glastra

Adaptive thermogenesis says otherwise.

Sugar and seed oils.

That would be: Mi hermano está enfermo, pero mis pantalones son rojos.

Check out the Jalopy videogame, where you own, drive and repair a car inspired by the Trabant.

I would have expected this to be proof-read, as it is a direct excerpt taken from a book, but it is filled with mistakes. Spelling, grammar, word order...

Maybe it is an excerpt of the first manuscript of the book.

Other than that, I find the concept very interesting, but quite intuitive too.

Absolutely, I never said methane was without effect.

However, its effects on global warming are greatly exaggerated by environmentalists and/or those with vegan ideologies.

In my opinion, focus should definitely not be on meat consumption.

Anyway, as a disclaimer, I follow a carnivore diet consisting of only animal products. You can expect me to be heavily biased.

"[...] animal products and feed", straight from the image. Sadly, no distinction. I would assume that it's mostly subsidies to feed. I am unable to find any sources on subsidies to meat directly.

I'm all for removing subsidies to monoculture agriculture.

Great link, thank you.

Regarding deforestation and so on, I think we must also take into account that "industrialized" non-pastured husbandry (is that the correct term?) is probably cheaper and easier than the greener alternative.

Sadly, it's usually a matter of profits and not a matter of environmental friendliness.

Yes, you are right. I have conveyed my point only half-way and I apologize.

What I meant is that methane is known to have a bigger heating effect than other greenhouse gases, like x28 that of CO2 if I recall correctly. This is used as part of the anti-ruminant argument, when comparing the effect of methane expelled by animals to the rest of greenhouse gas emissions.

However, if you take into account the reduced lifespan, that 28-time increase is definitely less relevant.

Out of curiosity, which animals are more efficient? Do you have a source on that?

There are, as far as I know, regions where the soil is only capable of growing pasture, hard to plant trees in.

It's the burps, actually.

And it's not nearly as dangerous as publicized.

Methane's lifespan in the atmosphere is much, much lower (think two orders of magnitude) than carbon dioxide [0], for example.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_methane

Better dial down on the fiber intake, then!

Which subsidies is meat getting? The ones that go to the agriculture industry responsible for feed?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agricultural_subsidy#United_St...

How about we don't change the diet but change where the food comes from?

When talking about meat and damage to the environment, the only relevant figures are the ones associated with animal feed (e.g. water consumption per kg of meat).

Pastured animals, by definition, don't eat feed coming from the monoculture industrial agriculture that is depleting the soil and consuming all those resources, and which is also used to feed humans, sadly.

You can even start streaming the desktop directly. AFAIK there is a setting for that.

Plants are used to feed livestock for their energy, not their nutrients.

GMOs would be used here to limit the amount of energy derived (carbohydrate) with regards to nutrient density.

Also, for what it's worth, part of the plant biomass used to feed livestock is inedible by humans (think cellulose).

I expected that. Is it for health or for ethics?

Also, can you please address the other points in my previous comment?

Feel free to reply to any of my other comments in the thread if we have reached maximum depth.

Bananas and dates (to name a few fruits) are plants, are whole foods, and are filled with fructose.

A single potato with skin has 6 grams of fiber and around 60 grams of starch.

As for the vitamins and minerals, the only thing found in a relevant amount in potatoes is potassium. Contrast this with eggs, organ meat or even muscle meat.

What would you say is the problem with saturated fat?

Also, out of curiosity, are you vegan?

You're very welcome.

Even though I have no children, I can try to imagine what it feels like.

My paternal grandfather died of complications from uncontrolled, insulin-dependent type 2 diabetes. He spent his last years half-blind, unable to move, filled with ulcers and missing several toes.

My father has been hovering around the prediabetic range for many years now, and I live a 5-hour drive away from him. Effectively, he is like a child, with no knowledge of nutrition or metabolism, trying to find his way in a world dominated by a food industry that doesn't have public health anywhere in its objectives.

