To add on to that, most modern livestock live absolutely miserable lives.
I was going to add a separate comment, but in the interests of brevity, I think I’ll just put it here:
I find that in order to answer questions like OP’s, it’s helpful to remember who we are and how we lived for the ~2.5Myrs total of humanity’s (i.e. genus Homo) existence. So in terms of our diet, we’ve been opportunistic omnivores (heavy on plants) for the vast majority of that time, much like our fellow apes. It’s a completely sustainable way of living, and our bodies are perfectly engineered for that.
At the other end of the spectrum would be a pure carnivore diet, which science studies consistently find to cause increased cardiovascular disease and cancer rates. On top of all the enormous waste, expenditure, and utter cruelty towards livestock.
Point is-- if you consider all that, I think you can find some pretty decisive answers about the “morality” of one’s diet.
At the other end of the spectrum would be a pure carnivore diet, which science studies consistently find to cause increased cardiovascular disease and cancer rates.
You will find there have been no studies on the pure-carnivore (zero carb) diet wrt cvd or oncogenic effects.
There have been observational epidemiology on high carb omnivores (75% plant) which people like to extrapolate around and make causal statements such as ‘caused increased… rates’ which the data cannot support.
Right, I got a little carried away with the ‘pure’ angle, but I do recall seeing many abstracts / summaries of studies for quite a few years that found that diets heavy on meat indeed seem to correlate to increased cancer & CVD incidents.
Shouldn’t be too surprising based on studies of the GI systems of numerous herbivores vs. numerous Carnivorans, either. Extra-long GI vs. very short one depending on diet. Ours certainly seems to be a middle-ground, omnivore-type GI. AFAIK only rarely do we find from archeology & anthropology evidence that humans ate very-high meat diets, such as Innuit peoples for example.
Right, I got a little carried away with the ‘pure’ angle,
Fair enough the moment takes us all sometimes.
but I do recall seeing many abstracts / summaries of studies for quite a few years that found that diets heavy on meat indeed seem to correlate to increased cancer & CVD incidents.
Not quite - these are FFQs applied to the general populations so protein is really around 15%. There is considerable debate in the literature if these findings are clinically meaningful.
Not just the moment, but the motivation to get the core of a point across to a casual audience with a brevity of verbiage.
Not quite - these are FFQs applied to the general populations so protein is really around 15%. There is considerable debate in the literature if these findings are clinically meaningful.
What is your relevant background in such matters, if I may ask?
To add on to that, most modern livestock live absolutely miserable lives.
I was going to add a separate comment, but in the interests of brevity, I think I’ll just put it here:
I find that in order to answer questions like OP’s, it’s helpful to remember who we are and how we lived for the ~2.5Myrs total of humanity’s (i.e. genus Homo) existence. So in terms of our diet, we’ve been opportunistic omnivores (heavy on plants) for the vast majority of that time, much like our fellow apes. It’s a completely sustainable way of living, and our bodies are perfectly engineered for that.
At the other end of the spectrum would be a pure carnivore diet, which science studies consistently find to cause increased cardiovascular disease and cancer rates. On top of all the enormous waste, expenditure, and utter cruelty towards livestock.
Point is-- if you consider all that, I think you can find some pretty decisive answers about the “morality” of one’s diet.
You will find there have been no studies on the pure-carnivore (zero carb) diet wrt cvd or oncogenic effects.
There have been observational epidemiology on high carb omnivores (75% plant) which people like to extrapolate around and make causal statements such as ‘caused increased… rates’ which the data cannot support.
Food frequency questionaires prove nothing
Right, I got a little carried away with the ‘pure’ angle, but I do recall seeing many abstracts / summaries of studies for quite a few years that found that diets heavy on meat indeed seem to correlate to increased cancer & CVD incidents.
Shouldn’t be too surprising based on studies of the GI systems of numerous herbivores vs. numerous Carnivorans, either. Extra-long GI vs. very short one depending on diet. Ours certainly seems to be a middle-ground, omnivore-type GI. AFAIK only rarely do we find from archeology & anthropology evidence that humans ate very-high meat diets, such as Innuit peoples for example.
Fair enough the moment takes us all sometimes.
Not quite - these are FFQs applied to the general populations so protein is really around 15%. There is considerable debate in the literature if these findings are clinically meaningful.
Not just the moment, but the motivation to get the core of a point across to a casual audience with a brevity of verbiage.
What is your relevant background in such matters, if I may ask?
I’ve been reading the debate with great interest.
What are yours?