This entire popsci.com article is utter nonsense. It is nothing but 1950's AMA talking points, and has long been debunked. There are many reasons, but the chief one is this:
All else being equal, the rate of gluconeogenesis (GNG) in the body is constant. It happens all the time, for all people, even type 2 diabetics. It has no correlation whatsoever to protein intake, because the body will break down body tissues if there is not enough protein from other sources.
Therefore, if this article were correct, then NO ONE would be in ketosis.
But in fact, everyone who is in ketosis is also undergoing GNG. In fact, they are undergoing it at a faster rate, and yet, they remain in ketosis. GNG is providing just enough glucose for the handful of body tissues that cannot utilize ketones, and preventing the body from going hypoglycemic. Yet the bulk of the body, metabolically speaking, is using ketones.
And besides the clear scientific reasons stated above, you have the millions of people who do keto, and regularly test their urine to know that they are in ketosis. QED.
Could you be more specific with what sentences or paragraphs in the article have been debunked? I can’t find where the author questions ketosis is happening or incorrectly defines gluconeogenesis or parrots 1950s AMA talking points. I’m not trying to start a long argument but would be very interested to learn where my own knowledge on the subject may be in error.
Just to be clear, I’m referring to the popsci.com article linked by the GP, not to the NYT article you posted.
Pretty much the second half of the article. It claims that GNG prevents ketosis. It does not. It also claims that any amount of protein beyond the minimum results in GNG. Wrong again. The body is always undergoing GNG, and protein intake he nothing to do with it.
Furthermore, there is a metabolic pathway by which ketones actually regulate GNG, preventing it from exceeding a certain level.
See the article I linked. It has a good summary as well as links to the various papers on this subject.
I know there will be comments saying that individual action is not enough to combat climate change, or that it's too late for that, but when governments are so slow to act and corporations will only change when their bottom line is at stake, it is left to individuals to take action. Going vegan is simply the right thing to do at this point.
Personally I think that individual action is largely futile. I've also stopped eating meat. I want to be able to look gen Z in the eye when I'm old and say I did everything I could.
I feel like the other attitude is popular because it gives people an excuse not to exercise real activism - propositions, getting out the vote, public education etc. Just eat a veggie-burger now and then and say "well I tried".
In addition, it's just not the appropriate or proportional response, considering the contributors [0]. Individual action alone is certainly not enough. Systemic change is crucial.
> Going vegan is simply the right thing to do at this point.
We're pretty much screwed (but not extinct) at this point no matter what, but going vegan doesn't matter nearly as much as living in a smaller house (i.e. less concrete), or driving and flying less.
I mostly avoid beef and dairy, which are the main diet-based causes of global warming, but beyond that it's a rounding error.
> Going vegan is simply the right thing to do at this point.
I'm sorry but no. Your diet is a personal choice and no amount of shaming is going to change that.
Do you travel internationally? Own a car? Do any other of a million things that have an impact on the climate but also constitute living your life?
It's great to put this information out there but telling people that your choices are "simply the right thing to do at this point" is incredibly condescending and will likely have the opposite impact you want it to have since no one likes to be preached at.
> Your diet is a personal choice and no amount of shaming is going to change that.
I guess that depends on how you define personal choice. Climate change has certain changed the calculus, but diet was never merely a personal choice when it required the death of other individuals.
As for the shaming, I'm not in favor of that because it does not seem to be an effective way of bringing about change. But simply having these kinds of discussions cannot fairly be called shaming. That's a cop-out to avoid meaningful discourse.
Isn't there a level of condescension and or proselytizing that always goes on around environmental conversations?
Reduce, reuse, recycle - if you do it, good! If you don't, bad! Travel less, don't own anything.
How can we frame these sorts of ideals so that people don't feel attacked?
There _is_ a climate crisis. At least some level of that crisis is driven by consumer demands. We should be able to advocate a change without people feeling like they're being shamed.
I think it’s their problem and not ours. No one ever wants to change and no matter how nicely you put things they’ll always feel attacked. It’s just how it work, ultimately no one really wants to change so they need to be pushed.
> No one ever wants to change and no matter how nicely you put things they’ll always feel attacked.
