Carnivore diet.

Status
Not open for further replies.

Donkey Boy

Active Member
Once the forests and the cows are gone I bet those areas are covered in housing, roads and factories.. much better than grazing land huh? Stop blaming farming and concentrate on over population.. and bad planning.
 

Donkey Boy

Active Member
Native people of North Central and South America had developed a vast range of foods before European arrival.. Without great devastation of their environments successfully. you can still enjoy those products thanks to them.. do you're research..
 
Last edited:

Chris Whitten

Silver Member
Native people of north central and South America had developed a vast range of foods before European arrival.. Without great devastation of their environments successfully.
100% agree. First Australians managed a harsh eco system for thousands of years until European settlement, now most of that environment is in dangerous decline.
 

Chris Whitten

Silver Member
First Australians are the Oldest Living Civilisation on the Planet and guess what? They eat meat..
Yeah, but in case you AREN'T keeping up..... I have not once asked anyone to NOT eat meat. :rolleyes:
I have repeatedly pointed back to traditional civilisations that were hunter gatherers and never ate meat three times a day, maybe not even three times a week. There is a huge range of 'bush tucker' comprising outback plants and trees. Yeah, they sustainably hunted wild Kangaroo, Wallaby, Goanna and even Oyster. It's both balanced and sustainable, that has always been my point.
 

Smoke

Silver Member
Farming isn't 'to blame'.
Massively increased meat eating certainly has a measurable impact on the climate and eco-systems.
Sames as with corn-based ethanol in E5 and E10 gasoline.

This guy makes a pretty good argument:

Makes me wonder about the efficacy of an EV.
 

GetAgrippa

Diamond Member
It's interesting that red meat/processed meats have a greater cancer risk than poultry or fish, but cardiovascular risk are all higher for all meats but fish. Because all fish and shellfish contain mercury I would expect that to impact fish cancer rates-since mercury is linked to cancer. In the US if you look at red meat consumption it's highest in African Americans, Hispanics, Whites, then other races lowest-however new cancers and cancer deaths are lower for hispanics than AA, or whites, which I wouldn't predict. However epidemiological studies find Latin American migrant cancer rates increase after entry into US (so either western diet or other environmental mutagens/cardiovascular factors). But studies based on "race category" are pretty meaningless in Americas since all populations are mixed ancestry European, African, Asian, native indigenous ancestries in both Latin America and US-various proportions so the race category has no bases-because there is no biologica/genetic race. Then too different nationalities have different gut microbiome that has impacts on various diseases.
There are so many confounding factors in associations with disease beside diet (it depended on gender in some studies -water and air quality, poverty has a strong link with health (but that linked to diet, smoking, drinking, etc), alcohol consumption, cultural behavioral like vaccine hesitancy , whether you live rural or city, gut microbiomes differ in different population (gut microbiome high association in disease now), cancer isn't a genetic disease but certain mutations do increase risks-like BRAC in breast cancers, and genetic links to heart disease well known, obesity increases risk for diabetes, heart disease, and cancer. As a hard science fellow I want to know the mechanism by which red meats are detrimental. There are lots of in vitro studies but those don't emulate the human body physiology/metabolism interactions. Processed I get with nitrite preservatives but red meat doesn't need preservatives for negative effects, lots of hypotheses like nitroso-compounds, heme-iron, lipid oxidation, inflammatory agents, but as yet no clear mechanism of why red meats are so bad. I think metabolomics studies can likely clear up things and bring image into focus. The blood/heme thing interesting because the Abrahamic religions always forbade blood consumption.

It's interesting from evolutionary biologist perspective early farmers had poorer health than neolithic hunter-gatherers (even today modern hunter-gatherers have better health too) as well as smaller stature yet now vegan diets appear most healthy-likely from all anti-oxidant polyphenols,and phytochemicals that help reduce inflammation-inflammation seems key to all disease more and more (one reason I take boron supplements). It is known that the Out of Africa immigrants were impacted by their environment and diets-just like humans evolved to higher altitude conditions-so because of geographical isolation did grow trait differences-however humans have always migrated in and out of Africa and all continents so our genes have traveled the globe. So there are rare allele differences, SNP, and polymorphic genetic differences per population but also per person. Not race-but ancestral from mixing of migrant genes.

