The Case Against Eating Fish(thewalrus.ca)
thewalrus.ca
The Case Against Eating Fish
https://thewalrus.ca/the-case-against-eating-fish/
182 comments
That’s just from PCB from farmed salmon. What do we really know about ingesting those microplastics? I’m not really worried about “toxins,” in general, but plastics aren’t exactly made to be safe to ingest.
I thought the article made (implicitly) a case for fish farmed in controlled environment. Those should be safe, right? That is if you can find them correctly labelled, which the author notes is also an issue.
I thought the article made (implicitly) a case for fish farmed in controlled environment. Those should be safe, right? That is if you can find them correctly labelled, which the author notes is also an issue.
> but plastics aren’t exactly made to be safe to ingest
Plastics are usually simple polymers, long chain of hydrocarbons. Not saying it's safe to ingest, but comparatively with many other substances found in the environment, there is less likely to be any interaction with your organism. The contamination of drinking water with lots of drugs in traces is, I think, far more dangerous.
Plastics are usually simple polymers, long chain of hydrocarbons. Not saying it's safe to ingest, but comparatively with many other substances found in the environment, there is less likely to be any interaction with your organism. The contamination of drinking water with lots of drugs in traces is, I think, far more dangerous.
What about stuff like this: http://www.npr.org/2011/03/02/134196209/study-most-plastics-...
AFAIK the problem is the additives, not the polymers themselves.
Does the consumption of fish matter? It seems like the linked article encourages consumption of more Omega-3.
Also, I'm generally confused by Omega-3 studies anyway (I'm not a scientist). In the early 2000's lots of research came out linking Omega-3 to health. But, then more recently, I thought that Meta analysis studies showed no relationship.
(Could someone explain like I'm five?)
[0] http://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/article-abstract/135726...
Also, I'm generally confused by Omega-3 studies anyway (I'm not a scientist). In the early 2000's lots of research came out linking Omega-3 to health. But, then more recently, I thought that Meta analysis studies showed no relationship.
(Could someone explain like I'm five?)
[0] http://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/article-abstract/135726...
The article you linked is about supplementing Omega 3. Many times in science we isolate out the one thing we think that is causing the health benefit and supplement more of it. Usually we don't find the result we are looking for. Food is a very complex item and it could be many factors and they all need to be present together to get the effect. Lycopene supplementation doesn't seem to have the health benefits seen with eating tomatoes, etc., etc.
So true and still consistently ignored by a lot of scientists. Especially these working for (or getting grands from) pharmaceutical industry.
That's not really an indictment of the scientific method though. So isolated lycopene isn't as good as eating a tomato. Surely there are scientists that are iterating on that, trying to find the combination of compounds that does give the desired outcome, right?
That wasn't a critique on science, just noting that the simplest approach (trying to pin down health benefits to a single substance) doesn't work well in this case. It's a good idea to start with the simplest hypothesis; if that is rejected you move to more complex ones. In that case multiple substances are probably acting non-independently in our physiology, thus your experiments need to accommodate that.
There may be other factors, or the form it is delivered in which creates the bioavailability. It's not always additive.
[deleted]
The best evidence available currently (See: https://examine.com/supplements/fish-oil/ ) points to an optimal 1:1 ratio between omega-3 and omega-6 consumption.
Since eggs and many other meats are richer in omega-6 fatty acids, for most people eating more fish or supplementing with fish oil helps balance omega-3 and omega-6.
Since eggs and many other meats are richer in omega-6 fatty acids, for most people eating more fish or supplementing with fish oil helps balance omega-3 and omega-6.
The most concentrated sources of omega 6 fatty acids are actually plants and especially manufactured plant oils, eg sunflower oil, corn oil, soybean oil, etc. Meat and eggs have some but they also have considerable omega 3s to balance things out.
It's best to avoid plant oils except for olive oil and coconut oil. Stick with butter, tallow and so forth, all great sources of balanced fatty acids.
It's best to avoid plant oils except for olive oil and coconut oil. Stick with butter, tallow and so forth, all great sources of balanced fatty acids.
The dose in meat is several orders of magnitude smaller, so you can almost ignore the effect on your dietary 3:6 ratio.
I think that you are partially correct: eating small fish, low on the food chain is a healthy way to get omega 3 and protein.
However, large fish, near the top of the food chain can contain a lot of toxins. Examples: tuna, grouper, even large salmon.
However, large fish, near the top of the food chain can contain a lot of toxins. Examples: tuna, grouper, even large salmon.
The problem is that one individual is not an average population. Average population in USA is incapable of eating right.
There's a bunch of stuff that other than fish that would have the same if not better effect and it has no side-effects.
There's a bunch of stuff that other than fish that would have the same if not better effect and it has no side-effects.
That isn't even an argument, it's a bunch of non sequitars.
I think the argument the original poster is trying to make is: statistics say people that eat fish are more healthy, but this is because of certain components of fish (like Omega 3s) and not something only providable by fish. These other sources (like flax seeds for omega3s) aren't shown to have large amounts of toxins. However, because it takes a variety of alternative foods to get all the healthy components in fish - even though an individual will be better off doing that - it would be hard and complex to find enough individuals eating all the healthy things combined to statistically show it's healthier then fish.
What argument, who's arguing? I'm saying that making decisions for your own particular situation based on what would happen to population statistics is fairly tricky.
Especially because of the epidemiological nature of these studies, lack of interventional studies for this particular subject and a bunch of other completely logical reasons.
Especially because of the epidemiological nature of these studies, lack of interventional studies for this particular subject and a bunch of other completely logical reasons.
Funny, I've been waiting for something like this to surface. About two years ago I was listening to a Swedish podcast. One of the hosts talked about his super model friend who, along with a bunch other super models, had been invited to a dinner with the world's leading cancer scientists. She was seated at the table right next to one of these men and during their chat she eventually pleaded guilty and told him that she was a periodic smoker. His answer was:
— As long as you don't eat fish, you're probably fine, and explained to her that these cancer findings would the next big pile of shit to hit the cancer fan.
The two hosts joked about the irony that supermodels were the first to hear about these findings.
— As long as you don't eat fish, you're probably fine, and explained to her that these cancer findings would the next big pile of shit to hit the cancer fan.
The two hosts joked about the irony that supermodels were the first to hear about these findings.
One of the world's leading cancer specialists said someone smoking was probably fine?
I suspect something has been lost in translation there.
I suspect something has been lost in translation there.
"periodic" smoker probably means not daily, which means she's probably fine.
Okay; mislabelled fish happens but it always has. Boycotting things you work with is a bit of a trend once the the initial shock kicks in but usually when we look from the inside we overblow the impacts of these things.. How many of us in the marketing/analytics/tracking/social media biz have Facebook profiles or browse signed into google?£
A lot of restaurants also sell ox or bison instead of beef.
Fresh fish is loaded with omegawhatever and is completely delicious.
Instead of cutting out one thing instead just maintain a balance like a grown up. Eat fruit, nuts, fish, cattle, paper clips, the fear of junior developers etc etc. If you only eat loads of cheap mislabelled fish then the problems warned in this story might come true but who really does that?
