• Scientists reveal 'ideal diet' for peoples' and planet's health
    92 replies, posted
I don't want to cut meat out of my diet because I enjoy the way it tastes more than I enjoy the tastes of other foods. that's the long, short, and skinny of it. I eat what tastes good to me, and that's pretty much meat and pasta. I fully acknowledge it isn't a healthy diet but I don't really care, I'd rather enjoy a short life than live a long and miserable one.
This is dumb for the same reason as my earlier post, though - you're completely unwilling to make even the slightest noticeable change that could be perceived as being negative, and then complaining when other people do the same. The environment isn't going to shit because people want it to, but because most people are unwilling to change what's perceived as good for them, since abusing the environment is the path of least resistance to what you want. Rainforests are getting cleared at an alarming rate, but that's because lol resources and lol land for farming. Pollutants get chucked out at an alarming rate because it requires some effort and investment to do otherwise. People are chasing what benefits them with this exact selfish attitude, be it for money, convenience, or enjoyment. If you agree that you are the problem here, and are complicit with all the environmental problems, and that you're fine with that, then hey, I don't really have much more to say. Sure, you're less to blame than someone who has power in a company to order some beneficial change at the cost of profits or whatever, but you still have some blame.
I mean you aren't going to have a wildlife for very much longer sadly
Absolutely good questions. If a totalitarian, environmentally-friendly world government or an alien invasion are among some of the realistic possible fixes for saving the planet's environment, then it's not looking good at all. I would call you a cynic if I weren't one myself but it's still sad though, if the scientists are right about their certain predictions. It's almost like the five stages of death when it comes down to environmental concerns, where people respond to it with either denial, anger, bargaining, depression or acceptance.
as in palm trees
I most certainly am. I'm 100% apathetic to the whole problem. I acknowledge it exists, why it exists, I accept that it's happening and all that jazz, even that I'm contributing a pissant fraction of a percent to it...but I just don't care. It doesn't bother me in the slightest. Expecting people like that to do an abrupt 180º on their choice in hobbies, autos, and how they manage my resources, diet, et-al based on little more than 'think of the poor penguins' or 'think of our children' is akin to expecting a Vegas slot machine to print a bank-breaking jackpot on the first pull. Sure it's possible, but the chances are so astronomical that you're better off trying to sweeten the deal somehow. So if you want them to change their lifestyle that drastically to try to remedy a global problem that they just don't have any concern about, you're gonna have to offer some concessions as well. And don't act too shocked if those concessions aren't enough, either, or if they make totally unreasonable demands/outright refuse to negotiate. Stubbornness varies person to person and some will be much easier than others to convince. And I'm hardly alone in that regard. I'd almost be willing to bet real money most of the people saying 'Well I don't want to change unless someone else changes' actually feel the same way I do and just don't want to come off as an uncaring asshole about it, so they pass the buck, make it seem like they do care and just don't want to be the only one trying in an ultimately futile attempt. IT's a way to show they care and want to do the thing without actually caring and without actually doing the thing. They'd likely just move the goalposts again if everyone else started trying.
It's not a 180 degree turn. I had the same mentality until I actually changed my diet (a few weeks ago actually), which is something that can be done slowly. We get that you don't care, but that's not an acceptable position on the matter. Don't you feel like we're all supposed to chip in for the sake of the society we live in? We're all in this together, so your actions and mentality (more specifically, what you express outward by typing up that post or using whatever else to let people know about your stance on things) affect other people. How you're affecting us with your posts right now is letting us know you think it's okay to not give a shit. You are aware of global sustainability problems, so you could at least show support for the changes we'll have to commit to eventually while still eating meat.
I don’t believe there is any excuse for not cutting meat consumption. You don’t have to cut meat completely out of your diet; start by limiting yourself to eating meat just 1 time per day. Have cereal or toast for breakfast, and if you do have time to eat lunch, try a vegetarian wrap. It’s incredibly easy to do, and you’ll probably save both time and money in the process But the most important thing is to minimise consumption of red meat. Continue eating pasta if you wish, just substitute beef mince with beans and lentils. Works a treat for me. But do treat yourself to red meat every now and then, if you insist. And if you are eating red meat only once per week or less, youll probably enjoy it more than if you are used to eating red meat 1-3 times per day.
That's a stupid belief to have. Eating less meat + coal plants being built still yields better results that still eating shittons of meat + coal plants being built. There's no cabal of illuminati watching your every move and going "look, GHOST!!! has changed his diet! Better burn some extra coal to compensate". Nothing negates the good you can make. The only thing that does is you not doing it in the first place.
Not speaking about any particular people here, but it is unfortunate that there are many people out there who want the government to somehow magically fix climate change and overconsumption, although they themselves refuse to take any self-responsibility, and refuse to change their ways. There is a role for government and industry to play, absolutely. But there is a role for people to play too. It is people who use too much electricity and create the demand for power plants. It is people who can’t stop themselves from eating red meat, who create the demand for cattle and the associated carbon footprint.
Sorry, Friday night drinks Why not? Our bodies are all very similar and we all require the same blend of nutrients. Diets only need to differ on the basis of allergy/intolerance/condition. Keto is just fad shit, a useful diet to treat seizures which has now been adopted by some to lose weight (while also increasing their cholestoral levels substantially). Obviously if you're fat from eating processed foods and added sugars and you cut it out of your diet, you're going to lose weight. That's all it is. There's no keto magic. If people did the keto diet but still ate a normal amount of wholegrains like wholemeal bread, brown rice, quinoa (obviously still cutting out white grains) they would be fine. The average western diet is too high in protein and saturated fats and too low in fibre, and its resulted in above average levels of cholesterol. I doubt many people even get their cholestoral levels checked so they don't even know this. Eating more meat and less whole grains will obviously make this worse. Just look at developing countries, they're getting fatter with the introduction of processed foods and added sugar, not from suddenly eating more grains. Wholegrains have become the scapegoat for a much larger problem, but I think people will start to realise the importance of fibre in a diet and the keto fad will be over. Even lately I've been noticing more articles talking about the benefits of diet and how we should be eating a lot more (I personally eat a fuckton of fibre on a vegan diet, it actually took a couple weeks for my body to adjust to the increase in fibre. I clearly wasn't eating enough because I had too much meat on my plate even though I already ate a lot of veggies and grains). I'm not saying go vegan, I'm saying don't go the other way and go keto cause it's total bullshit.
I mean the rich aren’t going to change their diets so while we’re all eating for the planet, a not insignificant portion of our population won’t see any change to their life style and I do really believe that’ll effect the likelihood of society as a whole rejecting meat.
@HumanAbyss Congrats on the weight loss, really. That's a massive achievement and I definitely understand it would have taken a lot of effort. I understand you're very pro-keto because you have first hand experience with it, but you have to reflect on your experience and look at the other factors. You had 40 kg to lose, so something made you fat in the first place and I doubt it was the consumption of a moderate amount of whole grains and a healthy diet. and I doubt that cutting this out was the main reason for your big weight loss. But I'm not going to make any more assumptions as I obviously don't know your life. I'm also not trying to say we should have grain centred meals, just a nice blend. If anything, have a vege centred meal with it making up a minimum 50% of your plate. I think grains only make up about 25% of my own diet tbh.
can i keep eating ice
What we call "the rich" by western standards make up much less than 1% of the global population. I wouldn't call that "a not insignificant portion of our population". Society not cutting down on meat because of them would be even more retarded than refusing to do it because "coal power plants". I also don't see what that has to do with my point you quoted.
the core selling point of keto diets and the one still widely propagated by its fanatics (and they absolutely are fanatics) is that there is a metabolic "advantage" to ketogenic diets. This has repeatedly be shown to be false (e.g that when compared calorie for calorie, and controlling for actual fat loss as opposed to gross weight loss - since ketogenic diets often induce rapid initial "weight loss" due to the depletion of glycogen reserves in the liver and muscles - ketogenic diets have no advantage over non ketogenic diets, and in some studies comparing against very low fat diets they actually performed slightly worse for fat loss) in metabolic ward studies (the gold standard for avoiding peoples self delusion and manipulative behaviour) so that part is absolutely snake oil. This does not of course, mean it is completely worthless, the most important part of long term results is adherence and if a person finds it easier to adhere to a ketogenic diet then bully for them, they should keep doing it and you seem to be one of those individuals. No one should be under any illusions however - all diets, all of them, every single one of them, work by reducing caloric intake. When people stop believing this and start doing dumb shit like 2000 calorie "zero carb" desserts of bacon bits in whipped cream and zero carb ice cream, well.... thats why theres so many people on keto communities who are still fat or chubby 5 years later. In fact, thats every sort of diet related community ever. I have concerns about long term use of a ketogenic diet and the potential of inducing insulin resistance due to the very high fat content of the diet. AFAIK currently, that has only been demonstrated in rats and mice, which of course are not humans but the keto community needs to stop pretending that doctors and dietitians are simply ignorant and dont have valid concerns about people, especially elderly people, willy nilly adopting a high fat diet.
