Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Bye bye MEAT! How will the post-meat future look?

How reluctant are you to give up your meat habit?


  • Total voters
    196
Status
Not open for further replies.
Last September Advances in Nutrition - the second highest ranking journal on nutrition and dietetics - published a scoping review of the environmental impacts and nutrient composition of plant-based milks. In line with everything that's been published on the topic it concluded that 'plant-based milks were found to primarily have low GHGEs, land use, and water consumption in comparison to dairy milk, although almond milk had a very high range of water consumption values'. Within plant-milks each was found to have comparative environmental benefits and disadvantages. The lowest reported land use and water consumption was from soy milk.

On nutrition, the study found that plant-milks all lacked some of the nutrients found in dairy. Soy milk was closest nutritionally, because of it's similar protein content. There were, however some nutritional advantages of plant-based milks as well. Unlike dairy milk they contain fibre and (with the exception of coconut milk) contain almost no saturated fat. The sugar-free varieties of plant-milks also have that advantage over dairy milk. Many are fortified with similar levels of calcium and b12 already (e.g. alpro). The study notes that all of the nutrients found in dairy can be achieved in plant-milks through supplementation.

After reading the study I remain happy that my home plant-milk of choice is soy - with oat as my preference when having coffee out. I hope that plant-based milk products continue to develop their fortification to ensure that consumers who want to avoid the barbaric cruelty of the dairy industry can do so in a nutritionally optimal way (they can do already with a little planning).
As we are on nutrition I just stumbled upon this (High-Protein Plant-Based Diet Versus a Protein-Matched Omnivorous Diet to Support Resistance Training Adaptations: A Comparison Between Habitual Vegans and Omnivores - PubMed) as a reference while reading about something completely different but I can only read the abstract.

A high-protein (~ 1.6 g kg-1 day-1), exclusively plant-based diet (plant-based whole foods + soy protein isolate supplementation) is not different than a protein-matched mixed diet (mixed whole foods + whey protein supplementation) in supporting muscle strength and mass accrual, suggesting that protein source does not affect resistance training-induced adaptations in untrained young men consuming adequate amounts of protein.
 
I'm not surprised by these results. Humans are very flexible in our diets even though we do need a big long list of nutrients from our food. Meat and dairy offer a convenient one-stop-shop for many of these nutrients that isn't quite matched in its range by non-meat sources, but a bit of care with diet plus supplements for what you can't get from plants, such as vitamin B12, can of course be healthy.
 
It's you, not me that feels the need to post a piece about the (few) journal sources you use about how they are "the most prodigious publications in their field" or quotes from the authors of a paper saying how wonderfully fantastic their paper is.

I've posted loads of peer reviewed stuff without resorting to how terribly comprehensive and much, much better my journal sources are than everyone else's.
 
New study for the rabid flesh-eaters to ignore/deride:

Vegan Diet 44 Percent Better for the Environment Than Mediterranean Diet, Study Finds
A new study found that a vegan diet is better for the environment than a Mediterranean diet—and eliminating animal products is what makes the difference.

Diet has an impact on both health and the ecosystem. In our work, we have compared two sustainable diets with very similar nutrient compositions but with substantial differences in their total environmental impacts. The replacement of a small calorie quota (10.6%) represented by animal foods with plant foods showed significant improvement in the total environmental impact, especially for ecosystems and human health.
This suggests that the more plant-based the diet is, the less it will impact the environment. This information is noteworthy in light of how many countries show a diet rich in animal foods and how much this represents a global risk to sustainability.
However, while the health consequences are already known, there is still little attention on the environmental outcomes, given how even small amounts of animal food can make a difference.

 
And here's some encouraging news:

Students ate less meat for three years after a talk on climate impact​

In a randomised trial, students who listened to a single 50-minute talk on the health and climate impacts of meat ate 9 per cent fewer meat-based meals over the next three years

 
New study for the rabid flesh-eaters to ignore/deride:

Vegan Diet 44 Percent Better for the Environment Than Mediterranean Diet, Study Finds
A new study found that a vegan diet is better for the environment than a Mediterranean diet—and eliminating animal products is what makes the difference.



Filthy Rabid Mediterraneans. Coming over here, pushing their diet. Wankers.

Picture1.jpg
 
I even remember someone appealing for an end to this sort of thing, now who was it.....
Sorry, are you self identifying as a 'rabid meat eater'?

You don't think some people here are fanatical meat eaters? You know, the kind of people who want to keep on eating meat despite the very clear damage it's causing to the environment?

The ones who will instantly rubbish any report that suggests eating less meat is the way forward and the ones who are happy to ignore the immense cruelty and suffering involved in the meat industry just so long as they can tuck into a tasty cheap chicken leg?

So sorry if you're offended, but that's honestly how I find some people here.
 
Sorry, are you self identifying as a 'rabid meat eater'?

You don't think some people here are fanatical meat eaters? You know, the kind of people who want to keep on eating meat despite the very clear damage it's causing to the environment?

The ones who will instantly rubbish any report that suggests eating less meat is the way forward and the ones who are happy to ignore the immense cruelty and suffering involved in the meat industry just so long as they can tuck into a tasty cheap chicken leg?

So sorry if you're offended, but that's honestly how I find some people here.
Those people are in your imagination. You're the one using the word rabid. ;)
 
You joke, but that would actually be a lot better if you don’t want this thread to be heavily antagonistic
It's just frustration at what can only be described as near-religious levels of denial over the damage that meat eating is causing the environment, with study after study derided or dismissed out of hand on the most spurious of grounds.
 
It's just frustration at what can only be described as near-religious levels of denial over the damage that meat eating is causing the environment, with study after study derided or dismissed out of hand on the most spurious of grounds.
Meat eating doesn't cause harm to the environment, how we acquire meat could and addressing this isn't off many 'carnists' menus
 
Oat milk to become the default for hot drinks at Birmingham University for one month. Will be interesting to see how this pilot scheme effects consumer purchases. What percentage of dairy drinkers will consciously ‘opt in’ for the dairy option?

 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom