Input on Eating Meat "Sparingly"

[BlueDreams]

17 minutes ago, champatsch said:

Sustainable for him, certainly, which is all that was meant. And who might have funded it doesn't mean he didn't actually follow such a diet. He did. 

You know, row-crop agriculture presents big problems of its own. I've just been listening to a beef rancher who runs a place called Alderspring in Idaho where they sequester 4 lbs. of carbon for every lb. of beef they produce. They massively enrich the soil and plant biodiversity, while their row-crop neighbors decimate the soil and make it pretty much lifeless. Both he and his wife are trained in ecology. That's an approach we need more of.

I agree we need more ecologically balanced forms of agriculture. But if we have more of it, we will naturally have less meat supply, higher meat prices, and therefore less meat eaten. Our current meat production levels can't be replicated without exploitative practices. 

With luv,

Bd

[BlueDreams]

14 hours ago, champatsch said:

Kind of a strawman – I don't think I was saying that there were/are cultures that ate/eat only meat. We're omnivores, and animal-based cultures like the pre-modern Inuit would include a bare minimum of plant-based eating when they had it. Or the Hadza, who are primarily animal-based but eat honey, and some plant foods occasionally. They're an example of a culture not living in the cold that is basically animal-based, with very few other inputs, which aren't essential. These aren't the only ones.

Today there are pure animal-based eaters, living in modern society, doing just fine – no scurvy and no constipation. Some live simply on ruminant meat and water.

And there is of course the curious case of Vilhjalmur Stefansson. "After retiring from Arctic forays in 1918, he estimated he had spent a total of five years living entirely off meat and water." https://www.atlasobscura.com/articles/all-meat-diet . He showed in NYC that such a diet was perfectly fine and sustainable.

One other thing, according to google most estimates for the Hadza people put their diet as 30-40% meat. Fun fact, they definitely have shorter lifespans. If they make it to 40, they have around 20 more years to live. 

[pogi]

54 minutes ago, champatsch said:

Sustainable for him, certainly, which is all that was meant. And who might have funded it doesn't mean he didn't actually follow such a diet. He did. 

I don't deny that he followed the diet, I question the legitimacy of the study funded by meat packers which suggested it was healthy for him. 

Quote

You know, row-crop agriculture presents big problems of its own. I've just been listening to a beef rancher who runs a place called Alderspring in Idaho where they sequester 4 lbs. of carbon for every lb. of beef they produce. They massively enrich the soil and plant biodiversity, while their row-crop neighbors decimate the soil and make it pretty much lifeless. Both he and his wife are trained in ecology. That's an approach we need more of.

I agree that crop agriculture has its own problems that need to be addressed, but you are comparing the worst crop agricultural practices to the best beef ranching practices.  If you were to compare the best to best, and the worst to worst, you will find that crop agriculture is more environmentally sustainable in water use, land use, pollution, and in every other way.   The type of grass fed beef ranching you mention is unsustainable on a large scale to feed the globe - there is not enough land to support it.  Even as it is (without grass fed beef - which requires FAR more land than most cattle farming uses), livestock takes up around 80% of global agricultural land, yet produces only around 20% of the world's supply of calories.   While you are right that grass fed beef is by far the most environmentally friendly method of ranching, the only way it could work on a global scale is if we all scale back our meat consumption to near vegetarian levels (word of wisdom levels).  

Quote

Total emissions from global livestock: 7.1 Gigatonnes of Co2-equiv per year, representing 14.5 percent of all anthropogenic GHG emissions. ... On a commodity-basis, beef and cattle milk are responsible for the most emissions, respectively, contributing 41 percent and 20 percent of the sector's overall GHG outputs.

https://www.fao.org/news/story/en/item/197623/icode/#:~:text=Total emissions from global livestock,of all anthropogenic GHG emissions.&text=On a commodity-basis%2C beef,the sector's overall GHG outputs.

 

Edited November 18, 2021 by pogi

[pogi]

Once you get past the cultural eww factor, here is another solution that is very intriguing and gaining more attention,

https://nclnet.org/beef_vs_bugs/

John the Baptist, setting the example for us with his locusts and honey.  

Healthier, cheaper, and more environmentally friendly. 