Isn't this the same as the people saying "oh, you gotta eat every three hours to keep your metabolism activated"? I think the problem is people don't really have goals. They just say "Oh I wanna lose weight". But maybe they need to balance a diet around their livers, kidneys, or bones. Overall people should just go to their doctors more often.
There are plenty of doctors and dieticiens looking into the diet, which previously was not well understood. More and more research is coming out as we discover that much of our previous knowledge was based on ideologically driven beliefs about what worked, or didn't. See the sugar vs fat trials of the mid 70's. I'm reading through this study here; https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4962163/ at the moment and it doesn't pose the same flatly "snake oil" view you do. One metabolic ward study a field does not make.
Not to mention its headed by Kevin Hall.... talk about bias
I find it really strange how defensive people are when it comes to the idea of even just reducing meat consumption. How on earth is something as mundane as a type of food you consume such a significant and important part of your life? Not trying to sound harsh, and of course I enjoy good food like everyone else, but it just doesn't seem like such a big deal to me to change things around a bit? Even if in the grand scheme of things you barely have an impact on helping the environment by changing your diet, it doesn't seem like a very intrusive thing to just do anyway.
My point is literally just "Not all diets are equal for all people", someone mentioned Keto is total bullshit along the same lines as Paleo, that's highly debatable. Personally, I support reducing meat consumption, and do so in my own life. That's not my arguement or problem here. We saw in the 70's the ease at which the story around what foods are okay for you are manipulated creating the "anti fat" environment in which we saw the largest raise of obesity in our history. It seems to be the same ease people are handwaving away different dietary practices.
Ya me. I honestly don't see the difference between the two apart from the reasons why the foods are consumed. To me the means don't matter since the same food restrictions apply, paleo people are just way more crazy. Yes you will lose weight on the paleo diet because you're cutting out bad foods, just like any other diet, but it pushes a false narrative that a moderate amount of wholegrains are bad. The largest rate of obesity is obviously from the rise of fast food and processed foods, as is currently seen in developing countries. How is keto better at reducing your intake of those foods vs just not eating them? Is it the lack of a catchy name?
I'm not an expert on paleo, I think it's bullshit. With that said, Paleo and keto literally have nothing in common. Paleo is about eating a "Paleolithic" style diet, because that's what our guts and bodies evolved to eat. This means minimizing any grains or farmed foods, and relying on nuts, berries, fruits, veggies and meat sources that are related to our evolution. It's bullshit because it fails to take into account the value foods like bread had to us historically, allowing society's to function at that time. Keto is, and again I'm not an expert, about consuming a diet that activates your keytones as your primary source of fuel, over carbohydrates. It does this by inundating the body with fatty foods that keytones break down for energy, this is a massively simplified version of it, but the latest versions of keto macro nutrients to come out don't require you eating ANYTHING resembling a standard Paleo diet. Like, I have no problem with you disputing, or disagreeing with Keto diets, but the fact that you think Keto and Paleo are basically the same thing, and speak about it like you ARE an expert on either of them is one of the biggest annoyances I have with discussing these things. Why do you feign expertise on something that the basics of elude you? Why? What's the fucking point?
Woah ok. Fine fine they're different. I think I understand what you're getting caught up on here so I'll explain what I mean when I say they're both bullshit. Yes the thought behind paleo is incorrect because what they claim is completely false. Keto is true with what it says it does, but it's bullshit because the answer to weight-loss and health isn't cutting out grains and increasing fats, it's cutting out added sugars and processed foods. Which it is conveniently and correctly doing anyway so yay results. Which brings me to the second part of my post which you didn't answer. How is it different to just cutting out processed foods and added sugars? You actually have a belief that prioritising fats over grains is better for health? Because that's what I'm calling out as bullshit.
