ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 27th December 2018, 08:13 AM   #281
SuburbanTurkey
Muse
 
SuburbanTurkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2018
Location: Boston, USA
Posts: 954
Originally Posted by casebro View Post
Perhaps I'll go look for "The Doctor's Study" and "The Nurse's study", see what they say. They are ongoing studies since the 50s. Named after the participants, but names have changed to "male healthcare workers" etc. They assumed that people in the healthcare industry would answer life style questionnaires more truthfully? And I think they did/do diets.

Because I think the only important quality to measure is longevity, and that means lots of dead subjects to compare. Not a microscopic change on a graph. Not obesity or "HDL went down". Not "you CAN get a healthy diet on veggies alone". I think we all want to know "What diet will allow ME to live longest? "
The problem with any diet study is that the general population is engaged in known unhealthy practices, where as any study group will be engaged in a planned diet that is planned to avoid those practices.

For a given person on the default "American" diet, there's a good chance they are going to be overweight or obese simply because they over eat and don't exercise. Most of these people are not on any deliberately planned diet of any sort, they are just eating based on habits and impulse, which are likely unhealthy habits.

Any planned diet for a study is of course not going to be planned with bad habits, and that factor alone will make the diet more healthy regardless of the diet's composition.

A lot of hair splitting occurs over weather a food's composition is healthy, but quantity of calories probably overrides any intrinsic quality of a given diet's food. To be more direct, not being overweight and exercising regularly probably has much more impact on health than whether you eat too much cholesterol or whatever.

Any person on a planned diet, vegetarian or not, is probably going to be in better health than someone just on autopilot. A meat eating person who eats a balanced diet is going to be more healthy than an overeating, beer drinking, junk food vegan. It just so happens that large portions of the vegan and vegetarian diet culture are also very health and food conscious, so that population may be healthier and less overweight than the general population. I think that diet consciousness has much more do with any health benefits than whether or not they eat meat or dairy.
__________________
Gobble gobble

Last edited by SuburbanTurkey; 27th December 2018 at 08:19 AM.
SuburbanTurkey is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th December 2018, 09:08 AM   #282
casebro
Penultimate Amazing
 
casebro's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 16,145
And a thought more closer to the OP:

It's often mentioned that a cow needs (guesstimate) 15 lbs of fodder to make a pound of meat. Being Lithuanian and eating a lot of potatoes, I learned that potatoes have a near perfect balance of amino acids. An astounding 8 pounds of potatoes per day will do it, enough protein for a 2,200 calorie diet. Which gave me a thought:


How many pounds of fodder does it take to feed a vegan for one day? Count the same stuff as get counted in the cow's diet- not just the fruit, but the leaves on the tree too. Banana peels count too, the artichoke leaves that don't get eaten, the soy bean hulls and leaves.... My non scientific, wild ass guess, says there is as much agriculture needed to feed a vegan per day as for am omnivore.
__________________
Great minds discuss ideas.
Medium minds discuss events.
Small minds spend all their time on U-Tube and Facebook.
casebro is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th December 2018, 09:12 AM   #283
casebro
Penultimate Amazing
 
casebro's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 16,145
Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey View Post
The problem with any diet study is that the general population is engaged in known unhealthy practices, where as any study group will be engaged in a planned diet that is planned to avoid those practices.

For a given person on the default "American" diet, there's a good chance they are going to be overweight or obese simply because they over eat and don't exercise. Most of these people are not on any deliberately planned diet of any sort, they are just eating based on habits and impulse, which are likely unhealthy habits.

Any planned diet for a study is of course not going to be planned with bad habits, and that factor alone will make the diet more healthy regardless of the diet's composition.

A lot of hair splitting occurs over weather a food's composition is healthy, but quantity of calories probably overrides any intrinsic quality of a given diet's food. To be more direct, not being overweight and exercising regularly probably has much more impact on health than whether you eat too much cholesterol or whatever.

Any person on a planned diet, vegetarian or not, is probably going to be in better health than someone just on autopilot. A meat eating person who eats a balanced diet is going to be more healthy than an overeating, beer drinking, junk food vegan. It just so happens that large portions of the vegan and vegetarian diet culture are also very health and food conscious, so that population may be healthier and less overweight than the general population. I think that diet consciousness has much more do with any health benefits than whether or not they eat meat or dairy.
I could see that. A recent study of high carb vs low carb, low fat vs wahatever, showed none had a an advantage in weight loss. Two year study I think.
__________________
Great minds discuss ideas.
Medium minds discuss events.
Small minds spend all their time on U-Tube and Facebook.
casebro is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th December 2018, 09:50 AM   #284
TruthJonsen
New Blood
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Posts: 14
Another striking parallel: I'm an ex-hippie so I had totally bought into the idea of evil industrialist killing the planet. I had done little study in this area and had no reason to examine the climate change story, until recently.