[champatsch]

25 minutes ago, pogi said:

I don't deny that he followed the diet, I question the legitimacy of the study funded by meat packers which suggested it was healthy for him.

He was the one saying it worked for him.

But anyway, beyond an old N=1 case, we are now beginning to have studies suggesting that it is a healthy diet.

https://academic.oup.com/cdn/advance-article/doi/10.1093/cdn/nzab133/6415894

There are plenty of people who have followed such a diet for years who have zero CAC scores.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

19 minutes ago, champatsch said:

He was the one saying it worked for him.

But anyway, beyond an old N=1 case, we are now beginning to have studies suggesting that it is a healthy diet.

https://academic.oup.com/cdn/advance-article/doi/10.1093/cdn/nzab133/6415894

There are plenty of people who have followed such a diet for years who have zero CAC scores.

“A social media survey was conducted ”

I must say this whole thread has been very illuminating. It certainly puts your work on the whole EModE thing in perspective for me. Carry on. 

[pogi]

29 minutes ago, champatsch said:

He was the one saying it worked for him.

But anyway, beyond an old N=1 case, we are now beginning to have studies suggesting that it is a healthy diet.

https://academic.oup.com/cdn/advance-article/doi/10.1093/cdn/nzab133/6415894

There are plenty of people who have followed such a diet for years who have zero CAC scores.

The study you show had no controls, and did not compare it against a vegetarian diet.  It was all "self reported" health outcomes with no medical oversight, and it was short term (14 months) which can miss a lot of long-term effects of such a diet. 

The Mediterranean diet is consistently ranked the #1 diet by top health experts year after year.  It is primarily a whole foods, plant based diet, with meat in moderation - basically the word of wisdom.  

One emerging field of nutrition research is gut microbiome and its effect on overall health.  We know that a healthy and diverse gut microbiome is associated with over-all health.   We also know that a a healthy gut microbiome thrives on a high fiber, low sugar diet.   We also know that a high meat diet decimates a healthy gut microbiome. 

https://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2013/12/10/250007042/chowing-down-on-meat-and-dairy-alters-gut-bacteria-a-lot-and-quickly

https://www.gutmicrobiotaforhealth.com/excessive-consumption-of-red-meat-can-change-gut-microbiota-leading-to-the-appearance-of-heart-disease/

There is no question that the word of wisdom is better for the environment, it is more economically sound, and in terms of health, I think the consensus of health experts agree that a whole foods, plant based diet (high fiber/low sugar) is by far the healthiest way to eat.   Plus it is scriptural.  Hard to argue with it. 

 

 

[Calm]

Just now, SeekingUnderstanding said:

“A social media survey was conducted ”

I must say this whole thread has been very illuminating. It certainly puts your work on the whole EModE thing in perspective for me. Carry on. 

If you mean believe you can dismiss it, the case of Linus Pauling and megadoses of Vitamin C as a cure for cancer comes to mind.  The work needs to be looked at least briefly to see standards used IMO, though certainly the professional (using this to mean the quality of work, not whether it is a career) background should not be ignored. It is unfortunate when people assume because someone is a proven expert in one area, all their work must be high quality.  The reverse is also true, dismissing good work because of missteps elsewhere.

[Calm]

38 minutes ago, champatsch said:

He was the one saying it worked for him.

But anyway, beyond an old N=1 case, we are now beginning to have studies suggesting that it is a healthy diet.

https://academic.oup.com/cdn/advance-article/doi/10.1093/cdn/nzab133/6415894

There are plenty of people who have followed such a diet for years who have zero CAC scores.

How do you view the Word of Wisdom then?  If you mentioned this earlier, a link to that post or a hint of which page it is on or time you posted it is fine.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

12 minutes ago, Calm said:

If you mean believe you can dismiss it, the case of Linus Pauling and megadoses of Vitamin C as a cure for cancer comes to mind.  The work needs to be looked at least briefly to see standards used IMO, though certainly the professional (using this to mean the quality of work, not whether it is a career) background should not be ignored. It is unfortunate when people assume because someone is a proven expert in one area, all their work must be high quality.  The reverse is also true, dismissing good work because of missteps elsewhere.

