Discussions

We Will have to agree to disagree. I believe a healthy nutritious balanced plate for me involves vegetables, greeens, starchy vegetables,, brown rice, legumes, beans.  
I love a multi bean chili (sautéed onion, carrots celery, corn and tomatoes)over a bed of tangled greens and better yet over a baked potato ..perfect tasty dinner with all the nutritional components you could ever desire. Sprinkle it with sautéed mushrooms and fresh green onions to finish, Delish!  
I Don’t require meat or cheese to Balance it out.  
 
Edited by BROCLAEVE, 2019-10-31 01:03:20

That does not comply fully to health Canada recommendations. Your choice though.

it funny how no one ever mentions the amount of methane that comes from every cities sewer systems? but only what farmers produce.

I have certainly not heard that spots on the Canada food guide are purchased and that would concern me greatly. I would think that this is highly unlikely to be true.

My apologies if I misunderstood. When you stated that a problem was evident when another poster's nutritionist wasn't in complete agreement with how the Canada Food Guide was being interpreted and you obviously disagree with that poster's nutritionist, I assumed that you were supporting the Canada Food Guide. Assumption should not have been made.  
 
Now, just so I don't assume, are you suggesting that we listen to your source over the Canada Food Guide as the guide is corrupt?

I never said that I disagree with the Canada food guide but I did I said it’s making moves in the right direction. and that my belief is that it will continue to do so in a plant-based direction in future years .  
What I told another poster was that there is something wrong with the way that nutrition is relayed to public if their nutritionist disagrees with the food guide recommendations. If a nutritionist who is supposed to follow and make recommendations from the Canadian food guide expresses concerns on its validity ( and no information was provided as to what the nutritionist disagreed with ) then it becomes very confusing for people to know what to believe and do.  
I am thankful though that the message is getting out for more plant-based direction meat products contain saturated fats causing high cholesterol which in turn has clogged many an artery and has been the cause many health conditions, high blood pressure, heart disease diabetes, Alzheimer’s to name a few. Sedentary lifestyle may contribute but diet is main contributor.  
Furthermore no it’s not as corrupt as I believe it may have once been. I believe that there was much more collaboration say from the key players in food industries to get their plug into the food guide. Now I believe they are using more research based scientific evidence to display the correct nutrition components .

You have never directly said the words that you disagree with the Canada Food Guide but it is hard to to think you don't believe it/or haven't insinuated it. The Canada Food Guide has listed meat and animal based products (some) as healthy but you say meat products are a main cause of many ailments. There is disagreement there whether directly or indirectly stated.  
 
Edited by JustASoul, 2019-10-31 09:47:47

The best way to reduce carbon is to not over reproduce. The Earth’s population has doubled since the early 1970s.  
 
Most of the methane is from melting permafrost.  
 
How do you genetically modify a cow that doesn’t use bacteria in it’s intestines? All mammals use bacteria.  
 
North America has 100 million cows, however we killed off 30 million buffalo that were always here.

were you got your figures on for dairy cows?? Try googling it this is what i got for a (world wide) answer  
264 million dairy cows  
World. There are over 264 million dairy cows worldwide, producing nearly 600 million tonnes of milk every year (source FAOstat – see table 1). The global average for milk production is approximately 2,200 litres per cow (source FAOstat 2012).

But I feel that your number of 100 million cows in North America is quite a bit too high

USDA numbers as of June 30th this year was 103 million head, that included all cattle, calves, feedlot cattle and dairy cattle, unchanged from the previous year but down from a high of 114 million head a few years back. Not sure if the 114 million was a all time high or not.

In the past it depended where you were located that dictated your diet, even it tropical climate areas people supplemented their diets with meat of some source.  
If we look at the plains Indians or the northern indigenous people, a very small percentage of their diets consisted of plant content, as you moved into more temperate climates people did eat more green matter or grains, but once again meat provided a significant portion of their diet.  
If we are planning on feeding an ever expanding population, all land will have to be utilized, but the basics of agriculture economics will determine the use of land.  
I’m a great believer in what Einstein said, “all things are relative”.