That is when I heard the use of the pro-climate change phrase "The science is settled!" in a different arena that I have studied. It was used in the nutrition debate arena by the High Carb Low Fat advocates.
TruthJonsen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th December 2018, 09:54 AM   #285
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 15,463
I'll never understand (well I actually perfectly understand...) why we keep having to have the "calorie" talk.

A calorie is a literal measurement of used heat energy. Of course it's gonna be the overall factor in weight gain.

Has the Second Law of Thermodynamics been repelled and nobody told me? No? Then it's calories in versus calories burned. Period. You have total control over one and a fair amount of control over the other.

Yes some people carry "more" fat (although that's an over simplification, what it usually means is people carry more fat where it's easy to see) and metabolism is a thing but none of that turns your body into a perpetual motion machine.

If you want your body to weigh less either increase calories burned or reduced calories in.

That might not be easy, but it is that simple.
__________________
"Ernest Hemingway once wrote that the world is a fine place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." - Detective Sommerset, Se7en

"Stupidity does not cancel out stupidity to yield genius. It breeds like a bucket-full of coked out hamsters." - The Oatmeal
JoeMorgue is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th December 2018, 01:15 PM   #286
SuburbanTurkey
Muse
 
SuburbanTurkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2018
Location: Boston, USA
Posts: 954
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
I'll never understand (well I actually perfectly understand...) why we keep having to have the "calorie" talk.

A calorie is a literal measurement of used heat energy. Of course it's gonna be the overall factor in weight gain.

Has the Second Law of Thermodynamics been repelled and nobody told me? No? Then it's calories in versus calories burned. Period. You have total control over one and a fair amount of control over the other.

Yes some people carry "more" fat (although that's an over simplification, what it usually means is people carry more fat where it's easy to see) and metabolism is a thing but none of that turns your body into a perpetual motion machine.

If you want your body to weigh less either increase calories burned or reduced calories in.

That might not be easy, but it is that simple.
Sure, weight loss is easy in the same way that quitting smoking is easy. It's obvious what you need to do, but denying your impulses is hard.

Hunger is a more complicated thing, and diet decisions can make a big difference, even if calories are kept constant. Some diets diminish the feeling of hunger while on a caloric deficit and make compliance easier, thus making them more successful for weight loss.
__________________
Gobble gobble
SuburbanTurkey is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th December 2018, 06:10 PM   #287
varwoche
Penultimate Amazing
 
varwoche's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Puget Sound
Posts: 12,331
Pedestrians exercise caution ... goalposts in rapid motion.

Originally Posted by casebro View Post
I thought I would try to debunk the studies upthread about vegetarians being as healthy as omnivores... So when it comes to proof of vegetariansism's health benefit studies, I ask "Where's the beef ? "
Originally Posted by casebro View Post
If those are the best "proof of the health benefits of the vegan diet" you need to look deeper. No long term longevity study that says so.
Originally Posted by casebro View Post
I already looked at the NIH one. It seems to link lower obesity rate to veggyness. But I havn't tried to track down that actaul study for duration and group size.

The Mayo one- even the title says it "meets your needs" NOT "makes you live longer". And isn't that the point? Unless the point is to prevent animal cruelty....
Let me know once you've arrived at your point.
__________________
To survive election season on a skeptics forum, one must understand Hymie-the-Robot.
varwoche is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th December 2018, 07:35 PM   #288
casebro
Penultimate Amazing
 
casebro's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 16,145
Originally Posted by varwoche View Post
Pedestrians exercise caution ... goalposts in rapid motion.


.....
If that is "moving the goal posts", perhaps you need to be checked for "literary vertigo".

Does anybody else here not see that the highlighted items are all the same?
__________________
Great minds discuss ideas.
Medium minds discuss events.
Small minds spend all their time on U-Tube and Facebook.

Last edited by casebro; 27th December 2018 at 07:37 PM.
casebro is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th December 2018, 07:38 PM   #289
casebro
Penultimate Amazing
 
casebro's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 16,145
Originally Posted by varwoche View Post
......



