Support NeoGAF

[uncelestial]

Here's another fun study for your consideration:

Vegetarians are 'less healthy and have a lower quality of life than meat-eaters', scientists say

"We did find that vegetarians suffer more from certain conditions like asthma, cancer and mental illnesses than people that eat meat as well, but we cannot say what is the cause and what is the effect.

So in other words, people might feel bad to begin with and are turning to vegetarianism to turn things around. That is precisely my story, and the story of Bill Clinton (who went vegan after heart problems), and my ex-girlfriend (who went vegan to help her rheumatoid arthritis).

I'm sure people would like to believe they can eat all the butter and pork they want and it's the people eating salads who are going to end up being unhealthy, but that isn't true, no matter how many stupid bacon memes you make.

 

[Deleted member 17706]

So in other words, people might feel bad to begin with and are turning to vegetarianism to turn things around. That is precisely my story, and the story of Bill Clinton (who went vegan after heart problems), and my ex-girlfriend (who went vegan to help her rheumatoid arthritis).

I'm sure people would like to believe they can eat all the butter and pork they want and it's the people eating salads who are going to end up being unhealthy, but that isn't true, no matter how many stupid bacon memes you make.

No... that's just wishful thinking on your part. Not sure why you would rephrase a statement that says "but we cannot say what is the cause and what is the effect" with a sentence that draws a conclusion that you happen to prefer.

 

[diaspora]

Are we talking per capita or just straight volume numbers?

both

 

[Razorback]

But we also have to feed those animals a vegetarian diet. Is that taken into account?

 

[Adaren]

Let me know when we have a study about the average contents of a vegetarian diet. Because until then, this is just someone trying to push an agenda that has nothing to do with the study he cited.

I eat a heck of a lot more than celery and lettuce.

If this turns out to be true, I will constantly berate Vegetarians as they eat and say how good it is for the environment to be a meat eater.

I've said it before: the only hard thing about being a vegetarian is every smartass trying to goad you into saying why you're a vegetarian and then using it as evidence of some preachy vegetarian stereotype.

But when everything was tallied up, it wasn’t looking great for all the kale-munching, clean-eating freaks on Instagram.

These aren't the words of someone interested in science and objective truth. This is just someone interpreting the evidence to mean whatever they want it to. Whatever.

 

[uncelestial]

No... that's just wishful thinking on your part. Not sure why you would rephrase a statement that says "but we cannot say what is the cause and what is the effect" with a sentence that draws a conclusion that you happen to prefer.

Maybe it's the last 40 years of nutritional science favoring that conclusion vs one study that is only measuring loose correlations?

 

[Deleted member 17706]

Maybe it's the last 40 years of nutritional science favoring that conclusion vs one study that is only measuring loose correlations?

Nutritional science does not favor vegetarian diets over omnivorous ones, unless you simply look at it through a "health conscious people vs. Joe Six Pack" lens.

 

[RumblingRosco]

I need to read this study still, but I cannot see how it is possible that it is more efficient to eat meat than it is to eat vegetables. We're talking about basic energy transfer/conservation here. To create a pound of meet, which is absolutely more caloric/energy-dense than a pound of lettuce, you have to obtain that energy from another source (usually, vegetables/grains). But, the conversion of energy from a grain/vegetable to creating a pound of meat is not 1-to-1, some of that energy is lost in that process (as heat or other reasons). You could maybe make a case that you save on transportation/fuel expenses by transporting a pound of meat versus an equivalent (several pounds) of vegetables, but even still, you'd need to transport the grain/vegetables to the livestock to generate that meat in the first place.

I just cannot see a manner by which it is more efficient to eat meat than to be a vegetarian, and I say this as someone that eats meat a few meals a week.

 

[David H Wong]

I need to read this study still, but I cannot see how it is possible that it is more efficient to eat meat than it is to eat vegetables. We're talking about basic energy transfer/conservation here. To create a pound of meet, which is absolutely more caloric/energy-dense than a pound of lettuce, you have to obtain that energy from another source (usually, vegetables/grains). But, the conversion of energy from a grain/vegetable to creating a pound of meat is not 1-to-1, some of that energy is lost in that process (as heat or other reasons). You could maybe make a case that you save on transportation/fuel expenses by transporting a pound of meat versus an equivalent (several pounds) of vegetables, but even still, you'd need to transport the grain/vegetables to the livestock to generate that meat in the first place.

I just cannot see a manner by which it is more efficient to eat meat than to be a vegetarian, and I say this as someone that eats meat a few meals a week.

You lose like 90% of it! Yes bacon is more calorie dense, but to get there you've had to waste ten times that amount of calories in feed (vs if you just fed it to a human) since the pig metabolized it during its life, burning those calories just by walking/breathing/doing pig things.

There's no possible way the math works the way the study claims - you're literally talking about spending resources to grow food, and choosing whether or not to destroy 90% of it before it gets to the plate.

Now there are tons of mitigating factors here - you can graze cows on land that otherwise couldn't be used to grow crops for people to eat, etc. But it would actually be difficult to, say, find a way to convert soybeans to a meat substitute in a way that's less efficient than converting grain to actual meat. I mean I still eat the hell out of some meat but let's not lie to ourselves.

 

[uncelestial]

Nutritional science does not favor vegetarian diets over omnivorous ones, unless you simply look at it through a "health conscious people vs. Joe Six Pack" lens.

So in otherwords, whether I look at it through the "which diet is healthier" lens, which I do. Also the "which diet is more kind to animals" lens, and "which diet is more sustainable for the planet" lens.

 

[Valjean Lafitte]

So for those of us who don't have time to read the study, what does it actually say about the link between vegetarianism and global warming?

 

[DonasaurusRex]

i think i heard something like this when it came to IL not wanting people to grow to many pumpkins or something ridiculous because of greenhouse gas emissions. How ever did the fragile world ever survive? Wont the greening of the planet actually use some of the carbon in the atmosphere . Skeptical about the story, the actual research sounds like you gotta dig into whatever they publish or whatever codebook and data analysis they make available. Still gonna grow and eat vegetables with bacon !!!!! yeahhh burn it all.

 

[Deleted member 17706]

So in otherwords, whether I look at it through the "which diet is healthier" lens, which I do. Also the "which diet is more kind to animals" lens, and "which diet is more sustainable for the planet" lens.

You are really bad at rephrasing things without completely twisting the meaning, aren't you?

No. Vegetarians typically come out healthier if you compare them to the general population, which as can be seen by our obesity epidemic, typically eat complete garbage. It's simply a health-conscious person vs. dude who doesn't give a shit situation.

 

[RSTEIN]

Do they take into account the emissions of the animals themselves and the land required to raise the animals?

 

[benjipwns]

So for those of us who don't have time to read the study, what does it actually say about the link between vegetarianism and global warming?

Essentially it compares the carbon expelled per calorie. On this measure, individual types of vegetables don't come out as well as meat, mainly because you get more calories out of meat per gram.

They don't say anything regarding particular diets beyond more than suggesting that a better individual diet is better for the planet because it uses less resources per person which is like...yeah...duh.

 

[ItWasMeantToBe19]

So for those of us who don't have time to read the study, what does it actually say about the link between vegetarianism and global warming?

1. Being a vegetarian is better for reducing climate change.
2. Reaching the U.S. dietary guidelines right now cannot be done in a way that is good for the environment with either vegetarian or non-vegetarian diets. "Healthy eating" and "environmentally friendly eating" are currently at odds with each other.