I buy whole breams once a month or so and with some greens on the side I consider it a completely healthy (and delicious) meal.
I grew up eating crabs and lobsters weekly and it didn't kill me.
What's the case here?
A lot of restaurants also sell ox or bison instead of beef.
Fresh fish is loaded with omegawhatever and is completely delicious.
Instead of cutting out one thing instead just maintain a balance like a grown up. Eat fruit, nuts, fish, cattle, paper clips, the fear of junior developers etc etc. If you only eat loads of cheap mislabelled fish then the problems warned in this story might come true but who really does that?
I buy whole breams once a month or so and with some greens on the side I consider it a completely healthy (and delicious) meal.
I grew up eating crabs and lobsters weekly and it didn't kill me.
What's the case here?
Honestly I'm so tired of the latest "hey, there's potentially nasty-sounding stuff in common food category that could possibly do vague bad things under vague unspecified circumstance, so stop eating it!"
From all the blogs about various pesticides, pollution, feed issues, animal cruelty, we might as well just go back to sustenance farming and grow/raise our own... oh wait we can't do that because fracking and industrial soil pollution! You can't trust your back yard! /rolls eyes
So much of online "health advice" is a series of micro-optimizations at best.
From all the blogs about various pesticides, pollution, feed issues, animal cruelty, we might as well just go back to sustenance farming and grow/raise our own... oh wait we can't do that because fracking and industrial soil pollution! You can't trust your back yard! /rolls eyes
So much of online "health advice" is a series of micro-optimizations at best.
>Honestly I'm so tired of the latest "hey, there's potentially nasty-sounding stuff in common food category that could possibly do vague bad things under vague unspecified circumstance, so stop eating it
This article made it very clear that it was just what she does based on what she has encountered, not health advice. Also, a large part of her concern had nothing to do with pollution. It was that different types of seafood require different cooking methods to be healthy to eat. This is well known, and with so much seafood being mislabeled isn't a vague issue.
This article made it very clear that it was just what she does based on what she has encountered, not health advice. Also, a large part of her concern had nothing to do with pollution. It was that different types of seafood require different cooking methods to be healthy to eat. This is well known, and with so much seafood being mislabeled isn't a vague issue.
It's passive-aggressive health advice. She sets herself up as an authority and then gives a perspective.
She also has language like this: "If, like my friends and family, you choose to continue to eat seafood, I would urge you to at least start asking questions."
So "asking questions" is the "least" you can do, she may have a veneer of politeness but her opinion on what people should do is clear.
Further evidence is the flow of her arguments. She starts off talking about the mislabeling of fish, but then says "Let’s say you buy your seafood from a store that correctly labels its fish, or from a fisherman you trust. Maybe you even catch it yourself. But no matter how careful you are..." and then dives into the microplastics.
So even if you are able to bypass her argument about mislabeling, which is filled with a lot of maybes in and of itself, in her opinion you still shouldn't eat fish because plastic.
Yeah, this is the health advice equivalent of "no offense, but... insert offensive thing"
She also has language like this: "If, like my friends and family, you choose to continue to eat seafood, I would urge you to at least start asking questions."
So "asking questions" is the "least" you can do, she may have a veneer of politeness but her opinion on what people should do is clear.
Further evidence is the flow of her arguments. She starts off talking about the mislabeling of fish, but then says "Let’s say you buy your seafood from a store that correctly labels its fish, or from a fisherman you trust. Maybe you even catch it yourself. But no matter how careful you are..." and then dives into the microplastics.
So even if you are able to bypass her argument about mislabeling, which is filled with a lot of maybes in and of itself, in her opinion you still shouldn't eat fish because plastic.
Yeah, this is the health advice equivalent of "no offense, but... insert offensive thing"
My rule of thumb is: if the common food category was really as bad as they say, you'd see people eating it dropping like flies, and the nasty-sounding stuff would become a public health emergency.
> My rule of thumb is: if the common food category was really as bad as they say, you'd see people eating it dropping like flies, and the nasty-sounding stuff would become a public health emergency.
Sounds convenient but IMHO somewhat beside "the point" of all these pontifications: your rule of thumb we as a species had already figured out for 100s of millenia+. That's why we don't eat grass and are told to be cautious around unknown wild berries or mushrooms. All these ponderations like OP OTOH are about "insidious, long-term-unnoticable-until-too-late health scares". An ongoing search for insights comparable in spirit to past "long-term damage" findings about lead or how some trichinosis parasites have an incubation period of ~30 years.
Sounds convenient but IMHO somewhat beside "the point" of all these pontifications: your rule of thumb we as a species had already figured out for 100s of millenia+. That's why we don't eat grass and are told to be cautious around unknown wild berries or mushrooms. All these ponderations like OP OTOH are about "insidious, long-term-unnoticable-until-too-late health scares". An ongoing search for insights comparable in spirit to past "long-term damage" findings about lead or how some trichinosis parasites have an incubation period of ~30 years.
> Sounds convenient but IMHO somewhat beside "the point" of all these pontifications
It is until it isn't; most of the time when I deal with "normal people", they seem to expect getting sick from "bad" food almost immediately, and are confused why I haven't died of cancer already because I'm using artificial sweeteners with my tea. My rule of thumb applies primarily to that kind of situations.
Not denying the importance of long-term considerations, but given the amount of nonsense media publish (c.f. http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/you-cant-trust-what-you-...), I just ignore the topic altogether until some entity like WHO or FDA starts making noises.
It is until it isn't; most of the time when I deal with "normal people", they seem to expect getting sick from "bad" food almost immediately, and are confused why I haven't died of cancer already because I'm using artificial sweeteners with my tea. My rule of thumb applies primarily to that kind of situations.
Not denying the importance of long-term considerations, but given the amount of nonsense media publish (c.f. http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/you-cant-trust-what-you-...), I just ignore the topic altogether until some entity like WHO or FDA starts making noises.
A bit of historical study should teach you that only happens in extreme cases, and even then it takes a long damned time. See: Arsenic and mercury as coloring agents.
The problem is that if the background noise is loud enough, you can't identify causes. Do you get cancers because of one of the things you're exposed to? A combination? All of them? Is one the real culprit while the others are not? We live in a soup of thousands of poorly studied compounds, and as a result it's very hard or impossible to even study the problem in a human population.
So, maybe it is shaving years off our lives, or causing something we are aware of, but we're not aware of a causal link.
The problem is that if the background noise is loud enough, you can't identify causes. Do you get cancers because of one of the things you're exposed to? A combination? All of them? Is one the real culprit while the others are not? We live in a soup of thousands of poorly studied compounds, and as a result it's very hard or impossible to even study the problem in a human population.
So, maybe it is shaving years off our lives, or causing something we are aware of, but we're not aware of a causal link.
>So, maybe it is shaving years off our lives, or causing something we are aware of, but we're not aware of a causal link.
Especially considering that the effects might take a really long time to be actually measurable.