Let me know once you've arrived at your point.
Point is that NONE of those studies show a longevity gain via vegetarianism.
__________________
Great minds discuss ideas.
Medium minds discuss events.
Small minds spend all their time on U-Tube and Facebook.
casebro is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th December 2018, 07:41 PM   #290
RecoveringYuppy
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 8,072
Originally Posted by casebro View Post
I thought I would try to debunk the studies upthread about vegetarians being as healthy as omnivores, but I didn't find them in a quick scan.

A few years ago most such studies were sponsored by "The Mahajareeshi Mahatmas School of Eastern Mysticism and Vegatarianism", bias was easy to spot. Then the author of "China Study" turned out to be an animal rights activist whose paid position is with PETA. His book was easy to debunk too. Now they are trying to rationalize their morality as "good for the environment".

So when it comes to proof of vegetariansism's health benefit studies, I ask "Where's the beef ? "
Wow. Note to never trust casebro on this subject. Is this a Poe? Please???
__________________
REJ (Robert E Jones) posting anonymously under my real name for 30 years.

Make a fire for a man and you keep him warm for a day. Set him on fire and you keep him warm for the rest of his life.
RecoveringYuppy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th December 2018, 08:11 PM   #291
varwoche
Penultimate Amazing
 
varwoche's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Puget Sound
Posts: 12,331
Originally Posted by casebro View Post
If that is "moving the goal posts", perhaps you need to be checked for "literary vertigo".

Does anybody else here not see that the highlighted items are all the same?
(1) A vegetarian diet is not the same as a vegan diet.
(2) First you challenged "vegetarians being as healthy as omnivores". Then you tacked on the requirement of greater longevity.
__________________
To survive election season on a skeptics forum, one must understand Hymie-the-Robot.
varwoche is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th December 2018, 09:12 PM   #292
casebro
Penultimate Amazing
 
casebro's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 16,145
Ok, you caught me in a bad debate practice. You win THE internet.
__________________
Great minds discuss ideas.
Medium minds discuss events.
Small minds spend all their time on U-Tube and Facebook.
casebro is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th December 2018, 09:35 PM   #293
Minoosh
Philosopher
 
Minoosh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 8,493
In "The Manchurian Candidate" (a very odd book), the author talks about Chinese people in some sort of secret cabal who all looked younger than their years because of their "80 percent vegetable diet."

I also read years ago that the one thing that really extended life was to under-eat.

Here's something from the BBC:

The Secret to a Long and Healthy Life? Eat less
Minoosh is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th December 2018, 10:22 PM   #294
lomiller
Philosopher
 
lomiller's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 9,481
Originally Posted by TruthJonsen View Post
Another striking parallel: I'm an ex-hippie so I had totally bought into the idea of evil industrialist killing the planet. I had done little study in this area and had no reason to examine the climate change story, until recently.

That is when I heard the use of the pro-climate change phrase "The science is settled!" in a different arena that I have studied. It was used in the nutrition debate arena by the High Carb Low Fat advocates.
I don't know what to tell you. The science on climate change is about as settled as science ever gets. The only things seriously debated over the last 150 years were
1) how much could we change CO2 levels.
2) how much would that change the earths climate (climate sensitivity)

#1 was settled in the 1950's when we could measure CO2 levels accurately, and figured out how to measure how much of the new CO2 came from burning fossil fuels (all of it)

#2 is still debated somewhat in the scientific literature, but mainly on the side of higher sensitivity than the normally expected range. Low climate sensitivity to CO2 changes would make glacial cycles, and almost all of what we know about the climate history of the earth impossible.

At this point the science behind climate change and CO2 is every bit as important to understanding the climate history of the earth as Evolution is to understanding the biological history of the Earth. So yeah the science is settled.
__________________
"Anything's possible, but only a few things actually happen"
lomiller is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th December 2018, 10:41 PM   #295
lomiller
Philosopher
 
lomiller's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 9,481
Originally Posted by varwoche View Post
Pedestrians exercise caution ... goalposts in rapid motion.





Let me know once you've arrived at your point.
To be fair you initial engaged Casebro with claims of benefits to an all vegetable diet. With today's knowledge and availability of a wide variety of foods and supplements to cover B12 deficiency I doubt there are true benefits on either side (maybe for athletes in training regiments that involve ultra-high calorie output).

