Because it tastes good and because people are so far removed from where their food comes from. Why eat vegetables that use illegal immigrants as workers and are treated harshly?
Cause beef is good Cows taste good
Cost. I mainly eat rice. But I’ll take meat when I can get it. Chicken, beef, mongolian wookie meat. Doesn’t matter. Humans are omnivorous. We require protein to function.
I have made a pottage of carrots, potatoes, onions, and sweet potatoes today. It’s all about cost for me.
The same reason they still have children.
deleted by creator
I eat beef (occasionally) due to its excellent flavor, versatility in cuisine, and high complex protein density.
Tasty
deleted by creator
Why aren’t you living out in the woods eating nuts and berries? Whatever device you’re using to post this, it’s terrible for Earth!
It’s very, very simple. It’s cuz shit’s tasty AF and most people care more about themselves and their tastebuds than climate.
A classic burger is delicious! Just watch The Menu
Why do people eat food they know isn’t good for their health? Why do people continue to buy products from companies that have proven to only sell bad products or engage in scumbag practices?
They all have the same answer.
It turns out in 1961 the American heart Association took bribery money from procter and gamble, who owned and sold “healthier Crisco” cooking oils that weren’t high in saturated fat, like beef and other cooking oils were.
The AHA then claimed and pushed that saturated fats caused heart disease.
Problem is, something like 88% of every study done in the past 60 years has found little to no link between heart disease and saturated fats.
So beef, according to most studies, isn’t bad for you. The AHA was just crooked and on the take, being paid off to sell Crisco.
Now it is calorie dense and people tend to eat too much of it, but that seems to be a lot of things. Don’t eat too much or you get fat. But apparently, you don’t have to worry about saturated fats being bad for you.
someone else online summarized the genetics part as the following:
Mandelian randomisation studies show that LDL-c is causative in atherogenic plaques 1 and metabolic ward RCTs show that SFA intakes increase LDL-c, while the decrease in SFAs lead to lower total and LDL-c 2.
But yes, almost all nutrition science is a bit inconclusive because of genetic variation.
not just genetics, wasnt there a tokyo study recently linking metabolism to the time of your conceiving? i.e. colder climates equals to slimmer people, whereas a hot climate is breeding grounds for obesity
Forgive me, because I’m struggling to understand the linked information, but as someone with atherosclerosis this is an issue close to my heart (ha!).
I just want to make sure I understand you.
Your link to the european heart journal says that the causal link between LDL and ASCVD is “unequivocal”.
I think the WHO study says (amongst a lot of other complicated stuff) that replacing SFAs with PUFAs and MUFAs is more favourable than replacing SFAs with complex carbohydrates? The strong implication being (although I couldn’t see this exactly) that higher SFA intake contributes to heart disease.
I always keep in mind the first doctor to advocate washing hands after handling corpses was laughed out of medicine and died alone in an asylum ironically enough from sepsis.
To that point, the vast majority of research on nutrition is done on the presumption carbohydrates should be the foundation of our diet. Even “low” carb diet studies with have 30% of the calories coming from simple carbs. Oddly enough, the human body works much differently and much better when you don’t give it -any- sugar: https://youtu.be/cST99piL71E
I can expand, but briefly, sugar acts like a sandblaster through your heart and shreds the endothelium (the finger-things that move things in and out of the bloodstream). LDL is a repair van that drives around with cholesterol and saturated fat to repair the plaques. (HDL brings empty LDL back to the liver) The entire logic of blaming cholesterol for heart disease is like blaming bandaids for stab wounds. Doctors say eat less fat and more “healthy whole grains” (carbs) and the liver makes more cholesterol. Doctor sees cholesterol is still high because the body needs it and prescribes statins which impair production. This leads to nerve pain because it’s what literally every nerve in the body is insulated with.
The problems with cholesterol stem from it sitting in the bloodstream and glycating due to prolonged sugar exposure. Sugar staying in the bloodstream is basically ketoacidosis, so clearing sugar is a priority that results in LDL gumming up and going bad, essentially.
I can expand on this, but basically the human body needs predominantly fat with some protein and actually zero carbs.
Poor Semmelweis he deserved better
I totally agree with your comment but would like to add:
Most of the studies used to vilify Animal sourced foods are observational, based on food frequency questionnaires, the entire cohort is eating high carb, and heavily influenced by healthy patient confounders. At best these are hypothesis generating papers, they should not be used to make diet choices, or set policies.
Absolutely. Great video on the matter: https://youtu.be/xDgzgDSInt0
This is a great video, I havent seen it before.
I like this cited document on the subject as well: https://www.dietdoctor.com/low-carb/red-meat
There is a !ketogenic@dubvee.org community here if your interested.
I don’t think it tries to compare carbohydrates to any UFAs, but the implication is indeed that SFAs significantly contribute to heart disease.
effects on the serum lipoprotein profile of reducing SFA intake by replacing a mixture of SFA with cis-PUFA […] or cis-MUFA […] were more favourable than replacing SFA with a mixture of carbohydrates.
Ah, thanks, I’ve missed that.
deleted by creator
Why do people drive when they know it’s bad for the planet
Because I live in America and there’s pretty much no public transportation.
Trust me, if I had a train, I’d fucking use that sucker. Travel into town for my weekly errands AND I don’t have to deal with people not using cruise control on a highway? SIGN ME THE FUCK. UP.
why do people live in America
Because they don’t have the money and the requisite professions to leave.
Why do people buy from Amazon/Walmart when they know it’s making their country poorer?
Why do poor people vote for millionares when they know they don’t care about the poor?
