Mon, Jul-30-18, 18:54
|
Senior Member
Posts: 6,498
|
|
Plan: VLC, mostly meat
Stats: 202/200/165
BF:
Progress: 5%
Location: Montreal, Quebec, Canada
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by WereBear
The dirty secret of vegans is that they do eat meat. They just keep it a secret.
|
I'm with you on that for sure. But this guy, he's lying right to our faces like this:
Quote:
“I don’t eat meat, but I don’t consider myself a vegetarian [because in fact I eat meat, see below],” Mr. McKelvey said.
...
In time, he said, the company will evaluate its consumption of seafood (that's meat, it sure ain't veggies), eggs (that's meat, it sure ain't veggies), dairy (that's meat too, cuz the cows eventually go to slaughter, a vegetarian argument in fact) and alcohol.
|
I bet he doesn't even understand he's lying, could be his ideals get in the way.
I'm not sure how I feel about what I'm about to say next. Does Marion advocate low-carb?
Quote:
“Animals have a place in the human diet,” said Marion Nestle, professor of nutrition, food studies and public health at New York University. “There’s plenty of evidence that eating less meat is good for one’s health and the planet. But to abolish it completely sounds ideological.”
|
There is in fact exactly zero such evidence. The best evidence ever regarding meat consumption (or consumption of any food bar none - no equivalent veggie experiment for example) actually says:
Quote:
(from CLINICAL CALORIMETRY.
XLV. PROLONGED MEAT DIETS WITH A STUDY OF KIDNEY
FUNCTION AND KETOSIS.)
11. In these trained subjects, the clinical observations and
laboratory studies gave no evidence that any ill effects had
occurred from the prolonged use of the exclusive meat diet.
|
For the planet, we got some pretty good stuff from Alan Savory. Reforestation, increased soil quality, increased local fauna and flaura, etc. For production, increased crop yield, increased crop quality, better animal health, larger herd support per area. But of course, the bulk of meat production ain't like that. Well, how about the veggie nuts argue that instead?
This next is a bit sideways. I used to think about mono-crops, now something just occurred to me. Ima call it polar crops, i.e. either only animals or only plants. We use the land for either or, never both. Either way, the land slowly dies cuz it's missing the counterpart of a symbiotic relationship between the plants and the animals that eat them. Doesn't sound too symbiotic to get eaten, right? But in fact the plants need the animals' crap. Whatever.
|