A lot of health differences in US are exercise and diet related-sugary drinks, lots of processed foods that don't need processing, sedentary lifestyle, but there is a big socioeconomic/education effect wealthier more educated have better health-and diets, Ironically poverty associates with obesity in US-and obesity itself kills people globally (obesity is classified as a disease with it's own death rates separate from cardiovascular, diabetes or cancer), I was working on a book about health disparities in US so I accumulated a lot of back ground research for it. To be clear farming/ranching are both strongly linked to climate change-so just farming itself with no cattle still impacts the climate adversely Personally I don't think we should have gone the path of communal water, waste, power, food production but humans should have adopted living, food, water, etc like little space stations self-sufficient. Conserved resources and reduce risk from communal issues.

So many of our problems arise from higher populations center and behaviors-just living in a big city impacts your health risks-they tend to eat more processed foods, closer contact to spread communicable disease, etc. All diseases are mulitvariant so clear associations with all kinds of factors besides diet are in literature. I thought all the keto diets completely insane when that first started-completely against everything I learned in physiology/metabolism-all the protein load on kidneys should cause glomerular hypertension. Going into ketosis is bad. There was another female grad student in lab I worked on PhD and I berated her to no end for stating her keto diet-basically called her crazy, ignorant and should be kicked out of department (yeah I was young and standing on science had to be right). Yet I read how they are using Ketogenic diets for cancer patients-which I would have thought just the opposite. You can easily get lost in all the various paths because there is no hierarchy in risks-like there is a heirarchy in viral infection prevention of most statistical benefit from social distancing, then personal hygiene and mask always lowest in protection-but none of that with heart disease or cancer-like how much does sedentary lifestyle play, diet, alcohol consumption, what about gut-microbiome or oral health-both play role in disease. -and how much is genetic. Like height has predominately a genetic component (something like 70-80%)and environment/diet much less effect. But in any case enough time-enough studies-hopefully things will come into focus. The one size fits all strategy always give me a knee-jerk negative reaction-because that just isn't what you see in nature. The carnivore diet does seem to benefit people with autoimmune diseases-something that runs rampant in my family-my grandfather, Mom, and sister. So I may mention that to my sister.
 

GetAgrippa

Diamond Member
Hunter-gatherers did consume lots of meat-how do you think wooly mammoths went extinct as well as other megafauna-but they also did have a varied diet in vegetation also-more varied than farmers. It is generally agreed humans hunted megafauna to extinction, and that changed human diets to go after other game and vegetation-like it was hunter-gatherers loss of food that drove them to adopt farming in Fertile Crescent/Levant.

And farming independent of cattle cause climate change. It alter hydrological, nitrogen, phosphorus, and carbon cycles. Use of nitrogen fertilizers produce nitrous oxide and 60% of all nitrous oxide production. "The world’s agricultural sector, land management and clearing related to agriculture, accounts for about one fifth of total greenhouse gases. That’s more than all of the world’s cars, planes, and trains combined. Emissions from agriculture and deforestation are three times greater than emissions from the global building sector, and equal to all industrial emissions. In fact, energy production is the only sector that has a higher share of emissions (37 percent). " Basically all of human behaviors can be linked to climate change since it's "MAN-MADE".
 
Last edited:

Smoke

Silver Member
I wish solar and wind energy could supply all our energy needs, but I don't think the two are capable. Sun only shines an average of 12 hours a day and the wind is unpredictable. We'll need better energy storage - sand batteries may help. Wind farms and solar farms are just plain ugly, even though they help. Might have to start looking at power generation from tidal energy, though that has its drawbacks too. No easy answers, but we have to do something. I do my little part by reducing consumption and waste.
 

cbphoto

Diamond Member
“Solar power is a Gigawatt per square km! All you need is a 100 by 100-mile patch in a deserted corner of Arizona, Texas or Utah (or anywhere) to more than power the entire USA.”
~ Elon Musk
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top