If that is the total number of cattle in North America I stand corrected, thankyou.  
I do know that total cow numbers in Canada have been dropping steadily.  
No responses yet to the real world case detailing my own farm and the environmental benefits brought by raising beef cattle in western Canada.  
I urge anyone interested to read some of the articles by Steve Kenyon of Greener Pastures Ranch in Alberta. A very knowledgeable guy who explains the benefits of regenerative farming in an easy to understand manner, very interesting and much can be learned from him.  
 
Edited by Farmergeorge, 2019-10-31 13:21:11

At the end of the day, just wanted to bring more focus to the fact consuming meat products ( Beef pork poultry dairy eggs ) - mostly supplied by factory farming by people around the world is a strong contributor to the greenhouse gas emissions (along with other factors for sure) and also contributes to pollution of land and water and land destruction diversion of food (grains) from human to animals and thus Should also be brought to the forefront of conversations surrounding environmental Concerns here in Canada and all around the world: collectively it is a big contributor to the current earth demises.  
 
Additionally, also wanted to point out that all of these products have a strong link to many western diseases including heart disease, high blood pressure, cholesterol , diabetes, Alzheimer’s , cancer: there is a strong link between high saturated fat diet cholesterol and the streaking and blocking of arteries in the heart and brain and other body areas. That alone should have the majority of people making distinct changes. If they knew they could live longer and not be inflicted with these conditions, then they should default to eating whole foods plant-based.  
 
There is a multi part positive ending to the decrease of meat product consumption... the environment issues will improve (decreased greenhouse gases, better land use and cleaner water) as will peoples health which will decrease health dollars spent and billions of animals worldwide will be saved.  
And to the farmers that feel the loss of animal grazing will be destructive to crops that required it, who’s to say that animals still can’t graze?  
As Someone had mentioned, bison grazing long before the humans but who took care of eradicating the bison? Let’s just not touch the animals in any other way but to allow them to roam freely and live free lives . If they must be kept to graze certain land then so be it:  
keep them until they’ve done their job and then Set them free!  
 
Edited by BROCLAEVE, 2019-10-31 14:17:47

Now I am completely confused. Are you arguing for a decrease in meat and meat related product consumption or an elimination of same?  
 
Edited by JustASoul, 2019-10-31 14:16:09

Why does it matter, what I think? A complete eradication would be great but a reduction, which is happening is amazing as well. If each person in the world (population 7.7 billion) consumed one of each animal (cow, pig, chicken ) per year it equates to 23.1 billion animals per year. If each person in the world consumed 1/4 of each animal yearly, it equals 1,925,000,000 animals yearly... reduction makes a great difference for sure. In a perfect world would be zero but that’s not reality  
 
Edited by BROCLAEVE, 2019-10-31 14:23:59

So what is currently happening is amazing?  
 
I suppose that answers your original question as to why more people or political parties aren't using this crisis as a ralking point. We are moving in the right direction already. Glad that crisis is averted. Cheers  
 
Edited by JustASoul, 2019-10-31 14:29:23

Feeling attacked but Yes, the Canada food guidelines have changed in January of this year to promote more plant-based and yes that is amazing because there is a definite reduction in what is purported to have negative implications to earth and humans. That means that people are becoming more aware of the actions they are taking in their lives.  
 
Edited by BROCLAEVE, 2019-10-31 14:33:20

Still no answer to my questions. Obviously no understanding of agriculture or the environment that surrounds you.  
Your policy is to destroy an industry proven to contribute a net reduction in greenhouse gas emissions and is consistently working to improve upon that performance but you would allow other industries and countries to pollute at will.  
I hope that the 1 in 8 Canadians whose jobs depend on agriculture understand your pathway to success .  
As for the thousands of Canadian men and women that have poured their life’s work into their cattle breeding programs to improve the breeds and enhance feed efficiency in natural ways, well we are expected to pay property taxes upon land that we can no longer use to produce a natural food source.  
The environmental and economic impact of your policies will be devastating. Thank you very much.

Peace out all. I’m very happy to have been able to put forth thoughts onto this forum and engage in conversations with those of differing views.  
In the end we will all do what we are going to do based on what what we know.  
last year at this time, I never thought about these issues and was quite mindless with little thought to what I consume .  
 