But it's not just the food industry, although they might have the monopoly of malice in this context. Guess what the diet prescribed by his primary care provider looked like once he was deemed prediabetic. Motherfucking biscuits for breakfast, pasta or rice with lean meat, sugar-laden fruit juice... but counting calories! Exactly the opposite of what I have finally convinced him to eat by chipping away on every holiday visit. He's not exactly following a ketogenic diet, but at least he is starting to figure out what sugar, starch and seed oils do to people, and how the blame was shifted onto the wrong substances (saturated fat and salt, basically). He is even giving intermittent fasting a go!

It's hard when you know that the potential suffering of a loved one is perfectly avoidable with just the right pieces of information.

As you might have guessed, having type 2 diabetes in my immediate ancestry (also in my maternal family) was one of the reasons that led me down the rabbit hole. I now treat nutrition and its effect on health and metabolism sort of like a hobby. I guess there is a component of biohacking in there as well.

What do you think potato starch is metabolized into in your body? Starting in your mouth (salivary amylase).

Yes, they eat just meat, but smoking prevalence is over 50% [0], and alcoholism is rampant [1].

Bad example, to be honest. In fact, liver cancer can be directly attributed to drinking.

A life expectancy of 70 years under such conditions is actually astonishing.

[0] https://www.who.int/tobacco/media/en/Mongolia.pdf

[1] https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=112485...

Yes, absolutely. Some diseases are due to pathogens and such. But those should not be "modern", in the sense that said pathogens might not be exactly new. Maybe you could say anthropogenic diseases such as lung cancer from smoking or esophagus cancer from drinking are modern, though.

What I meant by "modern diseases" in my comment is a group of non-communicable diseases or so-called "diseases of civilization".

"Diet-related" is rather ambiguous, so different lines might be drawn there. As an example, would you say Alzheimer's is a diet-related disease? What about melanoma and/or sunburn?

I guess he was extrapolating and referring to the idea that carbohydrate consumption is the root cause of most, if not all, modern diseases. An idea held by many, including me.

Yes.

I don't usually express my opinions on nutrition, metabolism and/or health in general in the open, because I know they go against what is currently mainstream and they would be met (as elsewhere in this submission) with extreme resistance. I can't blame the others, though, as I once was in their same position and know how it feels when deeply ingrained ideas are challenged from the outside.

I have learned to live without the need to be "right", or to educate others when they don't want to be. It is enough for me to apply what knowledge and intuition I have gained over the last years for my own health and well-being. If, at some point, someone wants me to share that knowledge, then I will gladly do it.

What do those cardiologists say? That fat in the blood (triglycerides) causes atherosclerosis? Or dietary fat? Very different things.

Regarding the mechanism of atheroma formation, I don't have a list of references handy, but maybe this is a good start: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3152836/

Also of interest would be the role of high insulin and/or glucose and the damage they can cause to the arterial walls (inflammation is a necessary condition in the formation of atheroma).

Pardon my confusion: is this comment for or against the parent?

"Plaque" and "atheroma" are synonyms in the context of cardiovascular health.

Also, both quotes together go to show the ongoing misconception. Nowhere in the first quote are macrophages and other WBCs mentioned (but they are in the second, luckily). I guess this is what happens when you use quotes from different sources, too.

I fail to see what this has to do with my comment.

The hardening in atherosclerosis is caused directly and exclusively by atheroma.

Cats, being obligate carnivores and lacking a proper mechanism for extracting energy out of fatty acids (e.g. ketogenesis in humans), have actually very efficient kidneys to dispose of all the nitrogen coming from their protein-exclusive metabolism.

Domestic cats are at risk, but that is more a result of domestication and improper feeding (carbohydrate) than evolution or genetics. Unless I am missing something, of course! Care to elaborate?

Atherosclerosis -- the clogging of arteries with fatty deposits

What a way to start an article in a website with "science" in its name.

Atheroma is an accumulation of white blood cells. White. Blood. Cells. Not fat.

"Meat bad, saturated fat bad, eat your necessarily fortified grains and heart-healthy industrially extracted seed oils."

It seems you are the author of the website and many of the libraries linked there.

I suggest you resubmit this as a "Show HN" post. You can read more at https://news.ycombinator.com/showhn.html