Why do people eat food they know isn’t good for their health? Why do people continue to buy products from companies that have proven to only sell bad products or engage in scumbag practices?
They all have the same answer.
Is it capitalism?
It turns out in 1961 the American heart Association took bribery money from procter and gamble, who owned and sold “healthier Crisco” cooking oils that weren’t high in saturated fat, like beef and other cooking oils were.
The AHA then claimed and pushed that saturated fats caused heart disease.
Problem is, something like 88% of every study done in the past 60 years has found little to no link between heart disease and saturated fats.
So beef, according to most studies, isn’t bad for you. The AHA was just crooked and on the take, being paid off to sell Crisco.
Now it is calorie dense and people tend to eat too much of it, but that seems to be a lot of things. Don’t eat too much or you get fat. But apparently, you don’t have to worry about saturated fats being bad for you.
And not a source to be found
You seriously comment on a like 2 year old posting to bitch about citations in a comment thread?
I gave you all the information you’d need to find sources. Go do it yourself, fuckhead.
Hahahaha speaking of bitching
someone else online summarized the genetics part as the following:
Mandelian randomisation studies show that LDL-c is causative in atherogenic plaques 1 and metabolic ward RCTs show that SFA intakes increase LDL-c, while the decrease in SFAs lead to lower total and LDL-c 2.
But yes, almost all nutrition science is a bit inconclusive because of genetic variation.
Forgive me, because I’m struggling to understand the linked information, but as someone with atherosclerosis this is an issue close to my heart (ha!).
I just want to make sure I understand you.
Your link to the european heart journal says that the causal link between LDL and ASCVD is “unequivocal”.
I think the WHO study says (amongst a lot of other complicated stuff) that replacing SFAs with PUFAs and MUFAs is more favourable than replacing SFAs with complex carbohydrates? The strong implication being (although I couldn’t see this exactly) that higher SFA intake contributes to heart disease.
I always keep in mind the first doctor to advocate washing hands after handling corpses was laughed out of medicine and died alone in an asylum ironically enough from sepsis.
To that point, the vast majority of research on nutrition is done on the presumption carbohydrates should be the foundation of our diet. Even “low” carb diet studies with have 30% of the calories coming from simple carbs. Oddly enough, the human body works much differently and much better when you don’t give it -any- sugar: https://youtu.be/cST99piL71E
I can expand, but briefly, sugar acts like a sandblaster through your heart and shreds the endothelium (the finger-things that move things in and out of the bloodstream). LDL is a repair van that drives around with cholesterol and saturated fat to repair the plaques. (HDL brings empty LDL back to the liver) The entire logic of blaming cholesterol for heart disease is like blaming bandaids for stab wounds. Doctors say eat less fat and more “healthy whole grains” (carbs) and the liver makes more cholesterol. Doctor sees cholesterol is still high because the body needs it and prescribes statins which impair production. This leads to nerve pain because it’s what literally every nerve in the body is insulated with.
The problems with cholesterol stem from it sitting in the bloodstream and glycating due to prolonged sugar exposure. Sugar staying in the bloodstream is basically ketoacidosis, so clearing sugar is a priority that results in LDL gumming up and going bad, essentially.
I can expand on this, but basically the human body needs predominantly fat with some protein and actually zero carbs.
I don’t think it tries to compare carbohydrates to any UFAs, but the implication is indeed that SFAs significantly contribute to heart disease.
Why do people drive when they know it’s bad for the planet
Because I live in America and there’s pretty much no public transportation.
Trust me, if I had a train, I’d fucking use that sucker. Travel into town for my weekly errands AND I don’t have to deal with people not using cruise control on a highway? SIGN ME THE FUCK. UP.
Removed by mod
Because they don’t have the money and the requisite professions to leave.
Some of us work multiple part time jobs to barely make it.
I’d probably stay in the basement if I didn’t need to pay my landed lord their monthly tribute.
buy some cheap sliver of land and park a bus on it. save up and find a better sliver of land and plan from there.
This might not be a “stupid” question, but it sure is a loaded and leading one that for sure isn’t in good faith. Welcome to my block list, enjoy your stay.
deleted by creator
Because not everyone agrees that it’s terrible for Earth. And even some of those that do may not consider it so terrible for Earth that it’s not worth the tastiness.