Sure, older generations might get pretty old right now, but these generations also grew up in a vastly different world compared to generations being born right now. At this rate, I can easily fathom a future where people have never seen a somewhat clean beach, like in The Expanse.
With this kind of stuff tetraethyllead always comes to my mind. Even at its introduction, there had been warnings about the dangers, lead poisoning was something that was already established as something bad. That still didn't stop us from using TEL in all kinds of gasoline for decades. It took us, again, decades to phase this stuff out but the damage is already done and large swaths of land will remain heavily lead-polluted for decades to come.
Especially considering that the effects might take a really long time to be actually measurable.
Sure, older generations might get pretty old right now, but these generations also grew up in a vastly different world compared to generations being born right now. At this rate, I can easily fathom a future where people have never seen a somewhat clean beach, like in The Expanse.
With this kind of stuff tetraethyllead always comes to my mind. Even at its introduction, there had been warnings about the dangers, lead poisoning was something that was already established as something bad. That still didn't stop us from using TEL in all kinds of gasoline for decades. It took us, again, decades to phase this stuff out but the damage is already done and large swaths of land will remain heavily lead-polluted for decades to come.
That's pretty much what I worry about too, and "we're all living longer," only helps if we're able to sort the signal from the noise of the end of life. Plus, and this goes to TEL (great example!) too often people just don't care or lack imagination. You get a lot of "Oh the planet is vast, you can't poison it silly boy!" (the worst form of which is "God will protect us"), and then "Ah yes well, some poor children do eat lead paint chips, but my Billy never would!"
Finally... people only seem to find science believable when it comes to them in CSI form, unless they're actually scientists, in which case it's precisely the opposite. I've tried to explain to people that good science takes time, especially with something as varied as human beings and mortality. Most people can't be bothered, are ideologically opposed, or can't really understand. Plenty of the people who would agree with you and I about this would be nodding and saying, "Yep, that's why I don't vaccinate my kids!" smh There is this tiny sliver aware of the potential risks, between two vast gulfs of ignorance. Worse, plenty within that tiny slice have ideologies which don't allow for giving a rat's ass about this issue, or have some personal gain in mind.
It's hard not to conclude that should future historians be in a position to study us, they'll be chuckling and shaking their heads in the same we do studying the Victorians.
Finally... people only seem to find science believable when it comes to them in CSI form, unless they're actually scientists, in which case it's precisely the opposite. I've tried to explain to people that good science takes time, especially with something as varied as human beings and mortality. Most people can't be bothered, are ideologically opposed, or can't really understand. Plenty of the people who would agree with you and I about this would be nodding and saying, "Yep, that's why I don't vaccinate my kids!" smh There is this tiny sliver aware of the potential risks, between two vast gulfs of ignorance. Worse, plenty within that tiny slice have ideologies which don't allow for giving a rat's ass about this issue, or have some personal gain in mind.
It's hard not to conclude that should future historians be in a position to study us, they'll be chuckling and shaking their heads in the same we do studying the Victorians.
Well, cancer incidents have been rising for decades now, so all that stuff might just be killing us slowly.
People also live longer on average, thus increasing chances of getting cancer. Sure, young people get it and there are stories of tumors through time - but age is a defining risk factor.
People really need to stop regurgitating this red herring argument (pun intended): cancer rates are increasing by age group.
Colorectal cancers in young people have increased 40% in just 16 years. Melanoma rates in young people have increased 250% in four decades.
Colorectal cancers in young people have increased 40% in just 16 years. Melanoma rates in young people have increased 250% in four decades.
Skin cancer has risen. It started about the 20's when vacationing and getting tan on vacation (to show off money) became popular - and rose more with the popularity of tanning beds. The conspiracy theory states it jumped upon the introduction of the FM band, but I'm guessing that is just coincidence.
Colorectal cancers would increase because detection has increased. It became fairly popular to get a probe done at a certain age. I seriously can't give these sorts of numbers credit, just like having a percieved increase in autism after including more folks in it and having better screening and awareness.
Colorectal cancers would increase because detection has increased. It became fairly popular to get a probe done at a certain age. I seriously can't give these sorts of numbers credit, just like having a percieved increase in autism after including more folks in it and having better screening and awareness.
Incorrect, the rates are rising among young people: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/28/well/live/colon-and-recta...
Why do some people insist on rationalizing these trends away?
Why do some people insist on rationalizing these trends away?
I do stand corrected on colon cancer.
However, I stand by my general stance. Many cancers simply wouldn't show up in a population with a much shorter life expectancy. I'm not about to say it isn't partially environment or lifestyle (other things do cause cancer), just that we notice because of our life span and ability to detect these. I get this from articles like the one listed at the end, which states: The main reason cancer risk overall is rising is because of our increasing lifespan. And the researchers behind these new statistics reckon that about two-thirds of the increase is due to longevity. Colon cancer seems to be an outlier, and there are a couple of these. Cervical cancer is caused by a very common virus and often affects younger women, just to give another example.
http://scienceblog.cancerresearchuk.org/2015/02/04/why-are-c...
However, I stand by my general stance. Many cancers simply wouldn't show up in a population with a much shorter life expectancy. I'm not about to say it isn't partially environment or lifestyle (other things do cause cancer), just that we notice because of our life span and ability to detect these. I get this from articles like the one listed at the end, which states: The main reason cancer risk overall is rising is because of our increasing lifespan. And the researchers behind these new statistics reckon that about two-thirds of the increase is due to longevity. Colon cancer seems to be an outlier, and there are a couple of these. Cervical cancer is caused by a very common virus and often affects younger women, just to give another example.
http://scienceblog.cancerresearchuk.org/2015/02/04/why-are-c...
And incidents of polio, TB, scurvy, measles are all declining. Something has to kill us.
Don't know. I am very worried about radiation from the Fukushima accident. Fishies are swimming in contaminated waters...
https://www.davidwolfe.com/fukushima-radiation-tumors-fish-s...
https://www.davidwolfe.com/fukushima-radiation-tumors-fish-s...
Wolfe is a pseduo-scientific salesman of the worst kind; I would seek alternative sources of information to back up anything he says or writes:
http://ascienceenthusiast.com/the-david-avocado-wolfe-effect...
Please don't link blatant misinformation on HN.
https://www.metabunk.org/debunked-fukushima-causing-bloody-t...
EDIT: Apparently some people were triggered by my original comment.
https://www.metabunk.org/debunked-fukushima-causing-bloody-t...
EDIT: Apparently some people were triggered by my original comment.
Please be civil here on HN, the main argument of your debunking page is a source that is 404
http://www.geoengineeringwatch.org/surprise-youre-eating-fuk...
However it links to a CBS article (that is available) this one mentions 10 times higher than usual radiation in Tuna caught off the West Coast (but its still supposed to be edible).
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/radioactive-bluefin-tuna-crossed...
I am not convinced. Reminds me of how the Chernobyl accident was being downplayed in an IAEA report.
http://www.eurotrib.com/story/2006/5/3/114932/1583
http://www.geoengineeringwatch.org/surprise-youre-eating-fuk...