Now that I’ve learned more, I am inclined to speak on the topic as it branches out to more than just changes for the environment it affects people’s health and affects animals:  
 
I do realize that farmers livelihoods depend on in some instances cattle and other livestock, But just because they built their livelihoods around it does not make it right Many an industry has changed directions and become innovative in other ways when supply and demands have changed.  
My beliefs are, that the future of earth with the population already at 7.7 billion, cannot support humans consuming animal products to the extent they are now and I don’t hear much talk about working to decrease that eSpecially from those that stand to make money: why would they care about the other issues on the other end of the spectrum?  
 
It really is just food for thought And perhaps getting people to see issues at different angles and engaging in conversations  
 
Take care: be kind to others and yourselves!  
 
Edited by BROCLAEVE, 2019-10-31 15:17:45

And the same to you too! We are all in this world together.

What do you drive for a vehicle. How far do you commute? Where did you take your last holiday?

Interesting discussion.  
 
My main impression is that the topic was contrived to make a case for the elimination of consumption of meat. This seems to serve the personal convictions of the author, who then has gone grasping for information to support this.  
 
Early on in the thread it was claimed that humans are not natural meat eaters. Many threads of information are contrary to that, some mentioned. The large stature and brain size of humans appeared in connection with archeological evidence of fire and butchering of animals, at least 1.6 million years ago, fire and scavenging of carcasses appears to predate that by a fair bit. If we look at the genetic level, one finds a variety of adaptations to the eating of meat and cooked foods, including tolerance of browning and oxidation from cooking over fire. It seems obvious from the fossil record that we were only able to evolve into modern humans by the energy found in carcass marrow, and later full on hunting.  
 
Contrary to the claim that if we were meant to hunt we would be fast like a lion, it is well understood that humans can certainly outperform and run animals to exhaustion in the heat with our bare skin and sweating. This hunting method is still employed in parts of Africa. Also, it is meaningless to compare a human to other predators without considering the tools used, a real extension of the human being. In fact we are the most effective predator ever seen on the planet.  
 
Repeated advocacy for a high carbohydrate diet has been made. Arguably, the one thing we could nearly eliminate from a healthy diet is carbohydrates. Before agriculture, especially in more temperate regions there were practically no sources of carbohydrates. And there is a large body of evidence to indicate that carbohydrates lead to exactly the negative health outcomes the author ascribes to meat. As an example, the northern Cree ate a diet practically absent of carbohydrates, as did the Inuit. Now with a high carb diet they are suffering huge health problems. Also, I have not heard of a credible link between their traditional fat and meat diets and the claimed cancers, etc. Add Laplanders and Siberian and Mongolian nomads to the list.  
 
As pointed out, the methane associated with cattle is variable depending on feed and supplements. Grass fed animals produce only a fraction of the methane of grain fed. Pasture land supports greater biodiversity and carbon retention than cultivated land, by a wide margin. Studies have reported that cattle fed biochar, for example, greatly reduces methane levels, potentially even rendering cattle raising carbon negative. Rice cultivation, and now fermentation of millenial bogs and permafrost around the globe overshadow cattle raising by vast margins. This again leads me to question the actual motivation of the author.  
 
In fact, our use of natural gas leads to fugitive emissions greater than cattle raising.  
 
As for aiming to feed billions more than the current population, this seems very doubtful, a number of factors will converge before mid century.

Your post is riddled with half truths and misleading "facts". Can you please provide your sources that back up your claim of eliminating carbohydrates from our diet?  
 
Your theory that the cree populations and inuit are now having health issues due to the introduction of carbohydrates is inaccurate and misses some key points:  
 
In particular the traditional cree and inuit diet was high in fat, however they also worked extremely hard all day to get their food. They burned an enormous amount of calories just to eat. Fast forward to modern times and they still eat a high fat diet but also due to modernization they now eat highly processed carbs and live a more sedentary lifestyles which contribute to the health issues they have...not eating whole grain, unprocessed carbohydrates.  
 
https://www.nccih.ca/docs/emerging/FS-TraditionalDietsHealth-Earle-EN.pdf  
 
The attached article link provides some more insight into this subject.  
 