WRT climate change one benefit sensible amounts of meat in you diet has is that it's easier to meet all your dietary requirements with a smaller variety of foods. A fully vegan diet generally requires food to either be transported long distances or gown in ways that emit more CO2. This is going to be vastly outweighed by the problems associated with feedlot produced meat, though.
__________________
"Anything's possible, but only a few things actually happen"
lomiller is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th December 2018, 06:00 AM   #296
varwoche
Penultimate Amazing
 
varwoche's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Puget Sound
Posts: 12,331
Originally Posted by casebro View Post
Ok, you caught me in a bad debate practice. You win THE internet.
I'm not trying to win the internet. I am trying to show you that your opinions about a vegetarian diet are contrary to expert opinion.
__________________
To survive election season on a skeptics forum, one must understand Hymie-the-Robot.

Last edited by varwoche; 28th December 2018 at 06:25 AM.
varwoche is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th December 2018, 06:04 AM   #297
varwoche
Penultimate Amazing
 
varwoche's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Puget Sound
Posts: 12,331
Dupe
__________________
To survive election season on a skeptics forum, one must understand Hymie-the-Robot.
varwoche is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th December 2018, 06:37 AM   #298
varwoche
Penultimate Amazing
 
varwoche's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Puget Sound
Posts: 12,331
Originally Posted by lomiller View Post
To be fair you initial engaged Casebro with claims of benefits to an all vegetable diet.
Largely incorrect. He wrote about vegetarian diet, I responded about vegetarian diet, he moved the goalpost to vegan diet. They aren't the same thing, and the difference isn't trivial. Pay better attention please.

Further, just because there are benefits to A doesn't mean that A is better than B in every possible way. A and B may both have benefits.
__________________
To survive election season on a skeptics forum, one must understand Hymie-the-Robot.
varwoche is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th December 2018, 07:04 AM   #299
applecorped
Rotten to the Core
 
applecorped's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 18,626
Originally Posted by lomiller View Post
I don't know what to tell you. The science on climate change is about as settled as science ever gets. The only things seriously debated over the last 150 years were
1) how much could we change CO2 levels.
2) how much would that change the earths climate (climate sensitivity)

#1 was settled in the 1950's when we could measure CO2 levels accurately, and figured out how to measure how much of the new CO2 came from burning fossil fuels (all of it)

#2 is still debated somewhat in the scientific literature, but mainly on the side of higher sensitivity than the normally expected range. Low climate sensitivity to CO2 changes would make glacial cycles, and almost all of what we know about the climate history of the earth impossible.

At this point the science behind climate change and CO2 is every bit as important to understanding the climate history of the earth as Evolution is to understanding the biological history of the Earth. So yeah the science is settled.

"The science on climate change is about as settled as science ever gets."

__________________
All You Need Is Love.
applecorped is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th December 2018, 10:24 AM   #300
TruthJonsen
New Blood
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Posts: 14
Originally Posted by lomiller View Post
I don't know what to tell you. The science on climate change is about as settled as science ever gets. The only things seriously debated over the last 150 years were
1) how much could we change CO2 levels.
2) how much would that change the earths climate (climate sensitivity)

#1 was settled in the 1950's when we could measure CO2 levels accurately, and figured out how to measure how much of the new CO2 came from burning fossil fuels (all of it)

#2 is still debated somewhat in the scientific literature, but mainly on the side of higher sensitivity than the normally expected range. Low climate sensitivity to CO2 changes would make glacial cycles, and almost all of what we know about the climate history of the earth impossible.

At this point the science behind climate change and CO2 is every bit as important to understanding the climate history of the earth as Evolution is to understanding the biological history of the Earth. So yeah the science is settled.
I did not say the science was not settled, I said I would now do study on it for the first time and examine the climate change story.
TruthJonsen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th December 2018, 01:20 PM   #301
casebro
Penultimate Amazing
 
casebro's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 16,145
Vegatarianism is nuts ! According to this https://academic.oup.com/ajcn/article/70/3/500s/4714957 eating 5x the nuts lowers the heart disease problem by half. So it might not be less meat that makes for any benefit, it might be some other added foods. Like foods higher in beta-carotinoids. Pumpkin bread with walnuts. An excellent dessert after my rare steak. mmmmm.....
__________________
Great minds discuss ideas.
Medium minds discuss events.
Small minds spend all their time on U-Tube and Facebook.
casebro is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th December 2018, 01:23 PM   #302
casebro
Penultimate Amazing
 
casebro's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 16,145
Originally Posted by casebro View Post
And a thought more closer to the OP:

