Veganism/Leather etc. out of Market Action

[JRP3]

Plant eaters have lower concentrations of toxic compounds and organic meat shows no reduction in toxic compounds

 

[Tslynk67]

And you do the same:

Regarding the idea that meat is the preferred fuel for the body, why do almost no elite athletes eat only meat? Professional athletes look for any possible edge they can gain, including some injecting themselves with harmful chemicals if they provide a performance boost. You can be sure athletes have experimented with meat only diets and you can be sure if they were effective their use would be wide spread. Yet most athletes rely on carbohydrate intake as fuel for their performance. In this unrelated video about cheat meals professional trainer Jeff Cavalier who works with pro athletes makes the statement around the 5 minute mark "My athletes eat carbohydrates, they have to"

Well I can only imagine it's because the conventional wisdom is that athletes need carbohydrates. There's some debate that using muscle glycogen gives a better response for power athletes, like sprinters and the like, but for endurance athletes, switching to a fat-fuelled ketogenic diet could be very advantageous, given that assuming you have some body-fat to burn, you're unlikely to run out of fuel during a race, unlike carb-fuelled folks who would need to re-plenish with sugary drinks regularly.

Of course it takes some weeks, even months for the body to adapt to being fat-fuelled, it's not something you can jump into from one day t the next. And there have been some controlled studies done on this, but more research is needed. You have to remember that the low-fat, high-carb mantra has been pushed by the food companies now for decades, much research showing how detrimental sugar is, for instance, has been suppressed. Read about John Yudkin if you're not convinced.

But more papers are coming out now, so we should see more and more scientifically reported evidence that fat it the prepared food for humans:

https://www.cell.com/cell-metabolism/pdfExtended/S1550-4131(16)30355-2

Re-Examining High-Fat Diets for Sports Performance: Did We Call the ‘Nail in the Coffin’ Too Soon?

Low-Carbohydrate-High-Fat Diet: Can it Help Exercise Performance?

 

[JRP3]

Interesting stuff, let's go through it.
Your first link is to a study using a ketone loaded drink to induce a short term ketosis response in people not on a ketogenic diet. The study authors are trying to market a ketone body drink supplement.

we studied the biochem-
ical advantages of ketosis in humans using a ketone
ester-based form of nutrition without the unwanted
milieu of endogenous ketone body production by
caloric or carbohydrate restriction.

The study makes it clear that ketosis is a survival response to starvation and not a desirable long term state.

Ketone body metabolism is a survival trait conserved in higher
organisms to prolong life during an energy deficit or metabolic
crisis.

Performance improvements were minimal and impaired performance may result with different athletic demands.

In study 5, bicycle ergometer time trial performance was
2% greater following KE+CHO versus CHO, representing a modest
increase in physical capacity in these highly trained athletes,
despite significant changes in muscular metabolism. These find-
ings suggest that the ceiling for human performance is not purely
constrained by muscular energetics (Noakes, 2011). However,
ketosis may not be advantageous in physiological conditions
that rely almost solely on anaerobic glycolysis, or extremely
high glycolytic flux for ATP production, such as sprint or short-
duration exercise. Furthermore, highly glycolytic exercise may
even be impaired if ketone body oxidation restricts glycolysis
by negative feedback, either by an increase in NADH/NAD+
or acetyl-CoA/CoA ratio.

Second link.

The current interest in low carbohydrate high fat (LCHF) diets for sports performance is based on enthusiastic claims and testimonials rather than a strong evidence base. Although adaptation to a LCHF (whether ketogenic or not) increases the muscle’s capacity to utilize fat as an exercise substrate, there is no proof that this leads to a clear performance advantage. In fact, there is a risk of impairing the capacity for high intensity exercise.

“… the price paid for the conservation of CHO during exercise appears to be a limitation of the intensity of exercise that can be performed … there was a marked attenuation of respiratory quotient [RQ] value at VO2max suggesting a severe restriction on the ability of subjects to do anaerobic work”.

Overall, differences in the performance times for the 100-km time trial (TT) were not statistically significant, although the mean performance on the high-carbohydrate trial was 3 min 44 s or ~2.5 % faster (153 min, 10 s for high-carbohydrate trial and 156 min, 53 s for LCHF adapted, p = 0.23). While there was no difference between trials with regard to the 4-km sprint times, performance of the 1-km sprints was significantly impaired in the LCHF-adapted trial in all subjects, including the three subjects whose overall 100-km TT performance was faster than in their high-carbohydrate trial. The authors stated that although adaptation to the LCHF diet followed by carbohydrate restoration increased fat oxidation during exercise, “it reduced high-intensity sprint power performance, which was associated with increased muscle recruitment, effort perception and heart rate”.

