antipope posted:

there's really no need because the guy who posted them didn't even see fit to ensure he understood the arguments and evidence he was supposedly refuting, as he has been forced to admit.

You probably know the feeling.

imagine getting owned so hard even after what? 9 years now? thats enough time to complete several phds lol

22 Eargesplitten posted:

Thanks, I'll try the teriyaki idea.

Here's a serious question that is probably going to have a different answer depending on who you ask. That definition says "exclude—as far as is possible and practicable—all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals for food, clothing or any other purpose." If someone lives in a rural area where they have room for livestock (let's set aside the "how will land be used after the revolution" question), would that mean that owning a cow for milk is okay, assuming you treat it well? What about free-range chickens for eggs, that one seems like more questionable because those could be baby chicks if they were fertilized but OTOH chickens tend to eat their unfertilized eggs if you leave them alone for too long so I'm not sure how I feel about that. What if you found an animal that died of natural causes or some other way that you didn't cause, is it in line with that definition to use the body for something (only thing I can think of off the top of my head is leather).

The uncertain part as far as I can tell is what counts as exploitation, it seems to me like the life of a family cow is fairly symbiotic rather than exploitative but I assume there are people that would disagree. Part of what started me wondering is that my dad grew up a farmboy and now that he's nearing retirement age and moved out to a rural area he's got a pair of goats and a flock of chickens he treats more like pets than anything else. As far as I know he doesn't kill the chickens when they become too old to lay eggs, which I'd think a lot of people would do.

I like that definition a lot better than most of the ones I have seen because it seems more in line with something like a less strict version of Jain vegetarianism. Historically many Jains would drink milk because at that time cows were treated fairly well in India.

gay_crimes posted:

I somehow did not know that Glenn Greenwald was a vegan 🤔

antipope posted:

"Kip Andersen and Keegan Kuhn—whose documentary “Cowspiracy,” about the environmental impact of the animal agriculture industry, led me to become a vegan—recently released a new film, “What the Health,” which looks at how highly processed animal products are largely responsible for the increase of chronic and lethal diseases such as diabetes, heart disease and cancer in the United States and many other countries. Both films are available on Netflix."

https://www.truthdig.com/articles/eating-our-way-to-disease/

Nobody's perfect I guess.

Hashy posted:

cant even work out what your point is here buddy

ted hitler hunter posted:

paul_soccer12 posted:

one of the guys who produced cowspiracy (havent seen it) also produced Seaspiracy which is top to bottom 100% bullshit fwiw

gay_crimes posted:

cows are big dogs. I also have raised chickens and disagree. none of this justifies factory farming for animals we don’t like or think are dumb btw

Victory Position posted:

would you mind telling me what this is? it looks really good

galagazombie posted:

Because we all know the only form of farming ever practiced is the worst form of factory farming and no other form ever has been or can be practiced. I’ve also never heard of any way to deal with all these animals if we all just stopped eating meat. You’d have to institute a mass killing of unprecedented scale because even if many of these breeds weren’t incapable of surviving in the wild, and indeed only aren’t extinct because we keep them around, are the ones that can (and the ones that can’t before they die) will bring ecological catastrophe if released. Imagine the feral hog dog and cat problems times a billion.

galagazombie posted:

Because we all know the only form of farming ever practiced is the worst form of factory farming and no other form ever has been or can be practiced. I’ve also never heard of any way to deal with all these animals if we all just stopped eating meat. You’d have to institute a mass killing of unprecedented scale because even if many of these breeds weren’t incapable of surviving in the wild, and indeed only aren’t extinct because we keep them around, are the ones that can (and the ones that can’t before they die) will bring ecological catastrophe if released. Imagine the feral hog dog and cat problems times a billion.

baw posted:

take care of them until they die naturally

any other questions that a literal toddler could figure out an answer to

paul_soccer12 posted:

poaching = good
cattle genocide = also good

galagazombie posted:

Because we all know the only form of farming ever practiced is the worst form of factory farming and no other form ever has been or can be practiced. I’ve also never heard of any way to deal with all these animals if we all just stopped eating meat. You’d have to institute a mass killing of unprecedented scale because even if many of these breeds weren’t incapable of surviving in the wild, and indeed only aren’t extinct because we keep them around, are the ones that can (and the ones that can’t before they die) will bring ecological catastrophe if released. Imagine the feral hog dog and cat problems times a billion.