Precisely. As another example, when people claim that progress pics are "fatshaming", it's pretty obvious that the problem isn't with the information or how it's presented, it's with the person feeling ashamed, which they rightfully are. These people should self-reflect upon why they feel ashamed instead of throwing a tantrum and playing the victim.
I have been actively trying to reduce my ecological footprint because I believe climate change is real. I don't feel it's a matter of "personal choice" at this point. The way we live has a profound impact on the planet, and we all need to try and reduce that impact in any way we can. I realize this is a message people don't want to hear, but I believe they need to hear it. Going vegan and flying less are two of the biggest changes an individual can make.
Was it your personal choice to cut down rain forest to raise beef cattle, or palm oil? What about air freighting in fruit and veg that common sense says comes on a ship? No?
Your diet is small part personal choice, within the far larger part played by cultural mores and market-led financial choices imposed by producers and supermarkets. You can't escape the part played by billions on advertising, and the choices of restaurants and supermarkets that led to your "personal choice".
"The market" is not going to phase out ecologically reckless methods unless people stop buying. Yet how can they when that detail, very intentionally, never appears on the label, and 365 day availability ensures almost no one remembers when things are in season any more?
I can see why being "preached at" is being annoying, but the fact have been here long enough, yet a large percentage of the population haven't tried to change their diet.
If public shaming and social clout isn't involved, no one will.
Or we can accept people will keep their diet and go on with our lives. Just because something impacts the environment (literally everything does this btw) doesn't mean that we need to stop doing it. The climate will always be changing and humans will always have some impact on it. We need to accept that as fact.
That's pretty much saying "I put my personal food taste before the safety of the future generations.". Don't get me wrong, you're free to have this opinion but it's probably a good thing to frame it like that to fully understand the choice.
There's "climate is changing" and massive population migration, uninhabitable areas, unreliable food and water supply, sea level threatening entire cities and probably more.
The fact that "literally everything we do" impact the environment isn't a valid argument. It does seem daunting, but by looking at each cause individually and acting on it, it looks less discouraging.
I'm far from perfect, I'm not even vegan and I still fly quite a bit, I just came to understand I had to make progressive changes to my behaviour or the human existence we currently have is severely threatened,
Which doesn't abdicate us from preventing harm. My grandkids, if I am even lucky enough to have them, are going to live in a world where at least 31 days of the summer month will be too hot to go outside, winter will mostly be bouts of torrential super-storms, food will be incredibly expensive, and the politics of the day may very well be battles over how to handle the billions of migrants fleeing the uninhabitable places of the world.
Climate change is already displacing tens of thousands of people every year to floods, forest fires, and arid land. It's going to get worse before anything we do today to survive has an effect.
I think the thousands of scientists studying this phenomenon already understand the impact of human civilization on Earth rather well.
Yes, it sucks to be told you are a sinner. What language would you suggest people use in order to encourage people to be vegan? Suggesting it is the moral choice seems like a good method to me. Then again i am inclined to seek the moral and respond to guilt.
You seem more concerned about not being condescended to; for such an individual, what language would you find cogent?
I'm vegetarian and aspire to have a plant-based diet, but I recognize the difficulty in such a diet in a lot of places.
With that said, I'm curious why you don't want anyone trying to convince you to change your mind?
I don't want to eat meat, and I don't plan to, but if someone had some reasoned arguments as to why I should, I'd listen and decide for myself. I'm not you though, but I am curious what reason(s) you have for not being open to discussing it. I'm also curious why you phrased it as someone telling you to do it, rather than discussing it.
I love meat and many meat dishes. I would never stop eating them because they're a major part of my life. The question of if I want to change my diet is not one I'm asking myself. It seems weird to have to "debate" that with people. No amount of shaming is going to make me stop loving a good reuben sandwich or a carnitas burrito. I have no problem with other people eating what they choose but don't need to hear other people's thoughts on what I eat.
Think of it like pushy religious advocates. If they come to your door once and knock and you tell them to go way, that's mildly annoying but understandable. If they keep coming back every day saying that you "must" debate them, then that starts to get really annoying, really fast.
This is discussed in the article:
"Some scientists have suggested that grass-finished beef, if managed properly, can be a more sustainable option: As the cattle graze, they stimulate grass to grow deep roots and pull more carbon into the soil, helping to offset the cows’ climate impact. But, on the flip side, grass-finished cattle also take longer to reach slaughter weight, which means they spend more time burping up methane into the atmosphere. Because of this, some studies have suggested that grass-fed beef can actually be worse for the climate over all, though the debate about this continues to rage.