And from the conclusion:

Considering that athletes might best benefit from a range of options in the dietary tool box is likely to be a better model for optimal sports nutrition than insisting on a single, one-size-fits-all solution.

Finally your third link.

The elevated fat oxidation rate and glycogen sparing effect may improve performance in ultra-endurance events. These metabolic changes may also prevent the decline in performance in later stages of repeated high-intensity movements, in which the aerobic metabolism becomes more important. However, elevated blood concentrations of non-esterified fatty acids and ammonia during exercise after LCHF diets may lead to early development of central fatigue.

There is no free lunch, not even if it's low carb.

Relating to what our body prefers as fuel, and what may have lead to our increased brain development, I found this interesting. It also reinforces the previously mentioned idea that ketosis is a stress response to starvation and not a beneficial long term state.

Although the brain prefers glucose as the main energy source, it can metabolize ketone bodies as fuel for long periods of time during starvation and hypoglycemia

This was interesting, and along with most of the other studies, suggests to me that there may be some short term benefits of ketosis for endurance athletes who don't require maximum power production.

It has been shown that elite male gymnasts maintained maximal repetitions of push-ups, reverse grip chins, and parallel bar dips after 30 days of a LCHF diet while experiencing significantly reduced body weight and fat (Paoli et al., 2012).

Gymnasts weighed less so did less work with each rep yet were not able to increase their reps.

None of the following suggests LCHF as ideal for athletic performance:

Alterations in the metabolic fuel use during exercise after adaptation to a LCHF diet can affect cerebral amino-acid uptake, the energy metabolism, and neurotransmission. The increased rate of fat oxidation during exercise after adaptation to a LCHF diet is likely to increase brain uptake of free tryptophan. This is the consequence of increased competition for binding to albumin by rising concentrations of NEFA. Free tryptophan is the precursor of serotonin (5-hydroxytryptamine), a brain neurotransmitter associated with the feeling of lethargy and tiredness that may contribute to the loss of central drive and motivation (Davis and Bailey, 1997). Increased brain uptake of free tryptophan has been reported to favor cerebral serotonin synthesis and contribute to central fatigue (Pardridge, 1998).

High protein content of LCHF diets also leads to elevated ammonia production during exercise (MacLean et al., 1996; Meeusen et al., 2006; Struder et al., 1998). Ammonia is another factor that could induce central fatigue by altering the cerebral energy metabolism and neurotransmission, and affect signaling pathways within the neural circuits (Mutch and Banister, 1983; Wilkinson et al., 2010). Subjects adapted to LCHF diets experienced higher plasma concentrations of NEFA and ammonia, two agents contributing to central fatigue, during exercise at various intensities (Langfort et al., 1996, 2004).

As should be obvious I took the time to dive deeply into all the links provided and came to quite different conclusions than you did. I have to wonder once again if you actually read through the links you provided.

 

[JRP3]

Meat and dairy companies to surpass oil industry as world’s biggest polluters

 

[renim]

JRP3
lets do some fun with maths

USA has approximately 90 million acres under soyabean
lets say conversion to grazing results in approx the same soil benefit as peanut/cotton to grazing, so thats approx 20 Mg C ha−1.

units, units
90 million acres is 36 million hectare
20 Mg is 20 tonne
1 tonne carbon is 3.7 tonnes CO2
36 000 000 x 20 x 3.7 = 2,694,000,000 CO2 sequestered by ditching one crop and converting it to cattle/dairy.

thats a large number, i'm trying to wrap my head around, 2.7 GigaTonne CO2
Greenhouse Gas Emissions from a Typical Passenger Vehicle | US EPA
if a typical USA car emits 4.6 tonnes CO2 per year, then 2,694,000,000 / 4.6 is 585,565,217 car years.

so the short term CO2 sequestered by USA going from soyabean to dairy is about equivalent to 585 million car years..

and thats just the start, there seems to be a plateau, but longterm it could rise higher and higher to green country dairy levels, perhaps another 20 Mg C ha−1 would still not reach the levels of lush dairy pasture.

so JRP3 i'ld be happy for you to check these figures, its a quick calc and i could be out somewhere by 3 orders of magnitude, but i suspect its correct.

soyabean is a natural petrochemical, they use hexane to extract it, feed the toxic oil to humans, and feed the healthy proteins to pigs, truly bizarre.

Soybean Processing - Crown Iron Works

 

[renim]

lycanthrope

sadly, the USA wont get out of its diabetes pandemic for a long long time. (see what i did there)
a quick look a CSIRO cookbook has this

this is basic stuff, but it seems so absent from USA understanding of T2 diabetes.

the poisoning starts young, its all part of a 'healthy breakfast'

 

[JRP3]

lets do some fun with maths

USA has approximately 90 million acres under soyabean
lets say conversion to grazing results in approx the same soil benefit as peanut/cotton to grazing, so thats approx 20 Mg C ha−1.

To do accurate calculations we need to start with accurate baseline numbers. Considering the following:

They found that broadly speaking the companies were being secretive about their emissions data and few had set hard targets intended to deal with their pollution...
As part of their analysis, the authors looked at efforts being taken to reduce emissions and found that only six had set targets that included their entire supply chain, despite this portion counting for up to 90 per cent of total emissions.

it's hard to take your starting number at face value.

 

[JRP3]

Meat eater afraid of plants but has higher diabetic indicators than high carb vegan

 

[Tslynk67]

lycanthrope

sadly, the USA wont get out of its diabetes pandemic for a long long time. (see what i did there)
a quick look a CSIRO cookbook has this
View attachment 317909


this is basic stuff, but it seems so absent from USA understanding of T2 diabetes.

the poisoning starts young, its all part of a 'healthy breakfast'

Actually it seems to be inherited to some degree, in any case an accumulation over subsequent generations - could be an epigenetic thing, I don't know.

Fortunately the narrative is changing, with great work from startups like Virta and the efforts of luminaries such as Tim Noakes in South Africa and Assem Malhotra in the UK.

On top of that, the anecdotal evidence is mounting rapidly - there comes a certain point where it's no longer anecdotal.

I don't know a single person who hasn't transformed their lives by removing processed carbs and industrial seed-oils from their diet.

I also believe a well chosen, whole-foods vegan diet is infinitely better than the S.A.D., but of course you need to supplement what's missing.

 

[renim]

To do accurate calculations we need to start with accurate baseline numbers. Considering the following:



it's hard to take your starting number at face value.

starting number for soybeans 90 million acres, quick google gives

taken from 2017 United States Department of Agriculture Corn Yield and Soybean Production Up in 2017, USDA Reports - Winter Wheat Seedings and Grain Stocks also reported

so 90 million acres is the correct figure. which gives 36 million hectares, which at 20 tonnes per hectare carbon and each tonne carbon is equivalent to 3.7 tonnes CO2, (the 20 is from chart below (35-15))

36 000 000 ha x 20 Mg C ha−1 x 3.7 C02/C = 2,694,000,000 CO2 sequestered by ditching one crop and converting it to cattle/dairy.
so the units work out ok, so yeah, is 2.7 GigaTonne CO2 that would be sequestered, just by ditching Soy and going cattle/dairy.

what is the opaque number is how to equate this to something 'tangible', so lets use EPA Greenhouse Gas Emissions from a Typical Passenger Vehicle | US EPA

so thats where the 4.6 tonnes is provided., putting that into 2.7 gigatonnes CO2
2,694,000,000 / 4.6 is 585,565,217 car years.

and so context is reasonable, ditching soy is equivalent to ditching 585,565,217 car years

or to put it to the commonsense test, did roaming bison cause the dust bowl, or was it cultivating cropland?

 

[JRP3]

or to put it to the commonsense test, did roaming bison cause the dust bowl, or was it cultivating cropland?

How about 30-60 million roaming bison vs today's 95 million cattle? Plus 70 million hogs which did not originally exist in the New World? Plus 90 billion chickens which also did not exist in the New World. Common sense test failed.

Your calculations still ignore the point in my previous post, that carbon sequestration changes in the soil are only part of the picture and ignore the other CO2 impacts of animal agriculture, which are often under reported, according to the study.