I don’t disagree that work should stand or fall on its own merits. Carmack’s claims on EMod, however, are very difficult for the untrained to evaluate. They also lack peer review (for some understandable reasons), and make no sense from a believer’s point of view as well as a non-believer’s point of view (IMO). His willingness to believe pseudo-science here to back his pre-established belief does not prove the EModE claims false, however it is definitely Bayesian evidence against it. This is as far as I will go in this thread to prevent a major derail. 

[champatsch]

Here's an interesting study to consider.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32308009/

Quote

The majority of studies, and especially the higher quality studies, showed that those who avoided meat consumption had significantly higher rates or risk of depression, anxiety, and/or self-harm behaviors. There was mixed evidence for temporal relations, but study designs and a lack of rigor precluded inferences of causal relations. Our study does not support meat avoidance as a strategy to benefit psychological health.

 

[Calm]

5 minutes ago, champatsch said:

There was mixed evidence for temporal relations, but study designs and a lack of rigor precluded inferences of causal relations

Doesn’t that say they can’t tell if this is a cause and effect?  A lot of people I know who went no meat or heavy meat did so because they already had chronic issues.

Edited November 18, 2021 by Calm

[champatsch]

59 minutes ago, pogi said:

There is no question that the word of wisdom is better for the environment,

The majority of both plant and animal agriculture are mostly bad for the environment. And massive numbers of sentient animals are killed in plant agriculture. Probably the only way to make either one good for the env't would be to reduce population. That seems to be the root of the problem.

Edited November 18, 2021 by champatsch

[champatsch]

34 minutes ago, Calm said:

Doesn’t that say they can’t tell if this is a cause and effect?  A lot of people I know who went no meat or heavy meat did so because they already had chronic issues.

I don't know about the details, but they do make clear that there are clear mental health benefits from eating meat. So anyone who does want to eat all plant-based should consider some meat consumption for that reason. And consuming some meat can also be important for wound healing.

Edited November 18, 2021 by champatsch

[pogi]

30 minutes ago, champatsch said:

they do make clear that there are clear mental health benefits from eating meat. 

Do they?

Quote

the evidence linking vegetarianism with mental disorders is not unequivocal… investigators found that with respect to some facets of mental health assessment, vegetarians were healthier than meat-consumers”. Therefore, reports of unequivocal claims amount to cherry-picking inferences from the paper without accurately depicting the scientific conclusions.

Quote

“Clearly, diet is not the only determinant of psychological health” and that “The extant literature suggests that there are numerous factors that may explain the contradictory associations of meat-abstention and health.”

Quote

 “study designs and/or a lack of rigour precluded inference of causal relations and none should be inferred.”

Quote

It may also be noted that the scientific effort was funded in part by “… an unrestricted research grant from the Beef Checkoff, through the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association”. Of course, the implications related to conflict of interest are debatable and hence left to the reader’s wisdom.

https://indianexpress.com/article/opinion/columns/meat-consumption-mental-health-reports-6592366/

Other studies show the contrary:

Quote

In conclusion, we found that higher red meat intake was associated with a higher risk of depressive symptoms, anxiety and psychological distress.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0965229920318550#:~:text=Women in highest quartile of,those in the lowest quartile.&text=There was significant positive association,intake and anxiety in women.&text=•-,Women in highest quartile of red meat had a higher,those in the lowest quartile.

Quote

when comparing a vegetarian versus omnivorous diet, vegetarians reported more positive moods than meat eaters, according to a study published in Nutrition Journal.

https://www.pcrm.org/good-nutrition/food-and-mood

Quote

We found that higher intake of red meat was associated with increased risk of depression symptoms, especially in males. 

https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fnut.2021.710555/full

Either way, I am not advocating for complete abstinence, and neither is the word of wisdom. 

 

 

[Calm]

1 hour ago, champatsch said:

The majority of both plant and animal agriculture are mostly bad for the environment. And massive numbers of sentient animals are killed in plant agriculture. Probably the only way to make either one good for the env't would be to reduce population. That seems to be the root of the problem.

Aquaponics and vertical gardening for the win!

[poptart]

39 minutes ago, pogi said:

Do they?

https://indianexpress.com/article/opinion/columns/meat-consumption-mental-health-reports-6592366/

Other studies show the contrary:

Either way, I am not advocating for complete abstinence, and neither is the word of wisdom. 