Your point about man eating meat back in the day and the evolutionary contribution eating meat had is correct. However, that does not mean that we still need to eat meat today. As we evolve and develop ourselves we should seek to improve how we do things. As an example:  
 
We are moving away from coal for energy in the West because we realize it has negative impacts on the environment. We have evolved our thinking and are working towards improving our processes.  
 
Well, just like coal, meat is something we dont NEED to survive like we needed it to survive when we lived in caves. We have modernized and are a more sophisticated species, we know what we need for nutrients and can get all of them from plants. We have improved farming practices and social structures that allow us to produce like we never could back in those hard days living in caves.  
 
Also, many in the developing world still need meat to survive and thats expected. However, as a civilization modernizes they should move away from high meat diets and move to a more sustainable diet of eating just plants. Its great for your health and the planet.  
 
 
From the following study:  
 
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3662288/  
 
A plant-based diet is not an all-or-nothing program, but a way of life that is tailored to each individual. It may be especially beneficial for those with obesity, Type 2 diabetes, high blood pressure, lipid disorders, or cardiovascular disease.  
 
From the following study:  
 
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41398-019-0552-0  
 
"Based on this systematic review of randomized clinical trials, there is an overall robust support for beneficial effects of a plant-based diet on metabolic measures in health and disease"  
 
 
There are many studys that show the health benefits of reducing our meat intake and consuming more plants. Eating high meat diets void of whole carbs and grains is not healthy...period.

The body of information is still developing, but hopefully this article from the Lancet is an appropriate response.  
 
https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2017-08/tl-tlr082517.php  
 
Diets high in carbohydrates (average of 77% energy from carbohydrates) were associated with a 28% higher risk of death, compared with low carbohydrate diets (46% energy from carbohydrates) [7.2 deaths per 1000 people years, compared with 4.1]. Rates of major cardiovascular events remained similar for low and high carbohydrate diets.  
 
Comparatively, diets with high total fat intake (35.3% energy from fat) were associated with a 23% lower risk of death, compared with low fat diets (11.0% energy from fat) [4.1 deaths per 1000 people years in people, compared with 6.7]. Rates of major cardiovascular events remained similar for low and high fat diets.  
 
The trends were similar when looking at saturated fats, with very low intake (below 3%) associated with a higher risk of mortality, compared to diets with a higher intake of saturated fats of up to 13%. Similarly, diets with very low intake of mono and polyunsaturated fats (3.6% and 2.2%) were associated with a higher risk of mortality, compared to diets with higher intakes (13% and 9.1%).  
 
Saturated fats are typically found in animal fat products, like milk and meat, while monounsaturated and polyunsaturated fats are typically found in vegetable oils, olive oils, high fat fruits like olives and avocados, nuts and fish.  
 
Writing in a linked Comment, Drs Christopher Ramsden and Anthony Domenichiello, National Institute on Aging, USA, says: "The relationships between diet, cardiovascular disease, and death are topics of major public health importance, and subjects of great controversy... The PURE study is an impressive undertaking that will contribute to public health for years to come. Initial PURE findings challenge conventional diet-disease tenets that are largely based on observational associations in European and North American populations, adding to the uncertainty about what constitutes a healthy diet. This uncertainty is likely to prevail until well-designed randomised controlled trials are done."  
 
As for replacing our evolved diet with another, that appears to be exactly what we have done with the advent of agriculture and the introduction of massive amounts of carbs. To deny that meat has a healthy place in our diet goes against our evolutionary role over perhaps 2 million years or more. And basic dietary facts, as there are nutrients which can only be gotten in many clinate zones from meat consumption. (If trucks didn't bring bags of California almonds, and vitamin A supplements)... Thus to compare consuming meat to burning coal isn't a logical comparison.  
 
Given what we know about the gut biome, and how central it is to our immune system and health in so many ways, the gut fauna outnumbering the cells of our body, it seems dicey / optimistic to take a co-evolved system of millions of years and fundamentally change it's environmental inputs.  
 
Yes, people are too sedentary. Yes, their diet is overly rich.  
 
Is grass fed beef critical to the failure of our global climate, - not a strong case.  
 
So, perhaps your dietary advice will help the climate, by increasing mortality...  
 
Edited by GarryTait, 2019-11-01 03:53:41

Many vegetarians and vegans suffer from low iron and B12.  
Guess what low iron and B12 leads to? Cardiovascular disease.  
So I do believe people need to consume meat and f low on iron that means beef!

