It helps that we’re right. That it can’t be bad to eat what humans have eaten for 2 million years.
But 2 recent things I’ve looked at were studies done a few decades ago and shelved because they didn’t get the “right” answer, but were recovered recently and published showing the lipid hypothesis was wrong and the cause of metabolic disorder was carbohydrates
They were suppressed in the 70s and 80s, now they are published. Dietary guidelines in Australia (one of the biggest wheat exporters) now allow low carb for treating type 2 diabetes.
I do believe we’re watching a change in consensus (which as always is progressing one death at a time - perhaps it’s good that the other side is committed to a metabolically dangerous path)
You must log in or register to comment.
Though of course pro meat people are still being deleted from wikipeida
And the lies about beef being bad for the environment have traction
And of course the opposition is an organised religious group, and we’re not.
Beef seems to need much more land and water usage than almost any other food. Since you need land to grow the food for the cattle and land for the cattle. Take the extra methane output which is a potent greenhouse gas. By almost any metric that will be worse for the environment than just growing a food source directly.
Perhaps a chocolate or something takes more water per kg. But many less kg’s will be consumed of chocolate than meat.
https://redtablemeats.com/fresh-meat/beef/how-much-water-is-needed-to-produce-1kg-of-beef/
(I eat beef and other meats periodically).
There are multiple battles here
- Low Carb is a safe health tool
- Meat isn’t dangerous
- cholesterol is not a disease
- Seed oils have a huge impact on health, insulin resistance
- PBF have a inflammatory cost on the body
I think the best thing we can do is demonstrate what works for us, and be friendly resources to others if they have questions.
The Anti-Meat movement is a fascinating world to research, it’s not just economic interests, we have some faith thrown in there too
There’s also so much money in the chain between a farm full of wheat to a box of highly processed “food”, compared to the simple path of meat varying from cheapest self harvested, self butchered, self stored through to using a professional butcher who buys from a meat packing plant through to the most expensive - supermarket meat
Money plus religion versus reality
The imagined path of wheat is the same as the feed for almost all of the meat that’s eaten today.
It helps that we’re right. That it can’t be bad to eat what humans have eaten for 2 million years.
The flaw in your logic is that nature’s only purpose is reproduction. As long as you make it at least that far, nothing else matters. Reproduction starts relatively early in our lifetime.
Thats a interesting point, reproductive success also encompass strategies where the longevity of the parent gives better chances to the offspring as well.
Only to a point. Even if you include raising kids, that’s only roughly halfway into our lifetime though.