However it links to a CBS article (that is available) this one mentions 10 times higher than usual radiation in Tuna caught off the West Coast (but its still supposed to be edible).
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/radioactive-bluefin-tuna-crossed...
I am not convinced. Reminds me of how the Chernobyl accident was being downplayed in an IAEA report.
http://www.eurotrib.com/story/2006/5/3/114932/1583
I think I was being civil, the upvotes seem to agree.
The source link was the to one of the original blog posts David Wolfe paraphrased the content and lifted the imagery from. The source link was crap and the arguments were lies that are easily debunked.
>However it links to a CBS article (that is available) this one mentions 10 times higher than usual radiation in Tuna caught off the West Coast (but its still supposed to be edible).
Yeah, detection in Tuna is concerning and needs to be considered. I wanted numbers so I found https://swfsc.noaa.gov/textblock.aspx?Division=FRD&id=20593 and a breakdown of how those numbers related to reality: http://abitofperspective.com/?cat=3 We are many orders of magnitude away from even a simple medical procedure. Even assuming you can afford to eat 75lbs or so of contaminated Bluefin tuna caught near Japan.
Mercury content (in any long lived fish) poses a more realistic concern. We already recommend tuna not be eaten frequently for these and sustainability reasons. But your source article was claiming that radiation was found in salmon and causing tumors there, which is a lie.
(Thankfully mercury levels have been declining as we move away from coal power generation: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/tunas-declining-m... )
>I am not convinced. Reminds me of how the Chernobyl accident was being downplayed in an IAEA report.
Don't go throwing a red herring in here. What happened there was wrong but you can't make that argument without data. It's just as wrong as misinforming the public and causing a panic.
If you feel offended by me calling your source liar, come prepared to defend them or learn to accept new data and change your position. I responded so future readers of this thread won't be mislead into believing something that isn't true.
The source link was the to one of the original blog posts David Wolfe paraphrased the content and lifted the imagery from. The source link was crap and the arguments were lies that are easily debunked.
>However it links to a CBS article (that is available) this one mentions 10 times higher than usual radiation in Tuna caught off the West Coast (but its still supposed to be edible).
Yeah, detection in Tuna is concerning and needs to be considered. I wanted numbers so I found https://swfsc.noaa.gov/textblock.aspx?Division=FRD&id=20593 and a breakdown of how those numbers related to reality: http://abitofperspective.com/?cat=3 We are many orders of magnitude away from even a simple medical procedure. Even assuming you can afford to eat 75lbs or so of contaminated Bluefin tuna caught near Japan.
Mercury content (in any long lived fish) poses a more realistic concern. We already recommend tuna not be eaten frequently for these and sustainability reasons. But your source article was claiming that radiation was found in salmon and causing tumors there, which is a lie.
(Thankfully mercury levels have been declining as we move away from coal power generation: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/tunas-declining-m... )
>I am not convinced. Reminds me of how the Chernobyl accident was being downplayed in an IAEA report.
Don't go throwing a red herring in here. What happened there was wrong but you can't make that argument without data. It's just as wrong as misinforming the public and causing a panic.
If you feel offended by me calling your source liar, come prepared to defend them or learn to accept new data and change your position. I responded so future readers of this thread won't be mislead into believing something that isn't true.
Haha me too. I remember a few years ago (or probably more like 15 now) I was visiting my mother and in the car from the airport she was telling me "did you hear its okay to eat eggs again?" >_< (there was a widespread link to cancer which was reversed)
Somehow we have got to the point where the'recommended daily quota' of fruit and veg is something insane like 10 a day (I can't find gov.uk stats but a lot of newspaper articles etc).
Is it so hard to understand "put shit in and you become shit"? Why does anyone need to be told?
Is it so hard to understand that you should eat good quality and varied foods? That you don't need to swear off kebabs forever but don't do them every day? That putting more in than you use makes you bigger and putting less in smaller?
Somehow we have got to the point where the'recommended daily quota' of fruit and veg is something insane like 10 a day (I can't find gov.uk stats but a lot of newspaper articles etc).
Is it so hard to understand "put shit in and you become shit"? Why does anyone need to be told?
Is it so hard to understand that you should eat good quality and varied foods? That you don't need to swear off kebabs forever but don't do them every day? That putting more in than you use makes you bigger and putting less in smaller?
Did you read the article? The premise was A) the food you order is not the food you get and B) the food you get is loaded with contaminants that you cannot detect.
And all you got from that is "Is it so hard to understand"?
Yes, yes it is.
You remember all the talk about BPA plastic being bad for you and an endocrine disruptor? Do you really think people should just "know" that fact before science verifies?
And being skinny does not mean being healthy. That's just one metric.
And all you got from that is "Is it so hard to understand"?
Yes, yes it is.
You remember all the talk about BPA plastic being bad for you and an endocrine disruptor? Do you really think people should just "know" that fact before science verifies?
And being skinny does not mean being healthy. That's just one metric.
From the HN Guidelines:
Please don't insinuate that someone hasn't read an article.
Please don't insinuate that someone hasn't read an article.
It's a legitimate question in the context of what we are discussing.
I grew up doing X and it didn't kill me is a really weak argument. Many people do DANGEROUS_THING and don't die! But statistics don't work that way (+ survival bias if you want).
The thing is, the world is really diverse. In some countries like Japan they eat A LOT of fish, but I'd say it's mainly fish and not seashells. In Valencia (Spain) and nearby towns for example there's a lot of mussels and we also eat many small fried whole fish, which I can see how they probably have a larger chance of containing plastic than a piece of fish meat.
And that is Spain and Japan, developed countries. There are lots of places where people cannot choose what to eat. And she is not even saying NOT to eat fish, she just says she doesn't eat, the reasons ("with a substance we still don’t really understand") and a possible solution:
- There are steps we can take on the community level to make seafood safer. We can demand stricter and more specific labeling guidelines from federal food agencies and fish distributors.
- the only ways to mitigate the problem are to reduce our reliance on single-use items and avoid products wrapped in excessive packaging.
The thing is, the world is really diverse. In some countries like Japan they eat A LOT of fish, but I'd say it's mainly fish and not seashells. In Valencia (Spain) and nearby towns for example there's a lot of mussels and we also eat many small fried whole fish, which I can see how they probably have a larger chance of containing plastic than a piece of fish meat.
And that is Spain and Japan, developed countries. There are lots of places where people cannot choose what to eat. And she is not even saying NOT to eat fish, she just says she doesn't eat, the reasons ("with a substance we still don’t really understand") and a possible solution:
- There are steps we can take on the community level to make seafood safer. We can demand stricter and more specific labeling guidelines from federal food agencies and fish distributors.
- the only ways to mitigate the problem are to reduce our reliance on single-use items and avoid products wrapped in excessive packaging.
The case was NOT mislabeling, that was just part of it. At least read more than one paragraph before commenting.
> I grew up eating crabs and lobsters weekly and it didn't kill me.
You don't know yet what is gonna kill you. You might get a stroke tomorrow caused in some part by doing those things. That is essentially why living healthy is a thing, and why the number one cause of human death in the world is bad eating habits and not old-age.
You don't know yet what is gonna kill you. You might get a stroke tomorrow caused in some part by doing those things. That is essentially why living healthy is a thing, and why the number one cause of human death in the world is bad eating habits and not old-age.
Well, not to get too off topic but this argument never really resonated with me. I'm either going to die suddenly/instantly in some accident (or otherwise in some situation like this stroke where I don't knowing it's coming) or I'll contract cancer or some other miserable thing that'll off me slowly in which case I'll die by suicide.
Should I avoid nice things to get an extra 10 years when I'm 70? Not this cat, but I don't judge anyone for feeling different.
Should I avoid nice things to get an extra 10 years when I'm 70? Not this cat, but I don't judge anyone for feeling different.
Lots die suddenly from strokes and heart attacks (and other diet-related stuff) in their 30s, 40s, 50s and 60s too. I get it when you're 70, but when there's a real chance of it happening already at 30 and increasingly from that point. That realization is what made me switch my unhealthy habits out what healthy ones that I've come to enjoy just as much if not even more since I'm now also much healthier and can enjoy much more cool stuff that I couldn't before.
Said another way: if food is your measure of happiness in life, you should branch out and try something other than eating, and even then, food is not good because there is meat in it. A good dish is a good dish in any case, and there are thousands of good dishes containing no animal products what so ever.
Said another way: if food is your measure of happiness in life, you should branch out and try something other than eating, and even then, food is not good because there is meat in it. A good dish is a good dish in any case, and there are thousands of good dishes containing no animal products what so ever.
Nah its not the measure I'm not that shallow, but I have a mentality where I think playing the short game when it comes to consuming whatever makes me happy makes my life better than depriving myself out of fear of an early death.
It sounds dark, but I would genuinely rather die suddenly while enjoying my life to its fullest instead of clinging on and trying to extend it at the detriment of my fun (puffs cigarette and swigs from a bottle)
;) ;)
It sounds dark, but I would genuinely rather die suddenly while enjoying my life to its fullest instead of clinging on and trying to extend it at the detriment of my fun (puffs cigarette and swigs from a bottle)
;) ;)
I get that, but I find that the silver lining is to find something you enjoy just as much or even more that also makes you live longer and enjoy it for a greater extend than the unhealthy thing.
5 years back, I loved BBQ rips, steak, cows milk and cows cheese, and thought I couldn't live without it. Today I still love the taste of those things, but I have stopped consuming them and have found alternatives that I like just as much or better with the added benefit that they don't kill me, which adds to me liking them even better.
5 years back, I loved BBQ rips, steak, cows milk and cows cheese, and thought I couldn't live without it. Today I still love the taste of those things, but I have stopped consuming them and have found alternatives that I like just as much or better with the added benefit that they don't kill me, which adds to me liking them even better.
You make it sound like steak, milk or cheese are bad, but they are not. It's all a matter of balance. Low carb diets are popular for a reason, carbs and sugar are usually seen as more unhealthy than fats and personally i also consider physical activity as an important factor for balance.
They are literally bad. Low carb diets is a fad that makes it easy for people to lose weight, but carbs are important, it's literally our bodies favourite type of nutrient, and all populations through history that has done well for themself has been high carb, and people wouldn't have to cut out carbs if they cut out all the actually unhealthy stuff they choose to eat instead. Fats are important, carbs are important and so on. Saturated fat, cholesterol, hormones, refined oil, refined sugar and so on are never healthy to consume.
You shouldn't ignore the fact that the number one cause of humans deaths (cardiovascular disease, heart disease, type 2 diabetes and some types of cancer) is directly tied to eating meat, fish, eggs, dairy and oil. Especially dairy. Dairy is arguably the worst of the culprits, but the others are not healthy either, not by any measure. Less bad does not make good. Not in any big or small amount. And yes, you might not get sick from eating them if you eat less of them, but that doesn't make them healthy, and since they also are the single biggest cause of climate change (because of the way they are produced), and that consuming those things when we don't need to at all is ethically corrupt, there is really no good reason to do so.
You shouldn't ignore the fact that the number one cause of humans deaths (cardiovascular disease, heart disease, type 2 diabetes and some types of cancer) is directly tied to eating meat, fish, eggs, dairy and oil. Especially dairy. Dairy is arguably the worst of the culprits, but the others are not healthy either, not by any measure. Less bad does not make good. Not in any big or small amount. And yes, you might not get sick from eating them if you eat less of them, but that doesn't make them healthy, and since they also are the single biggest cause of climate change (because of the way they are produced), and that consuming those things when we don't need to at all is ethically corrupt, there is really no good reason to do so.
i have been eating dairy a lot and have stopped is there something i can do to reverse the adverse affects of eating dairy for so long thanks
To my knowledge, just stopping, as you've done, is the most important thing, and then continue eating healthy, exercising and so on, but you've already done the hardest part. The important thing now is that you stick with it
I myself try to limit my meat and cheese consumption but i like joghurt and other dairy for example. But i also cycle 60+km every week at a fast pace, have normal weight and would consider myself to be pretty fit.
I don't disagree that a lot of the biggest killers are related to eating habits, but i think it's mostly because people don't eat a balanced diet and on top of that have not enough physical activity. I have a lot of South American (Brazil/Argentina) co-workers and friends who sit in front of a computer all day and hardly doing anything physical, They also consume tons of meat, cheese, fried stuff, eggs and its a culture where it's almost seen as offensive if you don't eat meat and vegan options in those countries are super limited. A lot of them are also pretty overweight, which shows that they don't really have a balance and it's clear to me that some of them will get problems when they get older but many people just don't care too much, same with smokers or people that drink a lot on weekends.
So i believe the number one killers are all mostly lifestyle related and can't be attributed to some specific type of food so easily.
So i believe the number one killers are all mostly lifestyle related and can't be attributed to some specific type of food so easily.
Indeed, lifestyle (including diet) is the biggest problem. But when you then see what the problems in the diet is, the biggest one in for example America is dairy and then meat and oil.
Again, you can be healthier than others eating those things, but if you were in that case, not eating it would make you much healthier than your previous self. And not forgetting that as little as the amount of dairy in three glasses of milk a day increases you chance notably of getting prostate cancer, colon cancer, cardiovascular disease and heart disease. A big portion of yoghurt often have more than that. Exercising doesn't decrease those chances by much if at all.
Again, you can be healthier than others eating those things, but if you were in that case, not eating it would make you much healthier than your previous self. And not forgetting that as little as the amount of dairy in three glasses of milk a day increases you chance notably of getting prostate cancer, colon cancer, cardiovascular disease and heart disease. A big portion of yoghurt often have more than that. Exercising doesn't decrease those chances by much if at all.
I don't know, i saw other studies that suggest whole-milk actually has benefits in regards to cardiovascular disease and heart disease. There is so much conflicting information out there, it's really hard to take anything too serious if you are not a scientist yourself who has the time and knowledge to go through all of that.