It's often mentioned that a cow needs (guesstimate) 15 lbs of fodder to make a pound of meat. Being Lithuanian and eating a lot of potatoes, I learned that potatoes have a near perfect balance of amino acids. An astounding 8 pounds of potatoes per day will do it, enough protein for a 2,200 calorie diet. Which gave me a thought:


How many pounds of fodder does it take to feed a vegan for one day? Count the same stuff as get counted in the cow's diet- not just the fruit, but the leaves on the tree too. Banana peels count too, the artichoke leaves that don't get eaten, the soy bean hulls and leaves.... My non scientific, wild ass guess, says there is as much agriculture needed to feed a vegan per day as for am omnivore.
Darn, no discussion of this point.
__________________
Great minds discuss ideas.
Medium minds discuss events.
Small minds spend all their time on U-Tube and Facebook.
casebro is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th December 2018, 03:03 PM   #303
Olmstead
Student
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Posts: 45
Originally Posted by casebro View Post
Darn, no discussion of this point.
That's not how the impact on the environment is determined. One of the papers I've perused considered land use/greenhouse gas emissions vs. calories/protein produced: https://josephpoore.com/Science%2036...Manuscript.pdf

That's probably the best way to measure it, and vegetables come out ahead by quite a lot.
Olmstead is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th December 2018, 11:56 AM   #304
casebro
Penultimate Amazing
 
casebro's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 16,145
Originally Posted by Olmstead View Post
That's not how the impact on the environment is determined. One of the papers I've perused considered land use/greenhouse gas emissions vs. calories/protein produced: https://josephpoore.com/Science%2036...Manuscript.pdf

That's probably the best way to measure it, and vegetables come out ahead by quite a lot.
Seriously? Getting a pound of beef protein from semen to table makes 1500 pounds of CO2? Lemme think, a pound of food makes a 1/2 pound of co2, so 3,000 pounds of food (or petroleum) to make one pound of meat?

Is there a pie chart breakdown of all that cattle based CO2? Fuel to transport cow, fuel to transport meat, fuel to transport manure, CO2 from silage (exhaled by cow), CO2 from artificial fertilizer production?
__________________
Great minds discuss ideas.
Medium minds discuss events.
Small minds spend all their time on U-Tube and Facebook.
casebro is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th December 2018, 12:48 PM   #305
Olmstead
Student
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Posts: 45
Originally Posted by casebro View Post
Seriously? Getting a pound of beef protein from semen to table makes 1500 pounds of CO2? Lemme think, a pound of food makes a 1/2 pound of co2, so 3,000 pounds of food (or petroleum) to make one pound of meat?

Is there a pie chart breakdown of all that cattle based CO2? Fuel to transport cow, fuel to transport meat, fuel to transport manure, CO2 from silage (exhaled by cow), CO2 from artificial fertilizer production?
I think it's 1050 pounds of CO2 per pound of beef protein, unless my math is wrong or I misread something.

I don't know about a pie chart, but page 11 of the study has some charts. If I'm reading them correctly, the main source is enteric fermentation anyway, which would be the digestion process (makes sense really, the animals are pretty much small factories for making meat).

The other big sources are pasture management and concentrate feed, but it doesn't really mention all they would entail. Either way, they still pale in comparison to the main source according to the study.

Edit: Also, you have to consider that beef isn't just protein. I think it's like 26% protein, so it's really 237 pounds of CO2 per pound of meat (I think), but it's much more useful to consider the nutritional contribution, which the study has done.

Edit 2: I also think it's worth considering that food such as peas provides other important nutrition which the body needs besides protein, and once that's taken into account, a plant-based diet should look even better when it comes to CO2 emissions.

Last edited by Olmstead; 30th December 2018 at 01:20 PM.
Olmstead is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st December 2018, 08:47 AM   #306
lomiller
Philosopher
 
lomiller's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 9,481
Originally Posted by applecorped View Post
"The science on climate change is about as settled as science ever gets."
Which of these do you think isn’t settled?
- Conservation of energy
- Stefan–Boltzmann law
- The spectral absorption characteristics of CO2?
__________________
"Anything's possible, but only a few things actually happen"
lomiller is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st December 2018, 12:59 PM   #307
lomiller
Philosopher
 
lomiller's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 9,481
Originally Posted by Olmstead View Post
That's not how the impact on the environment is determined. One of the papers I've perused considered land use/greenhouse gas emissions vs. calories/protein produced: https://josephpoore.com/Science%2036...Manuscript.pdf

That's probably the best way to measure it, and vegetables come out ahead by quite a lot.
I question the numbers they are using.
A common mistake (deliberate or otherwise) in stating CO2 “emissions” is that up to 98% of all CO2 emissions are really just the same Carbon cycling though the environment. Eg plants absorb CO2 to grow, plants are eaten releasing CO2. The net change in CO2 though this process is zero. It’s really easy to fudge the numbers by looking at only one side of the equation, but the truth is that this cycling CO2 isn’t the main problem.

