - your cheap meat is evil. Animals are literally tortured to get that meat onto your plate. The giant factories where the meat is produced are generating enormous amounts of pollution. The animals are filled with antibiotics and hormones to allow them to live in the horrific environment they spend their tormented lives in, and then those toxins are being consumed by you. If every American toured the facility their meat comes from, this system would change overnight as most people would could not support such a system.

Buy a steak from a responsible independent ranch or farm. It's expensive, so you will by less meat. You are healthier. Animals are healthier. Environment is healthier. Everyone wins.

partgypsy

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5207
Re: Calling out MMM [Get Rich with Science Blog Post]
« Reply #92 on: April 29, 2015, 02:19:00 PM »
I agree with Ditchmonkey people framing paleo versus veganism as if you have to make one of those two choices and there is nothing in between.
A note of common sense. Pretty much all long standing cultures had diets that were neither vegan nor paleo (except Eskimo, Kalihari?), were primarily vegetarian, with small amounts of meat, and were "local" took advantage and primarily depending on what could be grown caught, raised in that area. Chinese, Mediterrean diets are two examples. These had the dual effect of being able to feed large numbers of people, and did not rely so heavily on meat which is "costly" both in money, land use, and diminished ecology. If an animal was used, to try to utilize more of the animal so all of it is used in some form, even if for flavoring or stock, fats, sausages, etc.  It was also a generally healthy diet in that the members of these cultures were long lived (there is no long term data about the paleo diet, and in fact is hard on the kidney).

I also feel people obsess too much about diets. It is also not the diet but the totality of the culture or society or way of being, of having feast days but generally other days eating in moderation, having higher physical activity and participating in the preparations of meals or food, lower or slower pace of life and lower stress, greater family support (to possibly process and prepare these more time consuming meals : )). Grains are not poison. Dairy is not poison. All these can be utilized by people, unless you have a specific intolerance or medical condition.

American culture, which is spreading to other cultures, is one of meat heavy, sugar heavy, fat heavy, low fiber convenience foods, that are detrimental to both a person's body and to the environment. increasing the way people have traditionally ate, and reducing the SAD is a "win win" situation but again, and luckily for us does not have to be an all or nothing choice.   
So if you eat typically, YES to more vegetables and beans. NO to grains in particular refined grain products. And NO or less to red meat.
http://www.motherjones.com/tom-philpott/2014/01/standard-american-diet-sad-charts

http://www.motherjones.com/tom-philpott/2012/10/ikarian-greek-island-diet-health-benefit
« Last Edit: April 29, 2015, 02:28:14 PM by partgypsy »

Bob W

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2942
  • Age: 65
  • Location: Missouri
  • Live on minimum wage, earn on maximum
Re: Calling out MMM [Get Rich with Science Blog Post]
« Reply #93 on: April 29, 2015, 02:39:19 PM »
So previously I mentioned that a pound of beef has way more calories than a pound of spinach.    About 1400 vs. 100.   

Please explain to me then  how spinach is more environmentally friendly than beef.    I would need to eat 20 pounds of spinach to equal the amount of calories in 1.4 pounds of beef. 

How is it possible that for $4 I can buy 1400 calories of hamburger but 1400 calories of spinach costs $56.   I love spinach but any reasonable person would have to assume based on cost of two readily available foods that spinach is way more energy intensive because when we get right down to it, costs of commodities at this level, are heavily determined by energy inputs.     

Still I'm going to be an environmental ass hat and eat my spinach because I love it.    Tree huggers can stick to the all meat diet to save the planet.

As far as water usage.   I happen to live in the Midwest in the number two producing cattle state in the nation.  Freaking water just falls out of the sky here.  I mean we can't get rid of the shit.  It bubbles out of the ground at the rate of billions of gallons per day too.   

On the other hand you can only grow spinach in a few rare places and even then for only a few months per year.   We have grass all over that grows without irrigation and apparently cows love grass.

If you are  a vegetarian that is fine.   Just don't try to base it on some science bs.   Take a look in the mirror and notice your canine teeth and you will be amazed that you have been genetically  designed to eat meat.   

Now if you have a problem with how meat is raised,  filled with hormones and antibiotics while force feed corn,  I'm with ya brother!   That shit has got to stop.

I love spinach,   I love beef.   

Ditchmonkey

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 54
Re: Calling out MMM [Get Rich with Science Blog Post]
« Reply #94 on: April 29, 2015, 02:44:11 PM »
Please explain to me then  how spinach is more environmentally friendly than beef.   