There is really not conflicting data out there if you go directly to the research instead of people who cites them, and when you check the research out, be wary of the research funded by the dairy (and meat and egg and sugar and so on) industry, and be wary of people funded by the industry too. You don't want to get advice on how healthy milk is from someone who's salary is paid by selling you milk.
All the claims that dairy (milk) is healthy that I'm aware of and that is still well regarded (peer reviewed and hasn't later been debunked), is research that says stuff like "you need this much protein, you need this much calcium, you need this much that and that", and then they conclude with stuff like "and if consume this much dairy, you get all those things", but that is focusing on the good stuff in a vacuum and completely neglecting all the bad stuff that is in dairy, and that you already get all the good stuff if you simply eat any proper diet, but some diets, like a plant-based one, avoids the bad stuff.
All the claims that dairy (milk) is healthy that I'm aware of and that is still well regarded (peer reviewed and hasn't later been debunked), is research that says stuff like "you need this much protein, you need this much calcium, you need this much that and that", and then they conclude with stuff like "and if consume this much dairy, you get all those things", but that is focusing on the good stuff in a vacuum and completely neglecting all the bad stuff that is in dairy, and that you already get all the good stuff if you simply eat any proper diet, but some diets, like a plant-based one, avoids the bad stuff.
If that would really be the case, we should see huge differences for people with lactose intolerance, shouldn't we?
I don't believe so. The problem isn't dairy per se, it's what's in dairy. If you just replace the saturated fat you get from dairy with saturated sat from meat or coconut milk or whatever, the result is the same.
Three glasses of milk a day us a little???
It is the amount of the saturated fat, hormones and cholesterol (and antibiotics and so on) in three glasses that is the important thing. Many people drink at least one glass of milk and put at least one glass on their cereal too. And then they eat cheese on a lot of their food, which is concentrated and contains a lot more of everything than milk does, so many people consumes a lot more than what is in three glasses of milk every single day.
They are literally not bad. There's nothing at all wrong with eating meat, eggs, fish, dairy or oil. The number one cause of humans' deaths is directly tied to drinking water as well. Just because people eat meat, fish, eggs, dairy and oil and then die does not make those things bad.
People die from eating fatty food fried in poor quality oil every day of their lives, yes. That doesn't mean that oil is bad for you, it doesn't mean that fat is bad for you, it doesn't mean that you're at risk of heart attack if you have something that's fried every now and again.
Of course we have to eat things in moderation, but the idea that because overconsuming something is bad for you then any amount of it must be a little bit bad for you? That's bunk. That's just not true. Dairy is not bad for you, oil is not bad for you, sugar is not bad for you.
And there is, emphatically, absolutely nothing wrong with drinking cows milk.
I'm not going to give up eating meta, fish, eggs, dairy and oil just because you think that the effect of food on your health is linearly proportional to how much of it you consume.
People die from eating fatty food fried in poor quality oil every day of their lives, yes. That doesn't mean that oil is bad for you, it doesn't mean that fat is bad for you, it doesn't mean that you're at risk of heart attack if you have something that's fried every now and again.
Of course we have to eat things in moderation, but the idea that because overconsuming something is bad for you then any amount of it must be a little bit bad for you? That's bunk. That's just not true. Dairy is not bad for you, oil is not bad for you, sugar is not bad for you.
And there is, emphatically, absolutely nothing wrong with drinking cows milk.
I'm not going to give up eating meta, fish, eggs, dairy and oil just because you think that the effect of food on your health is linearly proportional to how much of it you consume.
> They are literally not bad.
Consuming saturated fat, hormones and cholesterol is literally bad for you. It affects your body in a negative way without any benefit in contrast to alternatives aka bad for you.
> The number one cause of humans' deaths is directly tied to drinking water as well. Just because people eat meat, fish, eggs, dairy and oil and then die does not make those things bad.
You could say that, and just because I worded something poorly doesn't change the facts that those particular things in meat, dairy and so on is never good for you.
> People die from eating fatty food fried in poor quality oil every day of their lives, yes. That doesn't mean that oil is bad for you, it doesn't mean that fat is bad for you, it doesn't mean that you're at risk of heart attack if you have something that's fried every now and again.
There is no health-benefit to consuming refined oil instead of getting oil in their natural package, but there are lots of health concerns, so yeah it's bad.
Fat is not bad for you, but saturated fat is bad for you when it's put into a package where it has too much of it compared to what else is in the package, which is the case for dairy, meat and so on.
By your logic, smoking is not bad for you either as long as you only smoke a little.
> Of course we have to eat things in moderation, but the idea that because overconsuming something is bad for you then any amount of it must be a little bit bad for you? That's bunk. That's just not true. Dairy is not bad for you, oil is not bad for you, sugar is not bad for you.
It is bad for you because you can get the same good stuff there is in it from other sources that doesn't have the bad stuff. What you are proposing is, that if you eat a little bit of something that is bad for you, it's not bad. But that is a complete fallacy. It's always bad for you. Will it have a negative effect on you in the long run? Not if you don't overdo it, but that doesn't change the fact that it is bad for you.
The only time that dairy, meat and so on is good for you is in the absence of alternative food so you would starve if you didn't consume it.
> oil is not bad for you, sugar is not bad for you.
Refined oil and refined sugar is always bad for you. It has no positives, only negatives. It's bad.
> And there is, emphatically, absolutely nothing wrong with drinking cows milk.
There sure is. For a cow to give milk, it has to be pregnant and it then has to give birth to a calf. But for you to drink the milk instead of the calf, the calf has to be taken away and be put on some other nutrition that is not it's natural nutrition (cows milk - yeah, that is what it is, growth food for a baby cow, not human food), or it has to be killed. The process is very traumatic for both the cow and the calf, and they will often be stressed and moan for weeks, except in the case of the calf that is often killed not many days old. For the cow to constantly give milk instead of only when it becomes pregnant naturally, it has to be raped by a human on a schedule so it never stops giving milk, and when the cow reaches 4-6 old, the cow is in so bad state it can't keep on producing the required amount of milk, so it is sent to a slaughterhouse and horribly killed and slaughtered. A cow will live to 20-26 years old in nature. There is nothing empathic about people thinking that cows milk is their right, even if it is killed in the most pain-free and lives with the least amount of suffering possible for it to be a dairy cow, which unfortunately is not true for more 1/10.000.000 dairy cows.
> I'm not going to give up eating meta, fish, eggs, dairy and oil just because you think that the effect of food on your health is linearly proportional to how much of it you consume.
I'm not thinking these things. Science is. The only reason it's still part of a normal diet in the way it is, is because of powerful lobbying done by the dairy, meat, egg and fishing industry, and because just like you (and me 5 years back) I couldn't contain the thought of not consuming these things, so I'd gladly ignore the problems with them. So do a lot of doctors and scientists and so on.
Consuming saturated fat, hormones and cholesterol is literally bad for you. It affects your body in a negative way without any benefit in contrast to alternatives aka bad for you.
> The number one cause of humans' deaths is directly tied to drinking water as well. Just because people eat meat, fish, eggs, dairy and oil and then die does not make those things bad.
You could say that, and just because I worded something poorly doesn't change the facts that those particular things in meat, dairy and so on is never good for you.
> People die from eating fatty food fried in poor quality oil every day of their lives, yes. That doesn't mean that oil is bad for you, it doesn't mean that fat is bad for you, it doesn't mean that you're at risk of heart attack if you have something that's fried every now and again.
There is no health-benefit to consuming refined oil instead of getting oil in their natural package, but there are lots of health concerns, so yeah it's bad.
Fat is not bad for you, but saturated fat is bad for you when it's put into a package where it has too much of it compared to what else is in the package, which is the case for dairy, meat and so on.
By your logic, smoking is not bad for you either as long as you only smoke a little.
> Of course we have to eat things in moderation, but the idea that because overconsuming something is bad for you then any amount of it must be a little bit bad for you? That's bunk. That's just not true. Dairy is not bad for you, oil is not bad for you, sugar is not bad for you.
It is bad for you because you can get the same good stuff there is in it from other sources that doesn't have the bad stuff. What you are proposing is, that if you eat a little bit of something that is bad for you, it's not bad. But that is a complete fallacy. It's always bad for you. Will it have a negative effect on you in the long run? Not if you don't overdo it, but that doesn't change the fact that it is bad for you.
The only time that dairy, meat and so on is good for you is in the absence of alternative food so you would starve if you didn't consume it.
> oil is not bad for you, sugar is not bad for you.
Refined oil and refined sugar is always bad for you. It has no positives, only negatives. It's bad.
> And there is, emphatically, absolutely nothing wrong with drinking cows milk.
There sure is. For a cow to give milk, it has to be pregnant and it then has to give birth to a calf. But for you to drink the milk instead of the calf, the calf has to be taken away and be put on some other nutrition that is not it's natural nutrition (cows milk - yeah, that is what it is, growth food for a baby cow, not human food), or it has to be killed. The process is very traumatic for both the cow and the calf, and they will often be stressed and moan for weeks, except in the case of the calf that is often killed not many days old. For the cow to constantly give milk instead of only when it becomes pregnant naturally, it has to be raped by a human on a schedule so it never stops giving milk, and when the cow reaches 4-6 old, the cow is in so bad state it can't keep on producing the required amount of milk, so it is sent to a slaughterhouse and horribly killed and slaughtered. A cow will live to 20-26 years old in nature. There is nothing empathic about people thinking that cows milk is their right, even if it is killed in the most pain-free and lives with the least amount of suffering possible for it to be a dairy cow, which unfortunately is not true for more 1/10.000.000 dairy cows.
> I'm not going to give up eating meta, fish, eggs, dairy and oil just because you think that the effect of food on your health is linearly proportional to how much of it you consume.
I'm not thinking these things. Science is. The only reason it's still part of a normal diet in the way it is, is because of powerful lobbying done by the dairy, meat, egg and fishing industry, and because just like you (and me 5 years back) I couldn't contain the thought of not consuming these things, so I'd gladly ignore the problems with them. So do a lot of doctors and scientists and so on.
> There sure is. For a cow to give milk, it has to be pregnant and it then has to give birth to a calf. But for you to drink the milk instead of the calf, the calf has to be taken away and be put on some other nutrition that is not it's natural nutrition (cows milk - yeah, that is what it is, growth food for a baby cow, not human food), or it has to be killed. The process is very traumatic for both the cow and the calf, and they will often be stressed and moan for weeks, except in the case of the calf that is often killed not many days old. For the cow to constantly give milk instead of only when it becomes pregnant naturally, it has to be raped by a human on a schedule so it never stops giving milk, and when the cow reaches 4-6 old, the cow is in so bad state it can't keep on producing the required amount of milk, so it is sent to a slaughterhouse and horribly killed and slaughtered. A cow will live to 20-26 years old in nature. There is nothing empathic about people thinking that cows milk is their right, even if it is killed in the most pain-free and lives with the least amount of suffering possible for it to be a dairy cow, which unfortunately is not true for more 1/10.000.000 dairy cows.
You just did not answer the OP's question at all. Sure, animal cruelty is an important issue but its NOT the one you were debating with the OP.
You just did not answer the OP's question at all. Sure, animal cruelty is an important issue but its NOT the one you were debating with the OP.
I believe I did.
Firstly, even though milesrout wrote `emphatically`, I believe he meant `ethically` since that is what I wrote which he answered to.
Secondly, and I'm not a native English speaker so I might be wrong, empathically, my comment is still valid. What we do to dairy cows can only be described as a product of a complete lack of empathy for the cows, nothing less.
Firstly, even though milesrout wrote `emphatically`, I believe he meant `ethically` since that is what I wrote which he answered to.
Secondly, and I'm not a native English speaker so I might be wrong, empathically, my comment is still valid. What we do to dairy cows can only be described as a product of a complete lack of empathy for the cows, nothing less.
>They are literally bad. Low carb diets is a fad that makes it easy for people to lose weight, but carbs are important, it's literally our bodies favourite type of nutrient, and all populations through history that has done well for themself has been high carb
You're going to have to argue with the multitude of people who have had success beyond "losing weight" on low carb diets.
The days of calling low carb a "fad" are waning.
You're going to have to argue with the multitude of people who have had success beyond "losing weight" on low carb diets.
The days of calling low carb a "fad" are waning.
> You're going to have to argue with the multitude of people who have had success beyond "losing weight" on low carb diets.
Their success is feeling great, not preventing sickness. They are gonna get them too, at some point, probably, but they might feel great until then. You can feel great on almost any diet, but only few helps preventing these diet-related sicknesses.
> The days of calling low carb a "fad" are waning.
Low carb is gonna come around and bite people in the ass. High carb is so important for a good balanced health (science agrees about that), and has no negatives except if you also want to eat 2000cals of eggs, meat and cheese a day, in which case you are gonna get fat, and then cutting out the boring carbs is the choice people are choosing, instead of cutting out the eggs, meat and cheese, a choice which is gonna give them diabetes type 2, cardiovascular disease, heart disease and cancer in the long while.
Their success is feeling great, not preventing sickness. They are gonna get them too, at some point, probably, but they might feel great until then. You can feel great on almost any diet, but only few helps preventing these diet-related sicknesses.
> The days of calling low carb a "fad" are waning.
Low carb is gonna come around and bite people in the ass. High carb is so important for a good balanced health (science agrees about that), and has no negatives except if you also want to eat 2000cals of eggs, meat and cheese a day, in which case you are gonna get fat, and then cutting out the boring carbs is the choice people are choosing, instead of cutting out the eggs, meat and cheese, a choice which is gonna give them diabetes type 2, cardiovascular disease, heart disease and cancer in the long while.
[deleted]
>Should I avoid nice things to get an extra 10 years when I'm 70?
I'm guessing you must be pretty young if you see your 70s in those terms. There's a good chance you'll still be healthy enough to have a pretty good quality of life in your 70s.
I'm guessing you must be pretty young if you see your 70s in those terms. There's a good chance you'll still be healthy enough to have a pretty good quality of life in your 70s.