Some of us work multiple part time jobs to barely make it.
I’d probably stay in the basement if I didn’t need to pay my landed lord their monthly tribute.
buy some cheap sliver of land and park a bus on it. save up and find a better sliver of land and plan from there.
Is it capitalism?
Do you think people in non-capitalist societies only eat the healthiest of foods?
Each individual is facing the following choice in life:
- sacrifice to save the planet, and fail
- or not
People want to immediately jump to “if everyone would just …”
Nobody is looking at an “everyone does X” button. People only have their “I do X” button available.
So that is literally the answer to your question. Very few people would sacrifice the civilization to eat a cheeseburger. But nobody has that choice or that power in their hands. Their choice is eat the cheeseburger or not, and the survival of civilization stays rigidly the same between those two choices.
The bitter thing is: we could just implement the “Everyone does X” button. By creating according laws. But that doesn’t happen either. Because suddenly “I would do it, if everyone else did it too” turns out to be just an excuse.
Thanks to the economy tanking ( mass civil unrest -> crop uncertainty -> climate change ), voting is about fixing the economy
Climate Change is not an attractive talking point
Best response. Almost everyone alive has a net negative impact on the environment. Maybe that one Indian guy who planted a whole forest by himself gets a pass. We can try to be less negatively impactful depending on our inclinations, resources, and other interests and priorities. Some people may choose vegetarianism, some might buy an electric car or install some solar panels, some might organize politically for a new policy. Some might spend their altruism improving social conditions rather than focusing on the environment. But being ever so slightly less of a negative impact on the environment than your neighbour who has a slightly different set of priorities is hardly a reason to feel morally superior.
There’s truth to that. None of us is free of blame, and there’s always going to be a cost associated with the luxuries and comforts that many of us enjoy; but it’s not about “feeling morally superior”, it’s about doing the right thing, reducing unwarranted harm and suffering as much as you reasonably can. And changing your diet, eating more fruits and veggies and less meat, is probably one of the least obtrusive ways to do so (save for folks with rare medical conditions, or people who live in an environment without an abundance of arable land). Even if you don’t give a shit about the suffering of animals or the environment, you at least ought to care about your own well-being.
I’ve eaten meat my whole life, still do… but I’ve cut back a lot, and it really hasn’t been that difficult. Every time this conversation comes up, nothing annoys me more than the hive-mind crawling out of the woodwork to dump on vegans for daring to speak out against something that is demonstrably harmful in several ways, and then claim that vegans do it only for the purpose of moral grandstanding. Moreover, the absurd amount of appeals to nature and the lazy “bacon tasty” retorts make all of these people look like fucking dorks.
You don’t have to flagellate yourself for eating meat, you don’t even have to give up meat entirely… But don’t be a jackass about it, acknowledge the harmful reality you’re contributing to and you can either accept it for what is, cut back and reduce your contribution, or choose to lead a life that doesn’t enable it at all.
Same reason we use electricity despite not being 100% green energy and thus being even worse for the earth?
If you actually wanna guilt this question then the fuck are you doing using your coal and gas powered electricity to do it?
There is no ethical consumption under capitalism, because the capitalists have seen to it that you will never be permitted to make an ethical choice that would dare compete with what they expect you to choose.
Being a moralizing prick doesn’t send any message, what gets people to change is making that change easy, that’s why instead of being terminally online fuckwads, british vegangelists spread the good news by hosting free kitchens, volunteering to take people grocery shopping on their own pound, teaching vegan cooking classes, and all other sorts of actually addressing literally any of the actual concerns people have about going vegan instead of being a condescending snob about it.
If you actually wanna guilt this
Being a moralizing prick
All OP did was stating a simple fact. If you feel the need to outrage over science, then the problem is certainly not OP.
So honestly, in your opinion, one of the only ways a vegan can change people’s minds is to take them shopping and PAY for their food for them. Amazing, this is a new level of shitty push the blame away behaviour. Pathetic.
You’re saying that trying to motivate people positively to move on from meat is “push the blame away” behavior. But I think tut-tutting individuals who eat meat is pushing the blame away.
While there are some people who believe that eating meat is an absolute moral wrong no matter where or when it takes place in human history, a lot of people who feel eating meat is immoral feel this way because of what the meat industry does, both to the animals and to the planet. Five thousand years ago, people weren’t supporting the meat industry and all its wrongs by eating meat.
So considering it to be pathetic to try to effect real reduction in people’s meat consumption because the methods shift blame away from the individual meat eater seems really ironic to me, as well as completely counterproductive, if your goal is less meat consumption in the world.
There is no positive motivation to move people away from meat. Health maybe? Shame and forcing self-reflection is one of the few effective tools.
Your last paragraph is just rubbish. That’s not what I was calling pathetic.
There is no positive motivation to move people away from meet. Health maybe?
Did…did you just admit that you people don’t actually believe your own propaganda about why going vegan is better?
Also, pretty objectively shame doesn’t actually do anything, lecturing at people about why they’re wrong doesn’t convince them of anything, at best they just write you off as that ass who’s lecturing at them, more often they take it as a fight signal and shut down to you completely.
Key word there is motivation. I know its 10 letters long so I can explain it if I have to.
Yeah like how you’re pretty clearly motivated to suck at actually spreading the message because then you get to keep your feelings of moral superiority all to yourself.
Look, you’re here to fight not be informed. It’s really obvious and I don’t care what you think or say.
Man, you are an amazing pro-meat troll.
Cow yummy
This has got to be a troll, right?
We have a vegan infestation unfortunately.
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