 

 

I'm curious what your thoughts are on the new vs. old American diet.  My fathers side farmed for a bit during the depression as well as hunted/fished a lot, food for the table.  The diet was quite meat heavy, fresh meat.  Thing is, so were the veggies, grains and what not.  Now?  It's nothing but junk food with who knows what meat quality wise.  Problem with veganism, protein.  Sure you can substitute it with other things but lets face it, our species did evolve over the tens of thousands of years to eat anything we could get our hands on, meat gave us that edge in the hunter gatherer days.  We're far removed from that so I have to wonder, is it meat, lifestyle or both?  Also how much does culture play into it?  The Asian/Polynesian relatives I have are still thin and healthy, the ones here?  Nope.  

[champatsch]

So, what isn't clear about these statements?  What am I missing?

Quote

The most rigorous studies demonstrated that the prevalence or risk of depression and/or anxiety were significantly greater in participants who avoided meat consumption.

The majority of studies, and especially the higher quality studies, showed that those who avoided meat consumption had significantly higher rates or risk of depression, anxiety, and/or self-harm behaviors.

Edited November 18, 2021 by champatsch

[champatsch]

2 hours ago, pogi said:

2 hours ago, champatsch said:

https://academic.oup.com/cdn/advance-article/doi/10.1093/cdn/nzab133/6415894

There are plenty of people who have followed such a diet for years who have zero CAC scores.

The study you show had no controls, and did not compare it against a vegetarian diet.  It was all "self reported" health outcomes with no medical oversight, and it was short term (14 months) which can miss a lot of long-term effects of such a diet. 

Such observational studies are done all the time. The authors are well aware of the limitations and the title of their study makes it all quite clear. I don't see anything that makes this paper nonstandard, neither the authors nor the publication method. And they didn't compare it against a vegetarian diet since that wasn't the point.

 

[Calm]

Just now, poptart said:

I'm curious what your thoughts are on the new vs. old American diet.  My fathers side farmed for a bit during the depression as well as hunted/fished a lot, food for the table.  The diet was quite meat heavy, fresh meat.  Thing is, so were the veggies, grains and what not.  Now?  It's nothing but junk food with who knows what meat quality wise.  Problem with veganism, protein.  Sure you can substitute it with other things but lets face it, our species did evolve over the tens of thousands of years to eat anything we could get our hands on, meat gave us that edge in the hunter gatherer days.  We're far removed from that so I have to wonder, is it meat, lifestyle or both?  Also how much does culture play into it?  The Asian/Polynesian relatives I have are still thin and healthy, the ones here?  Nope.  

I think those who had heavy physical activity in the past likely could handle the high meat diet better.  Gout being a common disease among the wealthy in a lot of Eng Lit stories I read  is a sign IMO that high meat diet is less than ideal, see below, but maybe it was as common in the underclasses, the wealthy just like to think they were special, even in their illnesses, nonmodern diets is an unknown for me mostly.  
 

Prepared food generally has too much salt or sugar in it, IMO.  And the whole removing the bran and germ is unfortunate, but understandable in former times with storage issues, but now no need for most except long term food storage. The one thing I wish Mom had done was to use brown rice and whole wheat more, don’t know why she didn’t, maybe it wasn’t easily available until my high school years, but just as likely Dad wasn’t a fan…meat and potatoes guy.  It just doesn’t taste right to me when I want my comfort foods.  Mom did make a lot of wild rice, but Uncle Ben’s (now just Ben’s) was everywhere even back then.  Cooking from scratch once you are familiar with techniques is not that time consuming if you keep simple or use pressure cooking/instant pot. Especially if you can afford the prewashed and cut veggies.  Bake or roast rather than fry, even microwaving….though microwaving potatoes is out for me, changes taste a bit and texture majorly…maybe for five minutes to cut down time, but no more.  Got to have the crunch of the skin….I know what I want for dinner now.  And so many speciality items online so one can get any spices and herbs, vinegars and oils, international foods.  And endless recipes, so who needs cookbooks taking up needed space.