You’re wasting electricity running a computer right now, when we know that electricity generation is terrible for Earth. Why are you doing that?
deleted by creator
1 the amount of beef I eat is not a major contributer to the problem. No matter how hard I try. The actual major contributors what to distract people by telling them that they can make the difference. They can’t. 2 I don’t like plants… 3 the way the grow plants for food is also terrible for earth
deleted by creator
You started out decent, then went off the deepend. You are connecting plants to refined sugars in the end. An apple (from a plant) has no refined sugar. No plants do. And the milk thing sounds like a conspiracy theory. They ban raw milk because if it isn’t handled correctly, it can make you sick. While this is a bit of an over reach, in most places it started long before thier was an industry to protect.
deleted by creator
The major contributors only sell what people buy. They won’t stop so long as there’s money to be made. And most plants grown for food go to feed animals.
You don’t like plants because you’re a big baby.
So yeah, your arguments suck.
I have a eating disorder so most vegetables make me retch, so I kind of don’t have a choice.
Also companies do way more emissions than I ever will, yet I’m asked to stop.
deleted by creator
Carnivore diet is a weird way to phrase it, it really depends on the consistency of the food, but I do mostly eat meat because it causes the least problems.
It tastes good and I’m a carnivore.
omnivore, but i agree
deleted by creator
Helping heal me. Yup.
Expensive?
Turns out cheaper in my experience. Not buying all the rest of that low nutrient cruft.
deleted by creator
Indeed, good shortlist.
I’d like to test reintroducing cow’s milk, as not pasteurized, raw. No source here though, afaik. Tried Jersey cow’s milk once, and it was fine, tried it a second time, and it was a hard fail. Goat and sheep, meh.
Your mention of “if autistic”, has me wonder about my fairly large ghee consumption.
Actually autistic, btw.
deleted by creator
If you consider nutrient bio-availability, eating meat is order of magnitudes cheaper for the nutrition we’re getting. It’s a no-brainer if only people would give it a go.
Humans make methane too, btw, if we eat vegetables. Much, much less on carnivore in my personal experience, and I’ve not found any studies on environmental impact that even attempt to factor this in.
Cow yummy
This has got to be a troll, right?
We have a vegan infestation unfortunately.
It’s nutritious. Instead of carefully observing some diet you can eat some beef and buckwheat or cabbage or beans, and you’re good.
That said, I eat meat so rarely that my relatives worry, mainly because it takes some time to cook if you boil it, and I’m lazy and unorganized, and frying it has the potential of, eh, leaving the kitchen for 5 minutes which turn out to be half an hour and returning for the smell.
Other than that people can’t care about every problem at once.
You haven’t made vegan food free yet. Make vegan food free, and people will naturally eat more of it. Plus you solve hunger at the same time.
You do care about reducing beef consumption right? Well start here. Stop spinning your wheels elsewhere
Because it’s a damn good source of creatine and protein. And it tastes good.
The same reason they still have children.
It’s life, Jim.
deleted by creator
I appreciate your question, but I think “we know” is problematic:
- who is “we”?
- how do we “know”?
- can some people know one thing while others know the opposite?
I’m not trolling, either, just asking questions from a philosophical point of view. I’ve changed my mind about several things I took very seriously and thought I was 100% right about. Could others be dealing with similar changing-mind-through-time processes? Could you?
Dumb fucks who fall for propaganda on every platform.
I’m a native whose culture have hunted and eaten meat for millennia, what propaganda were my ancient ancestors being shown?
What does what your ancestors did have to do with what we now know about modern factory farming? The question was about still eating beef despite what we know today, what does that have to do with your ancestors? Is your comment not the very definition of a strawman?
Who are you to come to my continent, judge me and tell me my culture is wrong?
“We owned slaves for a long time, who are you to tell me it’s wrong?”
Hello. We are trying to be decent human beings. Please join us in building a better society. I don’t give a shit how many people were wrong for how long, wrong is wrong and we know better now.
The future mate, the future.
The future will absolutely not look down on cultures that have to rely on animals for food. Do we look at native Americans as horrible people because they had to slaughter animals, in a controlled, and relatively well thought out manner?
Personally I believe the most likely alternative will be bugs. Do bugs not count as an animal? Or would you say bugs shouldn’t be eaten either
They would drive animals off cliffs. That would cause horror if they were to repeat it today yes. Just stop eating living animals it’s that simple, but if you want to eat bugs, knock yourself out.
I think we’ll find “plagues” of species more common and end up harvesting as many as possible then so that “locust” is the primary protein source for that year.
Its not that simple. I can see why you believe it is, and it probably helps contribute to why you have little empathy even for those who show you they physically cant.
What a loaded question.
Outside of the fact that a single cows life provides about 900 meals for humans, and the scraps left over make boots that last for a decade and also feed our cats and dogs. Plus, it’s delicious.
Imagine how many people you could feed if we would just eat what we fed the animals!
