I'm very disciplined in that I primarily eat vegetarian animals with the obvious exception of wild fish and free-range chickens. So, I do benefit from a vegetarian lifestyle.

Me too, the nice fatty steaks I eat are definitely vegetarian! :lol:

Most non- vegetarian animal meats are too gamey. DH and I discussed this as we contemplated a ground hog..... a vegetarian, but apparently DH says is not tastey. I can think of a few animals not taken for the meat.

I was looking at a huge mount someone had it was a large deer of some type not native but exotic ranch raised I suppose, but they butchered it and said it was horrible, tasted like muddy water because this particular deer spends a lot of time in the water. She said they had to use it for dog food...

Poor dogs . . .

Lol, dogs would love that.

We tried lake mussles a couple years ago when the water was dropped the lowest in my mothers lifetime. HORRIBLE Tossed to dogs.

Apparently a local critter likes them and their collection of empty shells told me to look for the bivalve.

We only collect mussles from the ocean now.

.
I looked at a bag of Iiams I bought the other day and saw that it's made in Mylasia, God only knows what's in that stuff....I just hope it was vegetarian :lol:

The taste of squirrel is steeped with acorn tannins, which is why we don't see squirrel in the deli case :lol:

That is the idea of feeding certain things to the animals one is going to eat, like Japanese Wagu beef. I prefer (budget willing) my beef grass-fed because that is what cows are adapted to eat. I have reached the point where I can tell the taste difference, and there are local outlets where hamburger, for instance, is comparable to a better cut of grain-fed beef.

But the hamburger tastes better. It's more versatile. And satisfying, which must be factored into the equation. I can eat half-a-pound of beef or pork that way, for less than the cost of a fancy health food frozen meal. And those were often so unsatisfying I would sometimes eat two.

People who experience better food will crave better food. I'm not that gifted a chef, but my cooking skills have improved to the point where my good ingredients taste fantastic. I have far less problem passing up the junk those around me consider food when I know I have an actual gourmet meal available at home.

Keto dieters who fuel up on bacon and butter are 'irresponsible' stewards of the planet, a Harvard nutrition expert says


https://www.businessinsider.com/ket...019-8?r=US&IR=T

ummm, this person knows nothing about food production.....

Quite a few years ago, I read a book that proposed that the reason humans got our huge, advanced brains was that we learned how to cook meat, and the protein became more available to us.

True or not, I don't know. The book was convincing, but I'm sure a book on vegetarians could be convincing.

But look at the intelligence of meat eaters to herbivores. Do they say as sly as a cow? As smart as a sheep?

Humans have been eating meat longer than we have been homo sapiens, so don't let them take that away from us.

Bob

My italics. Because I don't think so. Vegan advocates tend to reach way back and speculate on history and anthropology, OR cite recent, suspect, research.

I don't think the giant protein brain theory was ever debunked or discredited. Vegans and their paid shills simply ignore facts.

Bob, I too have heard that theory. Seems cooking meat goes hand in hand with brain structure.

Sauting veggies also improves nutrient availabilty. ( grin)

These days I try to gulp a dose of Braggs ACV with meals, to help increase stomach acid for meat digestion. And limit water for two hours post eating. Seems some of us are predisposed to poor levels of stomach acid.....a new to me idea that I picked up somewhere. Genetically based.

And more stews to breakdown the meats before consumming.

A course of Betaine HCL retrained my stomach to handle real food. Now DH is doing it, per Dr. Myhill's CFS/ME protocol.

Re: Keto dieters who fuel up on bacon and butter are 'irresponsible' stewards of the planet..."

I read thru the article till I was stopped cold by this quote given in support of the proposition that eating beef is "irresponsible." I've seen that statistic quoted numerous times although never with any attribution as to WHO made the determination or how they arrived at that number.

This time I decided to do a little math of my own. First, let's assume that the quoted statistic is absolutely accurate...

According to Hedges & Company (which pulled the data from vehicle owner databases), there were 276.1 MILLION registered vehicles in the U.S. in 2018. That is 276,100,000 vehicles.

That means that If EVERYONE in the U.S. stopped eating beef tomorrow, the impact on the environment would be like removing one car out of every 4602 cars currently on the road. (276,100,000 divided by 60,000 = 4601.6666. I rounded to 4602.)


But the environment only gets that much benefit if every single beef-eater in the U.S. complete quits eating beef.

Next time you're in a traffic jam with 4601 other vehicles blocking your way, just think how much easier it would be to get across town if you could magically remove ONE of those 4601 vehicles so that there were only 4600 other vehicles jamming your way.

That's how much better off the environment would be if ALL beef eaters stopped eating beef.

If only half of beef eaters can be convinced into giving up beef, the environmental impact will be only half as large. Instead of removing one car out of every 4601.7, it would be like removing one car out of every 9203.4 of the ones currently on the road.

But HEY, as Dr. Walter Willett says in the article, And, if THAT logic won't make your give up your hamburgers and steaks in favor of making the environment cleaner, well, you're just utterly IRRESPONSIBLE and selfish. "You oughta be ashamed of yourself! You...you... you meat-eater you..." I can just hear Dr. Walter Willett sputtering in indignation! :lol: