Man, I can't stand these kinds of studies

(Bob M) #1

image

image

image

This comes from here:

https://www.nature.com/articles/s43016-024-00925-y.epdf?sharing_token=nOOAzyLS8RQr9WQgzgY29NRgN0jAjWel9jnR3ZoTv0PhPBbJYAOXW0a8opBFmRhPzwhXHdrW-ToSfQh6wOMs9GD7Za2AdVBSujfwkUY_pKvMEy1N22FCzRsggCMPnSpxGCjHlAlOwcHHZbR3pOziX2T-N8iNl-AkiLvqZRkDfFyxA1BZC3hTQr8G48Hu87aak8qpnFFgjY0wGOItIvN-fA%3D%3D&tracking_referrer=www.npr.org

The NPR story:

Reading the above, one might think they actually ran a study where they replaced/substituted foods. But they didn’t. Instead, they took studies (epidemiological studies based on FFQs, food-frequency questionnaires) and ran them through a model that is supposed to estimate what happens if you substituted foods.

They did the same with "green house gases’, likely with a heavy bias towards indicating that plant-based is somehow better for the planet than is meat-based.

But I can guarantee that if you actually had a randomized controlled trial where people actually ate more red meat as compared to people who drank soy based drinks, you wouldn’t get these results. This assumes you made the study long enough and you kept the red meat part low carb (if both groups eat high carb but one eats some red meat and one drinks soymilk, and you look for short term metrics like LDL, the study might actually favor plants).

And as for the effects of these on green-house gases, that is so complex, I’m not even going to comment.

#2

It’s definitely hard to calculate how many more cow farts our planet can take before it explodes :rofl::rofl::rofl:

I’ve always wondered what the morons with that angle on the argument say when you bring up carbon-neutral and carbon negative farming? I’d love to hear the straw man on that one!

(KM) #3

I think the only statistic I’m relying on at this point is one I made up myself: at least 90% of statistics are self serving garbage.

(Bacon is a many-splendoured thing) #4

Or, as Abraham Lincoln put it, “Ninety percent of Internet statistics are made up.”

(Geoffrey) #5

Just more pseudo science pushing a false narrative.

(Alec) #6

“Fortified soy beverage”… I think I would prefer to stab myself in the eye with a pencil.

(Edith) #7

There are seven billion people on this planet. Way more humans than cows. Why aren’t we concerned about all the green house emissions we create just from our bodies? If we all started eating beans for our protein sources, the increase in methane would be astronomical and our planet would most likely become more-Venus like.

(Bacon is a many-splendoured thing) #8

:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:

Good point!

#9

Quotes from the orignal study;

“Replacing red and processed meat or dairy increased life expectancy by up to 8.7 months or 7.6 months, respectively. Diet-related greenhouse gas emissions decreased by up to 25% for red and processed meat and by up to 5% for dairy replacements.”

And

“Using a combination of data from a national nutrition survey, greenhouse gas emissions from dataFIELD and relative risks from the Global Burden of Disease Study 2017.”

Junk science. Confirmation bias.

(KM) #10

I wonder … if everyone on earth were eating a carnivore diet with its truly low fart benefits, vs. everyone eating a bean based diet and no cows on the planet, would we reduce or increase the total methane?

(Bacon is a many-splendoured thing) #11

Let’s devise a model for that, and run some numbers!! :rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::bacon::bacon:

(Edith) #12

And publish it!

(KCKO, KCFO) #13

I agree. Besides, people like my husband would die quciker eating beans and lentils with his IBS. They make him horridly sick, has had to go to ER before he learned what was causing the distress.

Not everyone can process plant foods correctly.

#14

Especially legumes. Many people have problems with them. I don’t really but 1. they are carby 2. gas. I normally had little gas on high-carb and nothing noticeable ever on keto but beans are powerful. Still nothing too bad but I prefer my nothing.

There are many other problematic plants, nightshades, for example. A plant-heavy woe may be torturous for some, that’s right. It wouldn’t feel THAT good even to me and I never felt I couldn’t tolerate a non-toxic (normal meaning, okay?) plant. Or mushroom. I can eat some that my family members can’t without suffering. My SO’s Mom can’t tolerate any wild mushrooms.

I can imagine quite a few good reasons to eat more animal food… Even though I can handle plants, my body strongly prefers minimal plant carbs on a normal day (I mean, I can go off and feel fine. I just can’t stay there and expect it staying just as good and when I am off, I still eat lots of various animal products), it shows me very clearly. So that’s it, I won’t sacrifice even a little bit of my health and well-being, call me mean or whatever. I am selfish as a human should be, caring about themselves. I do care about other things but sometimes we need to choose what is more important, how to balance things to feel best with our decision as a somewhat decent human being.