BS: Another angle on the Atkins diet

Subject: BS: Another angle on the Atkins diet
From: YorkshireYankee
Date: 14 Dec 03 - 11:12 PM

I am not trying to rain on anyone's parade, but I just found this article, and knowing how conscientious and globally-oriented so many Mudcatters are, I thought many would be interested in reading it.

Lose Weight and Use Up Global Resources!

The final paragraph concludes:
"While it's true that overconsumption in the industrial West doesn't exactly qualify as "breaking news," we're now seeing a new twist to an old story. The obesity epidemic, caused largely by excess food consumption, has proven to be one of our society's most vexing problems. The diets now in vogue may be a breakthrough in addressing obesity, but their success entails even greater consumption of global resources."

Troubling...

YY

Subject: RE: BS: Another angle on the Atkins diet
From: Kim C
Date: 15 Dec 03 - 10:00 AM

If people could eat when they were hungry, and stop when they were not hungry anymore, that might help.

When I dieted, I ate a lot of soy protein. I wouldn't say that I eat any more animal protein than I did before, just different kinds. And I still supplement with soy protein, to cut down on fat.

Subject: RE: BS: Another angle on the Atkins diet
From: GUEST,Frank
Date: 15 Dec 03 - 10:20 AM

This is one of the reasons people choose a vegan diet. Don't forget that trees need to be cut for more planting space. Amazon Rain Forest in Brazil. Also, bioengineered corn for cattle feed. (Camel's nose under the tent).

Frank

Subject: RE: BS: Another angle on the Atkins diet
From: GUEST,Skipjack K8
Date: 15 Dec 03 - 10:20 AM

Adherents to the newfangled 'Atkins' diet could do worse that try some of Oaklet's molluscs, plump crustacea fattened in pens in the rich waters of the Humber.

Subject: RE: BS: Another angle on the Atkins diet
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 15 Dec 03 - 10:39 AM

GUEST,Frank, your argument in support of a vegan diet makes no more sense than one supporting a meat-eaters diet. "Camel's nose under the tent," indeed. Where do you think all of those fine sanctimonious vegan products come from, except from land that has been cleared for agriculture? "Vegan" doesn't automatically translate to "organic," there are a lot of chemicals that go into that food production. It isn't a problem with a head under a tent flap, it's a head in a hole in the ground! The human diet impacts the world, no matter what is eaten.

I have an organic garden in my back yard. At this point I grow only a portion of my own produce, but what I do grow isn't contributing to the chemical load in the soil or groundwater, and no one had to cut down trees to plant this stuff. I'll never grow my own grain, or meat, but if we grow at least part of what we eat we lessen our environmental impact.

SRS

Subject: RE: BS: Another angle on the Atkins diet
From: mg
Date: 15 Dec 03 - 11:58 PM

Animals can graze amongst the trees. Actually, I think a varied diet, with animal products for those who require them, can make for a healthy environment...we could have about a million more cows where I live, which is perfect for dairy farming..probably 20 million sheep..don't know about the methane problem...I think we will go back to gentleman farming, or family farming, with each family having a few chickens, a goat, maybe a pig, a communal cow here and there. It will be OK. Don't worry. And read up some more about soy. Read up on thyroid and soy. Scarey. I want to believe in soy, but I am very unconvinced it is healthy...especially for babies...please don't feed soy to your children unless you study the situation thoroughly. mg

Subject: RE: BS: Another angle on the Atkins diet
From: GUEST,Frank
Date: 16 Dec 03 - 02:46 PM

Hi River Sage,

"GUEST,Frank, your argument in support of a vegan diet makes no more sense than one supporting a meat-eaters diet. "Camel's nose under the tent," indeed. Where do you think all of those fine sanctimonious vegan products come from, except from land that has been cleared for agriculture?"

It takes less land to grow a vegetable crop than it does to support
cattle, free-range chickens or other animal products. And less lands for processing plants and stockyards.

"Vegan" doesn't automatically translate to "organic," there are a lot of chemicals that go into that food production."

No disagreement there. But the term organic is now being obfuscated
by the FDA. Also, it's being used indiscriminately more and more.

"It isn't a problem with a head under a tent flap, it's a head in a hole in the ground! The human diet impacts the world, no matter what is eaten."

Agreed.

"I have an organic garden in my back yard. At this point I grow only a portion of my own produce, but what I do grow isn't contributing to the chemical load in the soil or groundwater, and no one had to cut down trees to plant this stuff. I'll never grow my own grain, or meat, but if we grow at least part of what we eat we lessen our environmental impact."

I don't disagree with you on this but I do think that the meat and poultry producers have other ideas for the use of the land and that's what I meant by the "camel's nose under the tent".

The meat-eater's diet requires much more use of the land then growing veggies.

Grow your own is certainly commendable. But on a vegan diet, you can't rely on everything you grow yourself but you can avoid buying from large concerns that don't go "organic". The small farmers are best to deal with that grow "organic".

Meanwhile, watch out for those big macs. :)

Frank

Subject: RE: BS: Another angle on the Atkins diet
From: GUEST
Date: 17 Dec 03 - 07:28 AM

Subject: RE: BS: Another angle on the Atkins diet
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 17 Dec 03 - 07:11 PM

Frank, I'm well aware of the FDA (in league with agribusiness, who want to make the "organic" claim themselves whenever possible, even if it isn't true) and the dilution of the term "organic." I also know what it REALLY means, and that is how I was using it.

I would disagree with your asseessment of the level of impact between raising animals and crops. They're both harmful in such concentrations as they generally appear in the developed world. The monocultures necessary for modern agricultural equipment on factory farms is such that an unhealthy concentration of one type of plant leads to easy pickings by pests ergo more pesticides and herbicides, and then there is the question of fertilizer, to say nothing of genetically modified crops. A vegetarian diet calls for much more that "growing veggies," it also means growing a lot of grains and alternative protein sources (generally soy). It's just as much big business as the production of meat.

There is simply too much information to the contrary to allow the claim that "vegan is better" to go unchallenged. It's' just different, it isn't better.

All things in moderation is the best way to go.

SRS

Subject: RE: BS: Another angle on the Atkins diet
From: Thomas the Rhymer
Date: 17 Dec 03 - 09:07 PM

Cheers SRS! On the Nose!