The study you reference is extremely flawed.There are major methodology issues along with missing key points such as:  
 
-Lumping all carbs together as if they are the same. Eating a lollipop is not the same as eating sweet potatoes.  
 
-The study misses the fact that most of their study participants are from poverty stricken areas that likely eat highly processed cheap foods. If anything the study confirms that poverty stricken areas lead to poorer health overall.  
 
There are so many flaws with this study that it has been extensively reviewed by respected bodies such as:  
 
https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/2017/09/08/pure-study-makes-headlines-but-the-conclusions-are-misleading/  
 
Some key points from the Harvard review:  
 
Key methodological problems  
 
“Total carbohydrates” is over-simplified. Since carbohydrate foods range from fruits, vegetables, legumes and whole grains to refined grains and added sugars, it is important to consider both quality and quantity of carbohydrates—rather than grouping them all together. Different types of carbohydrates have different effects on health. [2]  
 
Such high carbohydrate intake may indicate a ‘poverty diet’. Most study participants located in low-income countries subsisted almost entirely on carbohydrates, “especially from refined sources.” In Bangladesh for example, the authors list white rice as the top contributor of not only carbohydrates, but also protein and total fat. A ‘poverty diet,’ which is common in poor rural areas, is also typically high in sodium and low in animal products and vegetable oils. In this situation, it is extremely challenging if not impossible to separate the effects of diet from poverty and under nutrition.  
 
Incomplete assessment and analysis of types of fat. Unlike carbohydrates, the study does break down total fat intake into saturated, monounsaturated, and polyunsaturated fats. As the authors acknowledged, the study did not assess trans fat intake (which is particularly high in South Asia [3]), which may have confounded associations for other types of fat. The PURE study found that substituting saturated fat for carbohydrates did not lower mortality risk, but substituting polyunsaturated fat for carbohydrates was associated with lower mortality. Interestingly, the study did not examine the effects of substituting polyunsaturated fat for saturated fat. Randomized clinical trials have found that while replacing saturated fat with carbohydrates had no effect, swapping saturated fat with polyunsaturated fat significantly reduced the risk of cardiovascular disease. [4]  
 
Reliability of dietary intake data. In Chinese participants (which constituted almost one third of the total study population), average total fat intake is noted as 17.7% of total daily calories, yet other surveys have found an average intake of around 30% of daily calories from fat in China. [5] Such a large discrepancy is puzzling because similar dietary questionnaires were used in the PURE study and other Chinese studies.  
 
Heres another:  
 
https://www.pcrm.org/news/news-releases/pure-study-killer-carbs-or-poor-living-conditions  
 
Again key points:  
 
High carbohydrate intake was a red flag for poverty. Unfortunately, the authors missed it. Even though they admitted that “most participants from low- and middle-income countries consumed a very high carbohydrate diet (at least 60 percent of energy), especially from refined sources…,” they did not make the connection.  
 
Poor living conditions kill. Poverty is linked to not only low food access, but poor living conditions. These i:nclude smoke exposure from poorly ventilated stoves and lamps (used by one-third of the world’s population), contaminated water and air, and a lack of both preventive and therapeutic medical care.2,3 All of these greatly increase one’s risk of dying. To illustrate the massive impact of poverty, a study of more than 217,000 people in India found that individuals with the fewest assets had a 294 percent higher risk of dying than those with the most assets.4  
 
…And researchers did not fully control for living conditions. Investigators did try to account for poverty via education and even household income. However, statistical tools couldn’t capture the vastly different living conditions between groups. To illustrate: An educated person living in a polluted, poor city may be in greater danger than a less-educated person in a clean city with guaranteed medical access.  
 
They mistook “wealth” foods for health foods. In many places around the world, only the wealthy can afford foods high in fat and saturated fat, like animal products. As a result, these nutrients can act as a marker for lifesaving affluence. Indeed, researchers found that people in the wealthiest regions—Europe, North America, and the Middle East—consumed more total fat and saturated fat than people in lower-income areas. Yet investigators didn’t adequately control for this. Instead, they concluded high-fat foods must be good for you, while in fact being well-off is good for you.  
 