For now, it’s hard to say with confidence that grass-fed beef is consistently more climate-friendly than conventional beef."
Honestly the links between diet and health are always thin at best, but I don't know of any that strongly link a well-balanced vegan diet with reduced health. Usually, the opposite.
All the evidence seems to indicate that the less meat and dairy one eats, the healthier they are. I also used to believe vegans were unhealty until I did some research. As a personal anecdote, I've been vegan for about 4 years now and my health is better than ever.
As a personal anecdote, vegetarian didn't work for me! Persistent anemia, hair loss, fatigue; adding back some meat just fixed it.
Various diets are worth trying -- you never know until you try, and you learn a lot by trying. So for readers out there, try being vegan for a month: you'll learn a lot about what you eat and how to cook and you can observe how you feel.
Also worth noting: many traditional cultures embedded food restrictions into calendars and/or religious rules. Being vegan for a while before Easter is more or less a thing in some Christian groups; Ramadan involves fasting as a practice. These cultural practices, combined with the seasons in nature, make me wonder if we were built to be cyclically vegan/omnivore/berry-eater. This may be more sustainable for many.
Some evidence seems to suggest that it could negatively affect brain health. (See deficiencies in B12, Iron and Zinc.) I've even read anecdotes of people that have gotten diabetes going all wholefoods vegetarian.
My belief is that our biology is complex and specific to each individual to the point where we can't all share the same diet and expect the same effects on our bodies.
> I've even read anecdotes of people that have gotten diabetes going all wholefoods vegetarian.
There can be a problem with reducing fat and protein significantly while using carbs for the majority of caloric intake. This can lead to diabetes. But you can do this on an omnivore diet as well.
Giving up our growing space to grow lots of monocultured vegetables will be worse for the climate.
The co2 emissions from cows aren't the problem. Factory farming yes is a problem, but if cows are put on grass that grass is a co2 sink and gives off far less.
If you grow an acre of soy it's just as bad as it isn't sustainable.
Also the fact that being vegan has serious health consequences and animals provide far more nutrition.
The answer isn't going vegan at all but to have sustainable farming practices where animals and plants are grown together in a regenerative process.
Grass is one of the best crops to grow. It's a great carbon sink, and takes away methane. Builds its own fertility so no need for artificial fertilizers. No management, machines, pesticides etc. Grows everywhere. We just can't eat it. But ruminants (like cows/sheep/etc) can. They have a digestive system for it. They turn grass into meat and milk. Meat and milk that don't need storage until you need to harvest it. It also tastes better.
We used to have far loads more bison roaming the earth. But they didn't cause climate change because they ate grass. When you factor in the grass it's a net positive and not a negative like the article claims.
These studies like to look at things in a bubble, but the problem is far more complex than that.
Converting pasture to arable land to grow more plant based food will make the climate situation worse. You will reduce these carbon/methane sinks. You will need to fertilize and harvest the soil. Fetalization itself reduces the carbon/methane sink capabilities.
Eating beef can actually be a very sustainable option. In many cases, pasture-reared beef actually shows a carbon-equivalent net gain when carbon sequestration is taken into account.
Edit: Perhaps a comment or 2 would be nice on why people don't agree or why I might be wrong. Happy to read up and learn
I looked up the study, first up it wasn't "Oxford scientists" but a University of Oxford think tank called the Food Climate Research Network.
Follow the links, Monsanto has deep connection to the University of Oxford, at least £50 million pounds. UO professors routinely get consulting fees from Monsanto. They even have a Monsanto Senior Research Fellowship position.
There is a massive conflict of interest with Monsanto and the University of Oxford. You find this with most food and nutrition science. Since the funding for such sciences comes from the industry, any science that is critical of it's paymasters soon gets silenced.
With google shutting down it's URL shortener at the end of March 2019, I built a replacement that also has an API. I'm currently working on an import function to add your google url's from a csv as well as some advanced stats.
It's not really difficult at all. You need to make sure you get adequate b-12, iron, omega-3 but many foods are fortified (at least in Canada where I live) and many people are already taking a multivitamin.
https://www.popsci.com/not-in-ketosis/