We can’t live on hay and corn. Cows need several stomachs to do it.
Also, getting enough protein and creatine and other vitamins as a vegan is a hell of a lot of work and doesn’t taste as good.
Humans are animals, and the type of animals we are is omnivores. Not herbivores.
Humans are animals, and the type of animals we are is omnivores. Not herbivores.
Yup. Mostly better suited more leaning to the carnivore and fruitarian side of omnivore.
Man cannot live on grass.
Also, getting enough protein and creatine and other vitamins as a vegan is a hell of a lot of work and doesn’t taste as good.
I tried hard, for a decade, and never managed to fully do it, even with a lot of hemp kernels (1-4 cups) every day.
Health bouncing back since going keto-carn. Mostly beef. (Grass fed).
So simple, so easily healthy.
Contrast to the complex chemistry juggling jigsaw of trying to have a vegan diet.
Maybe blood type matters. Maybe other blood types than mine have an easier time of vegan (or at least vegetarian, or just pescetarian). Or other genetic, evolutionary, environmental factors.
You start.
Let me know how a diet of grass works out for you, your digestive system, your immune system, and overall health.
Well I’ve been vegan for a long time and am healthier than many animal abusers, so it’s going quite well for me :)
I don’t believe you know enough animal advisors to make such a claim
Of course I can, everyone around me is eating animals ;)
that’s not abuse
Right, the systematic torture of millions of animals is absolutely not animal abuse.
Can you finish this documentary: https://watchdominion.org/ (YouTube)
Or will you keep your eyes closed?
Yeah so, the amount of meals is correct. But that’s about it. I mean, I can’t say about the taste, to each their own, but one kg of cow meat needs two dozen kg of grain.
That’s about as inefficient as it gets.
As for the leather, the industry doesn’t like products that last a decade, so it isn’t actually using the leather in such a way. Industrial leather boots last a year tops.
Finally, pet food is made out of discarded cuts of meat, the uglies, etc. But also lots of cereals, and vegetables.
So we could really afford eating less meat. It isn’t good for anything. Not for us, not for the other species (certainly not for the cows, that get often half assed butchered in a hasty way because of quotas and profit), and absolutely not for the ecosystem.
But I guess the taste is all that matters.
Cows are not all fed on grain. A lot of cows are ranched on land that would not be suitable for growing grain crops.
Or even land that is suitable for growing grain, but they’re kept being fed almost entirely on grass, for better quality, better health (and less cow farts, lol), rather than cost cutting nasty to bulk them up.
Well, if we’re talking pure food-production efficiency, then if the land is capable of growing grain then it’s probably better to grow grain there and feed the grain directly to humans.
But upvote anyway for responding to a year-and-a-half-old thread, this is the oldest necro response I’ve received yet on the Fediverse. :)
Well, if we’re talking pure food-production efficiency, then if the land is capable of growing grain then it’s probably better to grow grain there and feed the grain directly to humans.
Well in that case perhaps we should do just algae and worms.
Or maybe we should consider more than “pure food-production efficiency” in such a crude manner.
Perhaps we should consider nutrition and health (of those eating the food, and the environment), more than just crude bulk quantity.
Grain based diet would ruin our immune systems, and the health of the soil, without animal fertilizer.
Grain based diet would ruin our immune systems, and the health of the soil, without animal fertilizer.
And we haven’t even started on the effects of Glyphosate yet!
Whatever their food is, 1kg of beef requires 24kg of grain’s worth of energy. This is something they teach in high-school biology now. The higher the food chain, the more energy is lost. Stopping such production would be pretty beneficial to the environment, but whether we should is a complicated question.
But as I pointed out, many cattle are ranched on land that cannot grow grain. They can’t grow the sorts of crops that humans eat, only the sorts of crops that cattle eat. If cattle weren’t being ranched on those lands they wouldn’t be producing edible grain instead, or any other food that humans could eat. So the inefficiency is moot when it comes to the amount of nutrition produced, removing the cattle from that land would simply reduce the total amount of food we have available.
Sure, if you remove the cattle then wild animals could come in to replace them, but we should make sure that’s not going to result in starvation and poverty if we do that. Many areas of the world have subsistence ranching by the locals.
Interesting. However, a search says that feeding all the grass (or whatever) to cattle takes that food away from existing ecosystems in dry areas and potentially allow exotic weeds to take over land. So we probably don’t want this to expand to the point where we intrude on dry ecosystems.
It’s just a matter of land management. Many of those grassland areas used to have other large grazing animals on them, so as long as the cattle herds aren’t bigger than those old herds it should be sustainable.