yr new gurlfrand! posted:

antipope posted:

heres a great article on the type of bullshit that walks in nutrition studies - https://www.medpagetoday.com/primarycare/dietnutrition/59012

Relative to epidemiological studies, this study has many strengths - food intake was accurate, the low-carb arm was actually properly low-carb, the subjects were monitored in metabolic chambers (ie, things like their poo poo and piss were collected and the calories they contain measured etc.), RQ was measured, fat mass was measured etc. Now there are very many problems with accurately measuring energy expenditure, but this study at least has a reasonable go. You cannot just state that energy in = energy out without these types of controls. It is many times stronger evidence than any epidemiology on those grounds alone. The nutrition research community has had to be dragged kicking and screaming to the table just to get this far mind you.

There are some obvious and frankly enormous shortcomings that could have easily made the study much stronger - the small number of subjects, the subjects could have been in metabolic isolation for the whole study, they could have been more tightly controlled at the start in terms of diet and body composition (because at the type of calorie deficit relative to ad libitum eating on both diets one would expect them to start rapidly losing weight (ie. deriving more calories from fat than the high-carb diet figures suggest, thus diluting the distinction between the two diets), the high-carb diet could have been more representative of the standard diet, as the researchers note, the study could have run longer to account for keto-adaptation, and the study could have been properly weighted to account for water-weight loss. Importantly, subjective assessment of the diets by the subjects appear to be absent. But this is just a pilot study after all, even though the budget is already in the multi-millions.

And the results are quite clear anyway - the keto diet is better for weight loss:

"Compared with the baseline diet, the ketogenic diet was associated with increased energy expenditure (57±13 kcal/day; P=0.0004) and sleeping energy expenditure (89±14 kcal/day; P<0.0001).

They also had decreased respiratory quotient (-0.111±0.003; P<0.00001), and energy expenditure -- as measured by doubly labeled water -- increased by 151±63 kcal/day (P=0.03). "

If you look at the graphical representation this is even more clear, note the rapid weight loss when carbs are restricted from day 0 (at least some of which is likely water weight, although even this is associated with lower bp and probably a good thing for your health irrespective of absolute mass):



The strongest evidence that the study was actually doing what it set out to is the reduction in RQ by 0.11. RQ in humans can range from 1, ie. burning only carbs, to about .70, which is the lowest ever recorded in fully keto adapted elite athletes, who can burn literal grams of fat per hour in endurance tests. So a 1/3 reduction in effective RQ is a huge deal, especially compared to a diet on which they are already losing weight. That is actual evidence that the subjects were burning more fat on the low-carb arm. So there's really all the evidence you need that a calorie is not a calorie, and that low carb is better for burning fat. This is nothing new, and not remotely remarkable - it has been understood for decades. Now, whether you think that energy balance is even important, is another story (it isn't, because people will just find themselves getting hungrier, and eat more of whatever they have to hand).

An uncharitable reading of the study design is that it was deliberately set up to reduce the impact of the already entirely predictable findings, for the reasons I have outlined above. It was basically a great big exercise in bad faith, and one that backfired. But even so the lead researcher makes public statements totally contradictory to the findings of their own study! At least there are articles like this one that call this out, although even this article gives way to much credence to the study lead. They are clearly being totally disingenuous, so what is the point? This study should basically discredit Kevin Hall, which I trust that it has done, and further vindicate David Ludwig, and by extension Gary Taubes and the alternative theory that carbohydrates drive insulin and ultimately adipose tissue regulation.

Kevin Hall was only brought on by NuSi specifically because most of his previous work has broadly supported calorie restriction as the only way to lose weight, in the interests of representing a diversity of views! The study itself is not definitive proof of anything, but the way the study lead can just blatantly contradict the study findings, and not be publicly condemned for doing so, is incredible.

here is Ludwig's response https://davidludwigmd.medium.com/defense-of-the-insulin-carbohydrate-model-redux-a-response-to-kevin-hall-37ea64907257#.621awo8kb - not really sure that nutrition science is supposed to proceed via medium.com articles but here we are.

corgiwizard posted:

the best is watching someone lose weight on keto, gain it back when they go off keto, then repeat the process a few more times.