I wish I had enough oomph to do Aquaponics, my preferred alternative lifestyle. My sister in law down the street has a beautiful organic garden and raises rabbits.  I am rather jealous even knowing the work she put into it (I wouldn’t have gone the intense searching for bargains route, so quite a bit less work in setup for me).  I could trade her fish for rabbit.  We used to have a poster on here who did Aquaponics that fascinated me when he described his process.

https://www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-lifestyle/nutrition-and-healthy-eating/in-depth/gout-diet/art-20048524

[Calm]

43 minutes ago, champatsch said:

So, what isn't clear about these statements?  What am I missing?

The cause-effect vs correlation…

Edited November 18, 2021 by Calm

[champatsch]

3 hours ago, pogi said:

One emerging field of nutrition research is gut microbiome and its effect on overall health.  We know that a healthy and diverse gut microbiome is associated with over-all health.   We also know that a a healthy gut microbiome thrives on a high fiber, low sugar diet.   We also know that a high meat diet decimates a healthy gut microbiome

Not so fast. This is up for debate. Different diets change the gut microbiome. But alpha diversity can still be high in ketogenic diets that are higher meat diets.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3957428/

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41522-018-0073-2

Edited November 18, 2021 by champatsch

[Stargazer]

3 hours ago, pogi said:

I don't deny that he followed the diet, I question the legitimacy of the study funded by meat packers which suggested it was healthy for him. 

One can legitimately question the legitimacy of the results of such a study, but legitimacy be darned, are the results true?

We Latter-day Saints point to data that support the historicity of the Book of Mormon, but our critics question the legitimacy of any studies we might bring forward that support that legitimacy, because we have dog in the fight. So our legitimacy is problematic. To them. But the Book of Mormon is true, so the critics can go soak their heads.

Would the meat packers have released the study they funded if the results indicated that the diet was not healthy? I doubt it. So the fact that they released it suggests that they felt the results aided their position. Can their study be refuted by a study giving contrary results? Of course it could be, but has anyone tried to do so? 

There is some question in health literature about the possibly negative effects soybeans have on human males, due to the phytoestrogen contained in the beans. Is Soy Milk Good for Men? An interesting question. But there are conflicting studies, apparently. Were the ones finding soy milk OK funded by soybean growers? I have no idea, but what if they had been? 

There are all kinds of political considerations, too. There is a cultural tendency, especially among some groups, to designate meat-heavy diets as bad for you, simply because they don't like meat. And results that fly in the face of that insistence will automatically raise their hackles.

The problem is that humans are a diverse lot. Even among fairly homogenous populations there are variations. My brother can't eat a lot of foods -- his body doesn't tolerate them. I can eat pretty much anything I want to. I can eat pretty spicy food -- but my wife is highly sensitive to capsaicin. I have read testimony from folks who tolerate a strict vegan diet quite well, while others who tried it long and hard ruined their health, sometimes permanently. 

What I don't want is someone telling me that I have to do what they do because of some supposed ethical position they have taken. Because I want what works for me. Including the personal ethics that I choose.

[Hamba Tuhan]

8 hours ago, poptart said:

What does your workout routine look like?  Do a lot of cardio?

Workout routine? If there is work that needs doing, I do it. This includes walking to/from my office most weekdays (2.4km return), housework, gardening on weekends, helping people move house, etc. I also enjoy doing things like walking, hiking, swimming, etc., whenever I can fit them in, but that's not work to me.

I could never quite grasp needing a routine to regularly burn off unneeded energy from having eaten too much food. I think our ancestors would be dumbfounded by such a situation. If I start to pack on kilos, I just adjust what I'm eating until intake/expenditure are back in balance. If I'm doing something intense like a multiday backpacking camp, I'll take a sufficient amount of food with me to fuel that.

Quote

When you're traveling/camping what does your meal intake look like?  

If I'm travelling, I tend to eat lunch on Saturdays. If I'm camping, for some reason, I like to have a small breakfast upon waking -- typically a bit of milk and cereal.

Edited November 19, 2021 by Hamba Tuhan

[Hamba Tuhan]

39 minutes ago, champatsch said:

Not so fast. This is up for debate.

Many things in the world are up for debate. For me personally, that is where revelation (such as the Word of Wisdom) steps in and takes over. But to each his/her own.