Active Low-Carber Forums
Atkins diet and low carb discussion provided free for information only, not as medical advice.
Home Plans Tips Recipes Tools Stories Studies Products
Active Low-Carber Forums
A sugar-free zone


Welcome to the Active Low-Carber Forums.
Support for Atkins diet, Protein Power, Neanderthin (Paleo Diet), CAD/CALP, Dr. Bernstein Diabetes Solution and any other healthy low-carb diet or plan, all are welcome in our lowcarb community. Forget starvation and fad diets -- join the healthy eating crowd! You may register by clicking here, it's free!

Go Back   Active Low-Carber Forums > Main Low-Carb Diets Forums & Support > Low-Carb Studies & Research / Media Watch > LC Research/Media
User Name
Password
Register FAQ Members Calendar Mark Forums Read Search Gallery My P.L.A.N. Survey


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #31   ^
Old Wed, Oct-11-17, 16:35
deirdra's Avatar
deirdra deirdra is online now
Senior Member
Posts: 3,757
 
Plan: HF/vLC/GF,CF,SF
Stats: 197/136/150 Female 66 inches
BF:
Progress: 130%
Location: Alberta
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by WereBear
I see it as more vegan BS. Which is virtually unlimited.
Vegans eat primarily livestock fodder, so it is no surprise they are full of BS.
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
  #32   ^
Old Wed, Oct-11-17, 21:22
Meme#1's Avatar
Meme#1 Meme#1 is online now
Posts: 8,126
 
Plan: Atkins DANDR
Stats: 210/183/160 Female 5'4"
BF:
Progress: 54%
Location: Texas
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by deirdra
Vegans eat primarily livestock fodder, so it is no surprise they are full of BS.


That's a good one Deirda!! LOL

I too always say that they eat livestock feed but the problem is they don't have 6 stomachs or chew their cud.
Reply With Quote
  #33   ^
Old Thu, Oct-12-17, 16:50
fred42 fred42 is offline
New Member
Posts: 4
 
Plan: Ketogenic
Stats: 260/220/220 Male 6' 4"
BF:
Progress: 100%
Location: Charlotte, NC
Default

A segment of the video below explains that it is the granola heads that have destroyed the environment. It made me rethink the intense conflict between the cattle ranchers and "sod busters" in the 1800's.

Skip to 42:54 for the environment part.

Dr. Gary Fettke: The Role of Nutrition in Everything

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_...1&v=ctkvriSwX8I
Reply With Quote
  #34   ^
Old Mon, Nov-13-17, 21:30
SabreCat50 SabreCat50 is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 134
 
Plan: modified Atkins
Stats: 220/188/170 Male 6 ft 1 in
BF:
Progress: 64%
Location: Oakland, Florida, USA
Default A follow up

I found this commentary on the site "Civil Eats". I think it is fairly balanced.

https://civileats.com/2017/11/13/is...ts-complicated/

Glenn now in Florida
Reply With Quote
  #35   ^
Old Tue, Nov-14-17, 07:11
inflammabl's Avatar
inflammabl inflammabl is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 1,856
 
Plan: Atkins
Stats: 296/220/205 Male 71 inches
BF:25%?
Progress: 84%
Location: Upstate South Carolina
Default

Quote:
https://civileats.com/2017/11/13/is...ts-complicated/
her team’s findings—and the accompanying assertion that reduced meat consumption is the only way for us to meet global climate goals—have nevertheless sparked strong responses, both positive and negative.