They are referencing something called “equivalent CO2” which suggests they are looking at Methane emissions and converting it to CO2 with equal greenhouse effect. The problem with this is that Methane is very short lived compared to CO2, in fact it breaks down into CO2 naturally within just a few years. The cycle becomes a little more complex but basically the net change in atmospheric Methane created by animals is close to zero. An increase I the number of cows would create a small increase in the amount of Methane, but meat production at todays levels there would be no increase.
__________________
"Anything's possible, but only a few things actually happen"
lomiller is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st December 2018, 01:08 PM   #308
lomiller
Philosopher
 
lomiller's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 9,481
Originally Posted by Olmstead View Post

I don't know about a pie chart, but page 11 of the study has some charts. If I'm reading them correctly, the main source is enteric fermentation anyway, which would be the digestion process (makes sense really, the animals are pretty much small factories for making meat).
IOW they are taking the methane emitted by the cow, converting that to an equivalent greenhouse strength in CO2 and presenting that as the CO2 emission.

The problem is that the Methane breaks down into CO2, which is absorbed by plants during photosynthesis. Thus the amount of Carbon that ends up back in plant material is exactly what you started with. There is no net increase in either atmospheric CO2 or atmospheric Methane.
__________________
"Anything's possible, but only a few things actually happen"
lomiller is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st December 2018, 01:57 PM   #309
RecoveringYuppy
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 8,072
Originally Posted by lomiller View Post
The problem is that the Methane breaks down into CO2, which is absorbed by plants during photosynthesis.
Uh, no. There's no guarantee that plants can or will take it up at the rate required to keep CO2 levels stable.
__________________
REJ (Robert E Jones) posting anonymously under my real name for 30 years.

Make a fire for a man and you keep him warm for a day. Set him on fire and you keep him warm for the rest of his life.
RecoveringYuppy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st December 2018, 02:16 PM   #310
lomiller
Philosopher
 
lomiller's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 9,481
Originally Posted by RecoveringYuppy View Post
Uh, no. There's no guarantee that plants can or will take it up at the rate required to keep CO2 levels stable.
That only applies to fossil Carbon or other sequestered Carbon. Carbon released by animals as part of their metabolic processes are, by definition, balanced with plant uptake of Carbon. Carbon released by animals in metabolic processes originally came from plants, who got it from the atmosphere.
__________________
"Anything's possible, but only a few things actually happen"
lomiller is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st December 2018, 03:16 PM   #311
RecoveringYuppy
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 8,072
Originally Posted by lomiller View Post
Carbon released by animals as part of their metabolic processes are, by definition, balanced with plant uptake of Carbon.
True, but not relevant. This only guarantees that there is some maximum limit that cows could raise the CO2 level (and then only if we keep the same mix of animals and farm practices). It doesn't guarantee that raising cows isn't raising the CO2 level now. If plants grown to feed cows are displacing other slower cycling plants then CO2 levels will rise.

Originally Posted by lomiller View Post
That only applies to fossil Carbon or other sequestered Carbon.
Plants are sequestered carbon. And not all plants (and bacteria) are equal.

ETA: The facts you are presenting only guarantee that is some new equilibrium level of CO2. Your facts don't guarantee that we've yet reached that equilibrium.
__________________
REJ (Robert E Jones) posting anonymously under my real name for 30 years.

Make a fire for a man and you keep him warm for a day. Set him on fire and you keep him warm for the rest of his life.

Last edited by RecoveringYuppy; 31st December 2018 at 03:19 PM.
RecoveringYuppy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st January 2019, 07:42 AM   #312
casebro
Penultimate Amazing
 
casebro's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 16,145
Originally Posted by Olmstead View Post
I think it's 1050 pounds of CO2 per pound of beef protein, unless my math is wrong or I misread something.

I don't know about a pie chart, but page 11 of the study has some charts. If I'm reading them correctly, the main source is enteric fermentation anyway, which would be the digestion process (makes sense really, the animals are pretty much small factories for making meat).