I'm thinking maybe your math skills aren't at the level you think they are.

partgypsy

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5207
Re: Calling out MMM [Get Rich with Science Blog Post]
« Reply #95 on: April 29, 2015, 02:47:21 PM »
I guess, ask yourself, why do you need to eat 1400 calories of meat? Conversely, why would you eat 20+pounds of spinach?
That should answer your own question. There are a minimal amount of calories one needs to consume, but not all calories are equal. And what you are eating meat for, you can eat vegetarian sources for less money, and less impact on the planet.
Another way to put it, a little meat goes a long way. If you are concerned with B12 deficiency, doesn't mean you need to eat meat every day, or even a lot of meat to have that protection. In general most Americans eat too much protein, so that is not a good argument either. PS I'm not a vegetarian. 
« Last Edit: April 29, 2015, 03:10:36 PM by partgypsy »

Erica/NWEdible

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 881
    • Northwest Edible Life - life on garden time
Re: Calling out MMM [Get Rich with Science Blog Post]
« Reply #96 on: April 29, 2015, 03:01:06 PM »
I think animals are great and can contribute greatly to farming, but I'd just like to see that done in a way where they're not killed. Like how in the country some people have sheep mow their lawns and fertilize their gardens, or have pet chickens they keep even after they stop laying eggs.

Yeah, that doesn't happen. The sheep is kept to make lamb - which is eaten. When it's too old to make lamb (or wool) - it's eaten. That's why there's a word for old sheep we eat: mutton. The chicken that doesn't lay eggs - stockpot. Coq au vin. Eaten. The water buffalo who plows the rice fields is a useful member of the family, until he breaks his leg. Then he's eaten.

I don't know what kind of "country" you're referring too, but the minute the practical advantages of livestock no longer outweigh their cost to maintain, the livestock are eaten or otherwise disposed of. It's possible to keep PET sheep and PET chickens, but the number of people who want to do this are miniscule, and very few of them live "in the country."

Travis

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4219
  • Location: California
Re: Calling out MMM [Get Rich with Science Blog Post]
« Reply #97 on: April 29, 2015, 05:40:54 PM »
Quote
Please explain to me then  how spinach is more environmentally friendly than beef.    I would need to eat 20 pounds of spinach to equal the amount of calories in 1.4 pounds of beef.

Why are you trying to get half your daily caloric intake from just spinach?  From what I've read on the subject, protein should account for no more than a third of your daily intake.  If you're trying to substitute spinach for meat, you're going to need other items to ensure you have the amino acids and nutrients you're not getting from the spinach anyways so it seems your comparison is an extreme/borderline strawman.

Someone earlier commented that they're getting plenty of rain in corn country and they're doing just fine compared to California. You're really not.  A great deal of Great Plains ag water comes from an underground aquifer that we're sucking dry.  It's something like a trillion gallons in size, but it's running a deficit. Farmers there consume more than is replenished.  Trying to use corn for a gasoline replacement has compounded the problem with it being at best a energy neutral rather than a producer.  The corn to feed livestock means lots of water to create it and fuel to move it in addition to the energy inputs to harvest the livestock.  On a large scale it's more efficient than an equivalent amount of local herding, but it's still a resource consumer that consumes far more than we actually need to satisfy our dietary needs.

Zikoris

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4536
  • Age: 37
  • Location: Vancouver, BC
  • Vancouverstachian
Re: Calling out MMM [Get Rich with Science Blog Post]
« Reply #98 on: April 29, 2015, 07:07:47 PM »
I think animals are great and can contribute greatly to farming, but I'd just like to see that done in a way where they're not killed. Like how in the country some people have sheep mow their lawns and fertilize their gardens, or have pet chickens they keep even after they stop laying eggs.

Yeah, that doesn't happen. The sheep is kept to make lamb - which is eaten. When it's too old to make lamb (or wool) - it's eaten. That's why there's a word for old sheep we eat: mutton. The chicken that doesn't lay eggs - stockpot. Coq au vin. Eaten. The water buffalo who plows the rice fields is a useful member of the family, until he breaks his leg. Then he's eaten.

I don't know what kind of "country" you're referring too, but the minute the practical advantages of livestock no longer outweigh their cost to maintain, the livestock are eaten or otherwise disposed of. It's possible to keep PET sheep and PET chickens, but the number of people who want to do this are miniscule, and very few of them live "in the country."

It's an idealized situation. I think it would be great if people thought as livestock more the way they think of their pet cats or dogs. Having grown up in small towns, I have known people who kept around a few animals beyond their "productive" time, which would be nice to see more of.

beltim

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2957
Re: Calling out MMM [Get Rich with Science Blog Post]
« Reply #99 on: April 29, 2015, 07:15:48 PM »
Quote
Please explain to me then  how spinach is more environmentally friendly than beef.    I would need to eat 20 pounds of spinach to equal the amount of calories in 1.4 pounds of beef.

Why are you trying to get half your daily caloric intake from just spinach?  From what I've read on the subject, protein should account for no more than a third of your daily intake.  If you're trying to substitute spinach for meat, you're going to need other items to ensure you have the amino acids and nutrients you're not getting from the spinach anyways so it seems your comparison is an extreme/borderline strawman.

I thought this was self-explanatory but since you're the second person who made this mistake...

It doesn't matter how much meat or spinach you're talking about.  Bob was talking about the relative different in cost and resources.  The absolute amount doesn't matter, whether you're talking about a milligram or a ton.

 

Wow, a phone plan for fifteen bucks!