Processed food is bad for you. We're in agreement there. I cut out grains, and I didn't cut out fat. I cut out sugars, and I cut out most simple carbs. I only ate complex carbs, fat, and protein for the majority of two years. I occasionally ate really shitty food, and found personally, I lost weight better than I had before. My weight loss has taken me, no joke, 10 years to fulfill. I tried diets like you suggest, grain heavy, no sugars, no processed foods, and do you want to know something I'm 100% sure you'll reject? I didn't make any progress. I gained weight, and I was calorie counting at that time, and still found it entirely impossible to lose any weight, what so ever. So when I turned 23, and moved out on my own, I changed my diet radically. I cut out all grains, all added sugars, and ate vegetables, fruits, and meat, occasionally eating nuts. 2 years later I'd lost 100 lbs to be where I'm at now. I find it personally, extremely hard to believe that "One size fits all" with diets because I was driven to experiment with many different supposedly fantastic "Fat killing" diets that never helped me personally. I never speak about nutrition from a "Generalized" standpoint because between myself, and a few other friends, I can tell you we have different reactions to different foods in fairly meaningful ways. Now, earlier the word "Cholesterol" was thrown around. Cholesterol is vital to your health. There are good, and bad, forms of cholestorol and seeking to minimize cholestorol entirely is bad for you, and leads to major endocrine system imbalances. Your hormones are literally constructed from fat, so you must eat fats to maintain a healthy hormone system. It's important to recognize the difference between LDL and HDL, and there is a difference. The sugar lobby rose to prominence through the demonizing of cholestorol as a "defacto" negative aspect of our diets, but cholesterol isn't, and hasn't been the cilprit behind heart disease or other issues. We're literally in one of the most fluid times in nutrional science in human history, we're finding out more things than we ever knew before in big ways, and people like myself who say Keto isn't "Bullshit" aren't saying "HEY KETO IS THE BEST DIET EVERYONE SHOULD DO THIS IT'S PERFECT" as you, and Cretin very much seemed to imply from your tones when replying to me. What people like myself are saying is simply "Not everything works equally well for everyone". You seem to believe that I would lose weight just as easily on your diet, as I did on mine. But I've tried your kind of diet, because it's a pretty standard vegetarian style diet, and for someone like me, it didn't help. How is that possible if "one size fits all"? I'm probably more experimental in how I eat than anyone I know in my life, because having dealt with weight issues my whole life I HAD to try a lot of different things to lose weight, to find what worked for me. Because I was told in no uncertain terms by doctors, nutrionists, and other "experts" that my mother dragged my obese ass to as a kid, that "High carb diets with low sugar, and low fat WILL cause you to lose weight". So I lived with that diet, and never lost a fucking pound over a 3 year period of rigorously counting calories, monitoring food intake, and watching what I ate. Recently, my mother has taken up a keto variant diet, and she has lost weight that a grain heavy diet that she lived with(She was very overweight for many years, on a grain heavy diet, without much processed foods at all) never allowed her to lose. What I fear happening the most, is exactly what happened in the 70's with fat vs sugar. If you so much as indicated "Fat isn't the biggest problem" for 40 years in nutritional science, you'd be blackballed out of the industry as a loon. We shouldn't react to new ideas with such revulsion, and yes, I would say how you react to a diet like Keto simply existing is certainly bordering on that emotional field.
I mean its a really small serving size already so I guess she's good
@HumanAbyss Again, congrats on the weight loss. I don't know about the grain heavy diet you're talking about. Like I said before, my plate is probably only 25% wholegrains. Actually thinking of it it's probably vegies/wholegrains/pulses in around a 50/25/25 ratio, with some occasional beer, icecream and cake lol. I also snack on fruits and nuts. It sounds like you come from a fat family so it makes sense that when you moved out of home you could take proper control on what you ate. I highly doubt you were eating in a healthy way while growing up, even though you say you were trying to lose weight since you were 13. It's hard to control what you eat when you're that age, especially when living at home. Man there's no way I could do.my current diet while I lived at home. Anyway my whole point I'm trying to get across, from my first post in this thread, is that wholegrains should not be demonised. I'm sorry that you were far as a kid and that your family is fat, but it ain't the fault of wholegrains, from what you've said there seems to be many other factors involved, including just plain old eating too much food.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.