The other big sources are pasture management and concentrate feed, but it doesn't really mention all they would entail. Either way, they still pale in comparison to the main source according to the study.

Edit: Also, you have to consider that beef isn't just protein. I think it's like 26% protein, so it's really 237 pounds of CO2 per pound of meat (I think), but it's much more useful to consider the nutritional contribution, which the study has done.

Edit 2: I also think it's worth considering that food such as peas provides other important nutrition which the body needs besides protein, and once that's taken into account, a plant-based diet should look even better when it comes to CO2 emissions.
BUT, breaking down carbs (cellulose) results in 50% water and 50% CO2. So double your figure to get a guess at the amount of feed, and you are claiming that it takes 474 pounds of feed to have a cow gain ONE pound? Everybody else uses 5 to 12. Call the MDC, you've got a cow that is creating matter. at 40:1.
__________________
Great minds discuss ideas.
Medium minds discuss events.
Small minds spend all their time on U-Tube and Facebook.
casebro is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st January 2019, 08:08 AM   #313
casebro
Penultimate Amazing
 
casebro's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 16,145
A subjective conceptualization: Big Agra is a business. They have to sell a pound of beef above cost. A beef on the hoof, last time I checks, was about $1/lb. (from Commodity markets). Diesel costs $3/gallon, or 30 cents/pound. It can't take more than 3 pounds of petroleum to grow the grain, haul it to the cow, haul the cow to pasture, haul it to the finishing lot, haul it to slaughter house, process the meat, haul it to the store. That has to include ALL costs of production. And since fuel is about half CO2, one pound of meat cannot be making any more than 1 1/2 lb CO2. I'm saying that if ALL the costs of raising beef was diesel fuel, no more than 3 lbs of fossil fuels could possible be needed to grow a pound of meat.

Same idea, different proxy: Look up the commodity price of a grain. Or stop by a feed store. Convert that cost to meat equivalent @$1/lb. (verify that number too while checking the commodity market) Now you know how many pounds of feed it could possible take to raise a pound of meat. Or do you think Big Agra is working at a 40:1 negative cost basis? Do you think subsidies are THAT big?

So, ten pounds of feed to make one pound of beef is a reasonable guesstimate. One pound of feed to make 1,000 pounds of CO2 is NOT.
__________________
Great minds discuss ideas.
Medium minds discuss events.
Small minds spend all their time on U-Tube and Facebook.

Last edited by casebro; 1st January 2019 at 08:18 AM.
casebro is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st January 2019, 09:08 AM   #314
Olmstead
Student
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Posts: 45
Originally Posted by lomiller View Post
IOW they are taking the methane emitted by the cow, converting that to an equivalent greenhouse strength in CO2 and presenting that as the CO2 emission.

The problem is that the Methane breaks down into CO2, which is absorbed by plants during photosynthesis. Thus the amount of Carbon that ends up back in plant material is exactly what you started with. There is no net increase in either atmospheric CO2 or atmospheric Methane.
However, methane is much more potent than CO2 as a greenhouse gas (this page claims that it's 84 times more potent and results in 28 times more warming over 100 years: http://www.fao.org/in-action/enteric...-important/en/), and it still has a half-life of 12 years. Even if enteric fermentation doesn't result in a net increase of the gases in the atmosphere, it still creates a new equilibrium of the amount of methane that is present in the atmosphere at any one time, and due to the increasing demand for meat, that amount is rising.

It does make the math obnoxiously complicated though, and I agree that the numbers in the paper might not be useful for comparison. I wonder if there's any study that considers the warming effects of different sources over 100 years.

Last edited by Olmstead; 1st January 2019 at 09:12 AM.
Olmstead is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st January 2019, 09:49 AM   #315
casebro
Penultimate Amazing
 
casebro's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 16,145
Originally Posted by Olmstead View Post
However, methane is much more potent than CO2 as a greenhouse gas (this page claims that it's 84 times more potent and results in 28 times more warming over 100 years: http://www.fao.org/in-action/enteric...-important/en/), and it still has a half-life of 12 years. Even if enteric fermentation doesn't result in a net increase of the gases in the atmosphere, it still creates a new equilibrium of the amount of methane that is present in the atmosphere at any one time, and due to the increasing demand for meat, that amount is rising.