Researchers did not distinguish between healthy and refined carbohydrates. Despite breaking fat down into specific types, PURE study investigators considered all carbohydrates equal, from soda to sweet potatoes. Yet decades of science tells us this simply isn’t true—the body handles lentils differently than lollipops.  
 
Researchers did not report added fats used in recipes. Researchers listed top sources of carbohydrates, protein, and fat for each country in published supplementary material. In several poor countries, the main source of carbohydrate consumed was also a top source of protein and fat, for example white rice in Bangladesh. As these sources of refined carbs are very low in fat, this implies that fats have been added in the preparation of these foods. That makes it very difficult to separate the impact of fat versus carbohydrate on health outcomes.  
 
Other findings from the same study contradicted their conclusions. Perhaps unsurprisingly, the PURE study also showed that eating healthful carbohydrate-rich foods—like fruits, vegetables, and legumes—was linked to a lower risk of death.5 This further implies that high carbohydrate (especially refined carbohydrate) intake was a sign of poverty and nothing more.  
 
A one-time survey was used to measure what people ate…for the next seven years. Diets are rapidly changing around the world. It seems unlikely that a single questionnaire accurately captured what people ate, year after year. Yet that’s the only way researchers measured people’s diets.  
 
And this one:  
 
https://www.foodpolitics.com/2017/09/the-pure-study-lets-get-skeptical/  
 
When you discuss the introduction of massive amounts of carbs you need to separate good from bad. Yes i agree people do eat large amounts of highly processed carbs and that is a problem. However, people eating large amounts of lentils, beans and potatoes is not a problem! Also, eating plant based diets does not require almonds from California and vitamin A lol. You could actually eat a whole food plant based diet by eating locally! Yes, we are blessed in this area as we can eat lentils, beans, soy, vegetables and fruits all grown within 100 miles of us or closer.  
 
As part of our advancement as a society we have enabled ourselves to eat healthier and have access to foods once inaccessible. This is a good thing for people who typically would only have access to a couple food sources. If you want to live like a caveman go right ahead and have fun foraging for food in the winter and starving when your hunt goes poorly.  
 
At the end of the day people need to eat well balanced meals. If that means they eat meat from a sustainable source once in awhile than so be it. However, we should all be eating way more plants, cutting out processed crap and drinking more water! Food debates are like the new religion, people have a hard time seeing other folks views.  
 
Best of luck with your hunt Garry!

The truly leading cause of most of these diseases and deaths is known to be due to a sedentary lifestyle . If we consume a balanced and varied diet encompassing all of the food groups and take a reasonable level of excercise as per health professionals advice then we will all become much healthier. Also according to medical and health Canada advice we should be cutting out all classes of processed foods and reducing our sugar and salt intake ( Halloween candy anyone?).  
I know these recommendations as I have this year been referred to a nutritionist to reduce cholesterol and I am successfully losing weight prior to a surgery.  
Unless you have a health condition or allergy or you choose to be vegetarian ( which is your choice if you wish) their is no reason not to eat meat as part of a balanced and nutrient rich diet. Indeed beef is one of the most naturally produced nutrient and vitamin rich foods available and is produced by solar powered converters (cows) that produce a net greenhouse gas reduction. Please see Steve Kenyon, Greener Pastures Ranching, we all can learn quite a bit from his experiences in regenerative farming . Behold the noble cow the original self regenerating soil building and carbon sequestering environmentalist (at least in western Canada). Is there more work to be done to further improve cattle feed efficiency and to further improve upon their environmental impact? Yes there is and that work is ongoing.  
Every day whilst walking my dog I see several perfectly able bodied people drive their cars (SUV’s) 300 yards to work rain, shine or snow.What is that all about? An uneccessary sedentary and polluting lifestyle that is no good to their own or anyone’s health or the planet.  
I average 10 Kms per day walking plus my work on my farm. Thank you.

Sedentary lifestyle is killing us faster coupled with the fact many eat processed foods high in sugar. I couldn't agree more! I also agree eating a balanced diet is the way to go and although i personally don't eat meat i support those that i:nclude meat in their diet. The issue becomes the amount of meat people consume and often its over indulgence that gets us.  
 
