glastra
Maybe it is an excerpt of the first manuscript of the book.
Other than that, I find the concept very interesting, but quite intuitive too.
However, its effects on global warming are greatly exaggerated by environmentalists and/or those with vegan ideologies.
In my opinion, focus should definitely not be on meat consumption.
Anyway, as a disclaimer, I follow a carnivore diet consisting of only animal products. You can expect me to be heavily biased.
I'm all for removing subsidies to monoculture agriculture.
Regarding deforestation and so on, I think we must also take into account that "industrialized" non-pastured husbandry (is that the correct term?) is probably cheaper and easier than the greener alternative.
Sadly, it's usually a matter of profits and not a matter of environmental friendliness.
What I meant is that methane is known to have a bigger heating effect than other greenhouse gases, like x28 that of CO2 if I recall correctly. This is used as part of the anti-ruminant argument, when comparing the effect of methane expelled by animals to the rest of greenhouse gas emissions.
However, if you take into account the reduced lifespan, that 28-time increase is definitely less relevant.
There are, as far as I know, regions where the soil is only capable of growing pasture, hard to plant trees in.
And it's not nearly as dangerous as publicized.
Methane's lifespan in the atmosphere is much, much lower (think two orders of magnitude) than carbon dioxide [0], for example.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agricultural_subsidy#United_St...
When talking about meat and damage to the environment, the only relevant figures are the ones associated with animal feed (e.g. water consumption per kg of meat).
Pastured animals, by definition, don't eat feed coming from the monoculture industrial agriculture that is depleting the soil and consuming all those resources, and which is also used to feed humans, sadly.
GMOs would be used here to limit the amount of energy derived (carbohydrate) with regards to nutrient density.
Also, for what it's worth, part of the plant biomass used to feed livestock is inedible by humans (think cellulose).
Also, can you please address the other points in my previous comment?
Feel free to reply to any of my other comments in the thread if we have reached maximum depth.
A single potato with skin has 6 grams of fiber and around 60 grams of starch.
As for the vitamins and minerals, the only thing found in a relevant amount in potatoes is potassium. Contrast this with eggs, organ meat or even muscle meat.
What would you say is the problem with saturated fat?
Also, out of curiosity, are you vegan?
Even though I have no children, I can try to imagine what it feels like.
My paternal grandfather died of complications from uncontrolled, insulin-dependent type 2 diabetes. He spent his last years half-blind, unable to move, filled with ulcers and missing several toes.
My father has been hovering around the prediabetic range for many years now, and I live a 5-hour drive away from him. Effectively, he is like a child, with no knowledge of nutrition or metabolism, trying to find his way in a world dominated by a food industry that doesn't have public health anywhere in its objectives.
But it's not just the food industry, although they might have the monopoly of malice in this context. Guess what the diet prescribed by his primary care provider looked like once he was deemed prediabetic. Motherfucking biscuits for breakfast, pasta or rice with lean meat, sugar-laden fruit juice... but counting calories! Exactly the opposite of what I have finally convinced him to eat by chipping away on every holiday visit. He's not exactly following a ketogenic diet, but at least he is starting to figure out what sugar, starch and seed oils do to people, and how the blame was shifted onto the wrong substances (saturated fat and salt, basically). He is even giving intermittent fasting a go!
It's hard when you know that the potential suffering of a loved one is perfectly avoidable with just the right pieces of information.
As you might have guessed, having type 2 diabetes in my immediate ancestry (also in my maternal family) was one of the reasons that led me down the rabbit hole. I now treat nutrition and its effect on health and metabolism sort of like a hobby. I guess there is a component of biohacking in there as well.
Bad example, to be honest. In fact, liver cancer can be directly attributed to drinking.
A life expectancy of 70 years under such conditions is actually astonishing.
[0]: https://www.who.int/tobacco/media/en/Mongolia.pdf
[1]: https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=112485...
What I meant by "modern diseases" in my comment is a group of non-communicable diseases or so-called "diseases of civilization".
"Diet-related" is rather ambiguous, so different lines might be drawn there. As an example, would you say Alzheimer's is a diet-related disease? What about melanoma and/or sunburn?
I don't usually express my opinions on nutrition, metabolism and/or health in general in the open, because I know they go against what is currently mainstream and they would be met (as elsewhere in this submission) with extreme resistance. I can't blame the others, though, as I once was in their same position and know how it feels when deeply ingrained ideas are challenged from the outside.
I have learned to live without the need to be "right", or to educate others when they don't want to be. It is enough for me to apply what knowledge and intuition I have gained over the last years for my own health and well-being. If, at some point, someone wants me to share that knowledge, then I will gladly do it.
Regarding the mechanism of atheroma formation, I don't have a list of references handy, but maybe this is a good start: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3152836/
Also of interest would be the role of high insulin and/or glucose and the damage they can cause to the arterial walls (inflammation is a necessary condition in the formation of atheroma).
"Plaque" and "atheroma" are synonyms in the context of cardiovascular health.
Also, both quotes together go to show the ongoing misconception. Nowhere in the first quote are macrophages and other WBCs mentioned (but they are in the second, luckily). I guess this is what happens when you use quotes from different sources, too.
The hardening in atherosclerosis is caused directly and exclusively by atheroma.
Domestic cats are at risk, but that is more a result of domestication and improper feeding (carbohydrate) than evolution or genetics. Unless I am missing something, of course! Care to elaborate?
What a way to start an article in a website with "science" in its name.
Atheroma is an accumulation of white blood cells. White. Blood. Cells. Not fat.
"Meat bad, saturated fat bad, eat your necessarily fortified grains and heart-healthy industrially extracted seed oils."
I suggest you resubmit this as a "Show HN" post. You can read more at https://news.ycombinator.com/showhn.html