It does make the math obnoxiously complicated though, and I agree that the numbers in the paper might not be useful for comparison. I wonder if there's any study that considers the warming effects of different sources over 100 years.
But even if it's methane instead of co2 or pounds of feed per pound of meat, YOU CAN'T MAKE 1,000 POUNDS OF METHANE FROM 10 POUNDS OF FEED.

Cut through all of those maths and tell me, how much greenhouse gas you can possibly be made for the $1/lb that the feed lot gets paid to fatten a cow?
__________________
Great minds discuss ideas.
Medium minds discuss events.
Small minds spend all their time on U-Tube and Facebook.

Last edited by casebro; 1st January 2019 at 09:54 AM.
casebro is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st January 2019, 09:59 AM   #316
casebro
Penultimate Amazing
 
casebro's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 16,145
Today's commodity prices: Beeves, $1.46 lb, corn $400 ton, 5 cents/lb.
__________________
Great minds discuss ideas.
Medium minds discuss events.
Small minds spend all their time on U-Tube and Facebook.
casebro is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st January 2019, 10:14 AM   #317
Olmstead
Student
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Posts: 45
Originally Posted by casebro View Post
But even if it's methane instead of co2 or pounds of feed per pound of meat, YOU CAN'T MAKE 1,000 POUNDS OF METHANE FROM 10 POUNDS OF FEED.

Cut through all of those maths and tell me, how much greenhouse gas you can possibly be made for the $1/lb that the feed lot gets paid to fatten a cow?
Yes, that's the point. The paper uses carbon dioxide equivalents, so the amount of methane that is released into the atmosphere is converted to the equivalent amount of CO2 based on global warming potential. The animals don't produce that amount of methane, but the methane they produce is equivalent to that amount of CO2 as far as global warming is concerned.

The question is whether the math is accurate and how much the CO2 cycle was considered.
Olmstead is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st January 2019, 12:10 PM   #318
casebro
Penultimate Amazing
 
casebro's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 16,145
Originally Posted by Olmstead View Post
Yes, that's the point. The paper uses carbon dioxide equivalents, so the amount of methane that is released into the atmosphere is converted to the equivalent amount of CO2 based on global warming potential. The animals don't produce that amount of methane, but the methane they produce is equivalent to that amount of CO2 as far as global warming is concerned.

The question is whether the math is accurate and how much the CO2 cycle was considered.
But the math seems to be exaggerated at three magnitudes. If we round-up your 84x to 100, the math is ten times that bad. Nah, we have to do away with the voodoo maths.
__________________
Great minds discuss ideas.
Medium minds discuss events.
Small minds spend all their time on U-Tube and Facebook.
casebro is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st January 2019, 03:43 PM   #319
Olmstead
Student
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Posts: 45
Originally Posted by casebro View Post
But the math seems to be exaggerated at three magnitudes. If we round-up your 84x to 100, the math is ten times that bad. Nah, we have to do away with the voodoo maths.
I agree that the numbers are weird. Maybe it's the protein math?

The below study claims that a pound of beef produces the equivalent of 32.49 pounds of CO2 per pound of beef:

https://www.researchgate.net/publica...nmental_limits

The point is that protein-rich vegetables are still miles ahead of meat when it comes to pound of protein per pound of CO2.

Last edited by Olmstead; 1st January 2019 at 03:50 PM.
Olmstead is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st January 2019, 06:17 PM   #320
casebro
Penultimate Amazing
 
casebro's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 16,145
Originally Posted by Olmstead View Post
.....
The point is that protein-rich vegetables are still miles ahead of meat when it comes to pound of protein per pound of CO2.
I'm not so sure of the equivalence there. The cow eats the straw that grew the wheat too, but the person does not eat the carrot tops. Or the banana peels. Or the banana tree. And people make methane too. And cows also get fed much of the scraps left over from people food production. Soy bean meal is one thing, left from squeezing the oil out of the soy beans. Cotton seed meal, bone meal, ... Hogs even more so. I wonder what happens to the scraps from the tomato catsup factory?

Then you have crops like alfalfa. It's a "nitrogen fixer" that takes nitrogen from the air and puts it into the dirt, so the next couple seasons make better people food. But the alfalfa is cow food.

No to veganism. There is an optimum level of meat in the food industry. Big Agra knows what it is from their bottom line. Even in India with their sacred cows the people wear leather sandals.
__________________
Great minds discuss ideas.
Medium minds discuss events.
Small minds spend all their time on U-Tube and Facebook.
casebro is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 02:08 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.