 

[JRP3]

EV tie-in to the topic, Bobby Llewellyn of Fully Charged, (and Red Dwarf), going vegetarian

 

[JRP3]

Huge reduction in meat-eating ‘essential’ to avoid climate breakdown

Huge reductions in meat-eating are essential to avoid dangerous climate change, according to the most comprehensive analysis yet of the food system’s impact on the environment. In western countries, beef consumption needs to fall by 90% and be replaced by five times more beans and pulses.

 

[AWDtsla]

Huge reduction in meat-eating ‘essential’ to avoid climate breakdown

I searched this thread for "methane" which comes up with exactly 0 results.

Methane has a half-life in atmosphere of 7 years. Farming related methane is sourced from carbon in the active carbon cycle (i.e. new carbon).

CO2 added from previously permanently sequestered sources such as oil and coal becomes permanent in the current active CO2 cycle. You effectively need a million years for the formation of new peat/coal/oil to remove this CO2 from the active carbon cycle.

Found nothing in this paper to address this either.

Sorry, but everytime I look it seems the vegans are trying to ride the coat-tails of the climate change movement. This is hurting our progress and is rightly earning my anger.

PS. Must eat beans to fix climate change? Have you considered human methane emissions? LOL

 

[AWDtsla]

EV tie-in to the topic, Bobby Llewellyn of Fully Charged, (and Red Dwarf), going vegetarian

Yeah, and this guy is impressed by solar roads and energy leached from humans walking on sidewalks. Humans fed by expensive arable land. He does not understand physics, nor has a critical mind.

 

[bhtooefr]

So I was under the impression that grass-fed beef had higher methane emissions (with methane being a far more potent greenhouse gas for a given mass of carbon than CO2 - basically amplifying the effects of existing carbon in the atmosphere), so much so that the improved carbon uptake of the land was offset: Grass-fed beef will not help tackle climate change, report finds | Carbon Brief

That said, there's also this analysis, and then this StackExchange answer using that data combined with FDA data on calories per kg of food - the takeaway I'm taking from that is... avoid ruminant meat at all costs, but everything else isn't incredibly bad (even dairy, which in practice does come from ruminants), if your concern is climate. Of course, that isn't including human digestive emissions.

 

[bhtooefr]

Oh, one huge thing I left out - wild venison would be a huge exception to avoiding ruminant meat, as there's an oversupply of deer in the wild. Breeding new ruminants for meat is the problem, not killing and eating existing ruminants.

 

[JRP3]

I searched this thread for "methane" which comes up with exactly 0 results.

Methane has a half-life in atmosphere of 7 years. Farming related methane is sourced from carbon in the active carbon cycle (i.e. new carbon).

CO2 added from previously permanently sequestered sources such as oil and coal becomes permanent in the current active CO2 cycle. You effectively need a million years for the formation of new peat/coal/oil to remove this CO2 from the active carbon cycle.

Found nothing in this paper to address this either.

Sorry, but everytime I look it seems the vegans are trying to ride the coat-tails of the climate change movement. This is hurting our progress and is rightly earning my anger.

PS. Must eat beans to fix climate change? Have you considered human methane emissions? LOL

As @KarenRei posted in the other thread:

No, it is not. And this has nothing to do with "ideology". I recommend reading the IPCC reports and spending some time on scholar.google.com. Certain types of management can lead to temporary net sequestration (such as reducing grazing of overgrazed fields) or displacing other inputs (such as grazing cover crops on fallow fields), but even ignoring that low-carbon management techniques also tend to be lower density, in the long term all forms of grazing are significant GHG sources. Ignoring the issues of how overgrazing (which is extensive worldwide) depletes carbon from soils, and the (extensive) amount of forest land that has been lost for cattle pasture, cattle are at a fundamental level ruminants. They're extensive sources of methane, which has a GWP of 86 over 20 years and 34 over 100 years. By grazing cattle on grassland, you increase the amount of carbon that ends up as methane rather than CO2.

TSLA Market Action: 2018 Investor Roundtable

 

[AWDtsla]

As @KarenRei posted in the other thread:



TSLA Market Action: 2018 Investor Roundtable

Yeah sounds like more cherry-picking data to fit the thesis, instead of letting the data inform a novel thesis. Pretty much the same feeling as after being forced to watch Cowspiracy on netflix. Some basic first principles math is able to show how much BS is in that documentary.

 

[JRP3]

Sounds like you don't like the potential conclusion so you're ignoring the data, sort of like the anti EV crowd tried to do. I haven't seen @KarenRei do much faulty analysis of data.