I don't believe there is only one way to optimal health. I do believe that there are some common sense steps that SHOULD be done by everyone such as:  
 
Cut out processed foods.  
Don't drink pop or juices.  
 
Drink water as your main liquid intake, although at times i am sure my coffee intake exceeds my water intake! And before you rip apart my coffee drinking, i only drink it black!  
 
Eat real food grown locally as much as possible, support local farmers. I wish we had a more robust farmers market here in town. It gets me all fired up when i see garlic from China in the store, when i know we can get it from our local area.  
 
If consuming meat, eat meat from a local farmer or from your personal hunt. Like you said, eat a balanced diet however, when eating meat don't eat more than whats needed if your going to over-consume something over-consume vegetables. Meat does not provide any fiber which is something our bodies need.  
 
People need to have a relationship with their food and understand where it comes from. We should mindfully shop and eat so we make better choices that support our health and environment.  
 
I also agree we need to get out and exercise more, people are extremely lazy and it shows. Staying active is just as important as our diets. I commend you on your active lifestyle and would encourage everyone to be more active. Its not just great for our bodies but our minds as well. Active people tend to be happier too!  
 
I appreciate your perspective Farmergeorge and the insight into advanced cattle practices. Positive change is always great and as we continue to advance as a civilization I am confident we will work towards making changes that are positive for the earth and our species.  
 
Finally, i just want to add that when we make healthy food choices that we believe in that has a positive effect on your body as well, such as reduced stress and anxiety. So at the end of the day so long as your making healthy food choices(discussed above) and eating a well balanced diet (AKA getting all your nutrients) and treating the environment with respect than eat how you will because happiness is vitally important to what we eat and how we move! Enjoy life have fun and keep stress low!  
 
Edited by Your Majesty, 2019-11-01 09:44:10

Thank you your majesty for a amazingly thorough and fact based analysis of a seeemingly flawed study in prior post.  
I bowed down as an active participant, but I was just in the midst of responding to the referred Lancet Study too as it’s weak.  
 
For one, as you mentioned there is no indication as to what foods make up high carbohydrates nor other macronutrients. It would be very helpful to know what foods they purport to be the high carbohydrates and also the high fat.  
 
Whole foods plant-based way of eating may be high in carbohydrate in some instances with beans legumes pulses lentils potatoes quinoa etc but also very high in nutrients as well as fibre and fibre is key as well in choosing carbohydrates that are healthy. The fibre actually Negates the carbohydrate number so in fact the carbohydrate number is decreased by the fibre. Fibre is very important in maintaining a healthy digestive system and flushing toxins from the body. Also, High processed carbohydrate foods will have all of the nutrients and fibre stripped.  
 
To those that dispute that the Inuit and Cree people lived on meat and did just fine. Once populations got larger and people moved away from the equator to establish , they had to make do with what they were able to find and contend with short seasons. The human body is amazing in the sense that it will survive on various ways of eating, but whether healthfully and for how long is the question.  
I think many studies will point out the fact that these people did not live long lives. This is no longer the case as humans living in any corner of the world now have access to ancients foods proven to be healthy that may or may not be able locally available better available through modern transport . We often hear that milk and eggs etc. are so expensive to be shipped up north...I often wonder why dried beans lentils and the Like arent sent up and why green houses arent erected in the north to grow all the foods not available to them  
 
Additional studies have also shown that those who move from regions where they consume mostly unprocessed whole food diets and Adopt a westernized way of eating Which often i:ncludes fast food restaurant eating processed foods etc, these people Develop higher modern disease rates Of the most preventable diseases including heart disease diabetes .  
 
Furthermore guarding the mention of low iron in vegetarians and vegans in another post: non heme iron is available in all of these foods lentils, soybeans, lima beans, black beans, chickpeas, peas, quinoa, fortified cereals, brown rice, oatmeal, nuts, pumpkin seeds squash seeds pistachios sunflower seeds cashews, unhulled sesame, dried apricots,tofu, Swiss chard, collard greens, broccoli, cabbage Brussel sprouts, kale, spinach. Pairing these items with vitamin C aids in the absorption. Dairy inhibits the absorption of iron .  
 
Edited by BROCLAEVE, 2019-11-01 09:57:39