> Cropland in perennial forages included hay crops and grazing on land which could be cropped but is used for pasture.
A: Perennial cropland is used as pasture for animal agriculture.
> Perennial cropland requirements were zero in the vegan diet.
B: Vegans don't require pastures for animal agriculture.
> The ovolacto- and lacto-vegetarian diets used about half of the cropland restricted to perennial forages, while the vegan diet used none of the restricted cropland.
C: Therefore the vegan diet wouldn't have any use for perennial cropland.
This would be true if perennial crops for humans didn't exist, but that's just not true. For example, we can grow perennial sunflower (!), grain (!!) and rice (!!!): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perennial_crop#Example_crops
Tom et al. (2015) [1] also show that in the US the switch to a vegan diet would be less efficient. But it's natural, from an economic perspective, that existing processes are optimized for efficiency and low costs and given the high demand for vegetables and fruits there would obviously be a huge incentive to optimize the production processes and lower the prices.
Vanham et al. (2013) [2,3] show that EU would benefit from a vegan diet when it comes to water usage.
Overall, it's quite obvious that the medical costs of today are extremely large mostly due to overconsumption of animal products. It is unfortunate that they can be easily overconsumed and thus cause health issues. Diet that includes animals is much more destructive when it comes to dead ocean zones, rainforest destruction, species extinction and water pollution, being the biggest factor in mentioned issues.
[1]: Energy use, blue water footprint, and greenhouse gas emissions for current food consumption patterns and dietary recommendations in the US http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10669-015-9577-y
[2]: The water footprint of the EU for different diets http://temp.waterfootprint.org/Reports/Vanham-Bidoglio-2014....
[3]: Potential water saving through changes in European diets http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160412013...
Whoa there, you have no evidence for that claim. The medical impacts of sugar and corn syrup for example have been a disaster. Probably more so than excessive meat. You can't single-out meat, Americans overconsume everything.
Robert Lustig's bitter truth is a complete lie.
Fact-checking bunch of his "extraordinary" statements, like those about Japanese not consuming fructose, and similar, points that he has an agenda to share.
well, I'll leave then :(
3500kcal per person per day 150kg of meat per person per year (compared to chinese of 60kg, or world average of 40kg).
overconsumption is the word. there was not a hint of criticism of meat being "unhealthy" -- it was mentioned in the frame of overconsumption.
as I've said before, problem is overconsumption of everything and animal products take a huge part of that 3500kcal intake.
reducing intake of calorically dense foods is a good step towards battling the rise of killer diseases since most of them are obviously caused by unhealthy lifestyle.
If the average American counted everything they put in their mouth for two weeks, they would be surprised as I was when I did it.
I am from Brooklyn, and grew up and lived their and in Manhattan until my thirties. I was raised on a typical meat and potatoes, with the occasional over-cooked vegetable (no salads) diet.
I remained at +195 lbs and 19 to 22% body fat even when active. I had thought I had cut my caloric consumption down, but when I really counted it for two weeks, I was consuming 2500 to 3000 calories per day. The only reason I was not too obese was that I was very active. I was not a soda drinker or a fast food person. I did like my eggs and cheeses, and pizza, and burritos with cheese and sour cream. My cholesterol levels were very high, and my sugars were out of whack even if I looked healthy to my American friends, but fat to my SE Asian peers.
I have been living in SE Asia for 8 years now. For the last year, I have been living in the rice fields of East Java. Food, rice and fruits, are not transported, they are within reach of my doorstep. One of the benefits of locally-grown produce. This is why I think city rooftop gardens, hydroponics, and other tech will ameliorate some of the energy use in food transport.
I went vegetarian, and then vegan, almost 3 years ago. My weight has stabilized at 178 lbs at 14% body fat. My blood work was all good last I checked. I feel healthier and stronger. I still bench 190 lbs. which is 18 lbs over my bodyweight now, and was under my bodyweight before, so yes, I am stronger by that comparison. I can run further with less fatigue, and do more pullups. I make it a habit to not sit for extended periods (read standing up, squatting Asian-style with heels on the floor, or reclined on the floor).
My Mom always pushed for good posture. She would turn in her grave at all of the youngsters with craned heads down peering at their phones ;) That and shoulders back, and no slouching!
I think that genetics plays a role in some people's weight issues, but after having my own, and listening and watching my peers, a LOT is just diet. It has even been proven that exercise only 'polishes' off the last 10% or so. It is diet that has the largest effect. I still like exercise for the other benefits it has in reducing stress, helping me to sleep better, and maintaining or building bone, joint and muscle strength.
The vegan curve never flattens out, because it is entirely dependent on cultivated cropland, unlike the other diets:
https://images.elementascience.org/611000.elementa.f005.PNG_...