People get very upset when reality takes away their identity.
Reply With Quote
  #36   ^
Old Tue, Nov-14-17, 13:23
fred42 fred42 is offline
New Member
Posts: 4
 
Plan: Ketogenic
Stats: 260/220/220 Male 6' 4"
BF:
Progress: 100%
Location: Charlotte, NC
Default

Beyond the global warming issue, it is particularly sad that the sod busters have moved all of our nutrient-rich top soil into the ocean in an attempt to feed the world with grains. Good news for fertilizer manufacturers.
Reply With Quote
  #37   ^
Old Tue, Nov-14-17, 17:44
inflammabl's Avatar
inflammabl inflammabl is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 1,856
 
Plan: Atkins
Stats: 296/220/205 Male 71 inches
BF:25%?
Progress: 84%
Location: Upstate South Carolina
Default

You do realize of course that for every calorie of beef we eat 10 calories of grain must be grown? A vegie diet is much, much less damaging to the environment.
Reply With Quote
  #38   ^
Old Tue, Nov-14-17, 19:36
Zei Zei is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 1,241
 
Plan: Carb reduction in general
Stats: 230/213/180 Female 5 ft 9 in
BF:
Progress: 34%
Location: Texas
Default

So wouldn't that make one hundred percent grass fed beef more desirable than grain/corn fed? I've seen cattle grazing in places not suitable to grow grain or crops for human use.
Reply With Quote
  #39   ^
Old Wed, Nov-15-17, 06:30
inflammabl's Avatar
inflammabl inflammabl is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 1,856
 
Plan: Atkins
Stats: 296/220/205 Male 71 inches
BF:25%?
Progress: 84%
Location: Upstate South Carolina
Default

It's not clear to me that grass fed beef (GFB) consume that much less energy. Since GFB is more expensive, my educated guess is that there are hidden energy costs that add up to the GFB at least being the same, if not more, energy intensive.

In other words, there's no free lunch. (I crack myself up.)
Reply With Quote
  #40   ^
Old Wed, Nov-15-17, 07:46
GRB5111's Avatar
GRB5111 GRB5111 is offline
Posts: 2,003
 
Plan: Ketogenic (LCHFKD)
Stats: 227/186/185 Male 6' 0"
BF:
Progress: 98%
Location: Herndon, VA
Default

Agendas abound in this "discussion" that are driving recommendations that are not fully scientifically based whether it's dietary or climate. The argument will never be settled on either front until a coercive event occurs. In the dietary category, the ongoing epidemics should be a coercive event, but they're explained away by those with a different agenda. We may have a majority of "scientists" on either side who think it's no more than a voting matter. Very naive and harmful. If we think that the pure scientific method is still alive, embraced, and in practice, we are also very naive.

Last edited by GRB5111 : Wed, Nov-15-17 at 08:01.
Reply With Quote
  #41   ^
Old Wed, Nov-15-17, 09:23
teaser's Avatar
teaser teaser is online now
Senior Member
Posts: 11,652
 
Plan: ketosis/IF
Stats: 190/158/154 Male 67inches
BF:
Progress: 89%
Location: Ontario
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by inflammabl
It's not clear to me that grass fed beef (GFB) consume that much less energy. Since GFB is more expensive, my educated guess is that there are hidden energy costs that add up to the GFB at least being the same, if not more, energy intensive.

In other words, there's no free lunch. (I crack myself up.)


It might just come down to edible grass having less energy density per area than cattlefeed. So it's more land intensive. The question is, can enough beef be raised by grass-feed to constitute a very significant portion of the human diet? I think there's always a place for it, because there's always going to be some land that's most useful for grazing.
Reply With Quote
  #42   ^
Old Wed, Nov-15-17, 16:27
inflammabl's Avatar
inflammabl inflammabl is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 1,856
 
Plan: Atkins
Stats: 296/220/205 Male 71 inches
BF:25%?
Progress: 84%
Location: Upstate South Carolina
Default

Good point. Also pigs and chickens have a very low carbon impact when they eat farm scraps. Waste not, pollute not.

It's exactly those kind of "what if's" that make me just want to use the general rule of thumb that more expensive things take more energy to make. For instance to keep the land costs down, it may be that commercial GFB farmers use more farm hands. Farm hands mean more cars to get to and from work, energy intensive beef eaten on the side, more home heating and cooling, etc. etc. etc. Maybe they use oat straw in the winter and that means farm equipment to cut and bundle the straw.... and on and on and on...
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -6. The time now is 13:55.


Copyright © 2000-2018 Active Low-Carber Forums @ forum.lowcarber.org
Powered by: vBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.