113
The "Backlash" to Plant-Based Meat Has a Sneaky, if Not Surprising, Explanation
(sentientmedia.org)
Environmental and ecological discussion, particularly of things like weather and other natural phenomena (especially if they're not breaking news).
See also our Nature and Gardening community for discussion centered around things like hiking, animals in their natural habitat, and gardening (urban or rural).
This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.
It's more complicated IMO. While I was initially pro-plant based diets, I noticed that a disproportionate number of vegans suffer from loss of skin elasticity, a pallid complexion, and sunken eyes. Yes, it's superficial, but it's a sign that vegan diets are missing an important part of our required dietary intake. It reminds me of the debacle around infant formula, where researchers didn't know that DHA was necessary for human development until 2003, which meant that formula-fed children born before 2003 were stunted. I simply don't feel comfortable sacrificing my well-being for the well-being of other animals, at least until lab-grown meats become available.
Anecdotes aren't really a great way to look at things. Looking at statements from nutrition bodies is likely more helpful here:
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27886704/
You can also just as easily find widespread deficiencies in important things mainly or only found in plant-based foods like fiber
https://www.jandonline.org/article/S2212-2672(15)01386-6/fulltext
Let's also realize that foods like red meat have a known cancer risk and negative health outcomes. The common claim is that the studies are only correlational, but there are Randomized Controlled Trials looking at that. For instance, one such study (that was even beef industry funded) found that:
https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.118.035225#d3646671e1
If you want to look at unknown risks, look at things like microplastics that are going to be more concentrated the higher up the food chain you go. For instance looking at fish:
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35305437/
Compared to what though? If you only eat properly selected (fat to protein ratio) meat products (fatty meat, eggs, hard naturally maturing cheese) with a proper selection of vegetables, so that they contain all the micronutrients you need in good quantities, fiber and are low on carbs, the amounts of carbohydrates you 'll be getting will definitely be low enough to have perfect serum glucose -most of your energy will be coming from ketone bodies. You can't have elevated serum glucose if you don't rely on carbs for energy. It's pretty tough to mess up the metabolic pathways related to carbohydrates too with that approach. Which is pretty easy to do if your focus is to just eliminate animal products, since most plant foods are loaded with carbohydrates. When the objective is health, the focus should be proper selection of foods for the body first and then everything else.
Of course vegetables (fiber), fruits (water & fiber), whole grains (fiber), legumes (fiber), soy products (debatable, tofu, tofu skins, tempeh all have low to zero amount of carbs), nuts/seeds (fiber) are handled better as far as their carbohydrate content goes since they are metabolized at a slower pace than white rice or flour products. But it's not the meat in the burger that messes up your glucose levels, its the potatoes and the bread. And if you don't match your activity levels with the quantities of -easier-for-your-body- carbohydrate sources from plant foods, you will start having issues too, quantity matters as much as quality in this aspect of nutrition.
This is not a comment to support animal products, just to point out that what messes up serum glucose is improper selection of plant based foods, not saturated fat or meat products in general (probably with the exception of many dairy products).
There are other deficiencies too if you don't eat proper plant based foods (again like the ones mentioned in the first quote of my comment), which can be equally important. Easiest example is magnesium. All the greatest sources of it are plant based foods. This metal is also a good reason why legumes/beans are important (apart from the obvious abundance of potassium). Seeds and nuts are a great source too, but cost more (not just to buy them, they take up much more resources from the environment to produce them).
People who rely heavily on meat, thinking this is easy access to full of essential amino-acids protein (which it is, muscle tissue is something of a protein storage for most of animal bodies), won't be getting magnesium in good quantities unless they start eating proper plants or buying supplements (created from plant matter), since most of magnesium (and many other micronutrients like it) is stored in the bones of the animals (which we don't eat, and bone broths don't do much either). It's pretty funny that many people think they can't get proper protein from plants, which is untrue, but in fact it's the other way around, as far as deficiencies go, once you start looking at micronutrients.