> Should I avoid nice things to get an extra 10 years when I'm 70?
But what if your past bad eating habits affect your quality of life at 40 or 50?
But what if your past bad eating habits affect your quality of life at 40 or 50?
You can die quickly from cancer too. Case in point: acute leukemia.
[deleted]
> A lot of restaurants also sell ox or bison instead of beef.
That's not really related to the article I guess, but I'm curious:
What's the difference between "ox" and "beef"?
I'm intrigued because in French, ox and beef are supposed to be the same thing (both bœuf), and I would probably have written "A lot of restaurants also sell cow or bison instead of beef" since bœuf is supposed to be castrated bull, while most often people actually get sold cow meat.
That's not really related to the article I guess, but I'm curious:
What's the difference between "ox" and "beef"?
I'm intrigued because in French, ox and beef are supposed to be the same thing (both bœuf), and I would probably have written "A lot of restaurants also sell cow or bison instead of beef" since bœuf is supposed to be castrated bull, while most often people actually get sold cow meat.
[deleted]
Related, this video on youtube which made me not want to eat fish anymore: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jH6wH1dqbwc WTF?!
And as with most outrageous food poisoning stories Monsanto is involved.
You realize that's specifically talking about farmed Norwegian Salmon and not all fish everywhere, right?
Farmed salmon is really fucked up. We used to catch ones which broke out from freshwater farms (mostly accidentally) and depending on the time of year the flesh would be grey (they feed dyed meal before they go to market) and they all had weird extra fins and deformities..
I'll eat it, I know where it comes from at least though.
I'll eat it, I know where it comes from at least though.
All farmed fish have a higher ratio of fin and skeletal deformities than wild fish. Sometimes you can blame endogamy or genetic lottery, but it happens also with extra healthy parents caught in the wild. The main cause has puzzled the farmers for many decades; but is currently known and is terrifying: Bubbles in the water hitting the delicate microscopic larvae in its first days of life.
You hire the incorrect guy, and it takes only a bubble stone incorrectly placed creating a too strong current. Having plenty of food and almost no natural predators, a bigger percentage of this fishes will survive unless you cull it. Is as simple as that.
I can understand that some journalists would kill for a good history with elements of survival horror and the big bad army/pharma/nuclear companies creating monsters in secret laboratories; but the real life of a sea farmer is normally much more boring than a videogame.
You hire the incorrect guy, and it takes only a bubble stone incorrectly placed creating a too strong current. Having plenty of food and almost no natural predators, a bigger percentage of this fishes will survive unless you cull it. Is as simple as that.
I can understand that some journalists would kill for a good history with elements of survival horror and the big bad army/pharma/nuclear companies creating monsters in secret laboratories; but the real life of a sea farmer is normally much more boring than a videogame.
Interesting point! Do you have a link to the research where they found that "Bubbles in the water hitting the delicate microscopic larvae in its first days of life"? Seems like an important breakthrough!
Shouldn't be easy to find such link. Take in mind that lots, and I said lots, of articles of the pre-internet era are still available only in dead tree format. You should search around the late 70's - early 80's or so.
The problem was widely studied in any case, there are books and monographies available (i.e: Abnormalities in finfish mariculture: an overview of the problem, causes and solutions. Divanach et al., 1996).
A group of articles orbit around genetic issues (triploidy in domestic Salmon has an effect for sure), and a second group around mechanic issues on the first days of life like impact against bubbles or walls. Acccidents involving chemicals released in water are rare events, all fishes will typically die (this is a bussiness unforgiving with the tiniest mistakes that you could commit) and there is not much more to say except the un-publishable "I'm stupid and killed 2000 fishes again by mistake".
Just for the record, we found a correlation between temperature and skeletal deformities in sea bass that was published in 'Aquaculture international' vol 12 (Abdel et al., 2004). Could be a good place to start searching.
The problem was widely studied in any case, there are books and monographies available (i.e: Abnormalities in finfish mariculture: an overview of the problem, causes and solutions. Divanach et al., 1996).
A group of articles orbit around genetic issues (triploidy in domestic Salmon has an effect for sure), and a second group around mechanic issues on the first days of life like impact against bubbles or walls. Acccidents involving chemicals released in water are rare events, all fishes will typically die (this is a bussiness unforgiving with the tiniest mistakes that you could commit) and there is not much more to say except the un-publishable "I'm stupid and killed 2000 fishes again by mistake".
Just for the record, we found a correlation between temperature and skeletal deformities in sea bass that was published in 'Aquaculture international' vol 12 (Abdel et al., 2004). Could be a good place to start searching.
All salmon flesh is naturally pale in color (look at their close relatives the freshwater trout).
The pink or red color you see in some wild-caught fish is from carotenoid pigments in the krill they consume (or that has been consumed by other creatures that are then consumed by the salmon).
The farm-raised fish are given the exact same pigments before they are sent to market.
There are reasons to avoid farmed fish, but the color isn't one of them.
The pink or red color you see in some wild-caught fish is from carotenoid pigments in the krill they consume (or that has been consumed by other creatures that are then consumed by the salmon).
The farm-raised fish are given the exact same pigments before they are sent to market.
There are reasons to avoid farmed fish, but the color isn't one of them.
There is a standard measuring instrument for the color of salmon-flesh. The SalmoFan!:
https://www.dsm.com/markets/anh/en_US/products/products-solu...
> DSM has studied consumer preferences regarding the flesh color of salmon. Our research shows that dark-colored salmon flesh consistently commands a premium. Typically bought by more affluent groups, it can command an additional USD 0.50 to USD 1.00 per pound when offered side-by-side with light-colored salmon flesh.
> Light-colored salmon attracts a different consumer demographic, being more frequently purchased by minority groups than dark-colored salmon.
> DSM has studied consumer preferences regarding the flesh color of salmon. Our research shows that dark-colored salmon flesh consistently commands a premium. Typically bought by more affluent groups, it can command an additional USD 0.50 to USD 1.00 per pound when offered side-by-side with light-colored salmon flesh.
> Light-colored salmon attracts a different consumer demographic, being more frequently purchased by minority groups than dark-colored salmon.
Well, where ever they get it seeing salmon you catch that isn't pale pink but grey is disturbing and not something which would occur naturally.
I fly fished wild salmon since I was in my early teens and they were always pink. We stole enough fish from the fishfarms to see a difference (either grey or insanely over coloured) ;)
I think maybe Pacific salmon are different to the kind we get in Scotland though? Ours only spawn once and they don't eat when they're back in freshwater (as a consequence the tail end of the fishing season is horrible; black skinny things that fall apart when you touch em)
I fly fished wild salmon since I was in my early teens and they were always pink. We stole enough fish from the fishfarms to see a difference (either grey or insanely over coloured) ;)
I think maybe Pacific salmon are different to the kind we get in Scotland though? Ours only spawn once and they don't eat when they're back in freshwater (as a consequence the tail end of the fishing season is horrible; black skinny things that fall apart when you touch em)
Only Atlantic salmon are farmed in the United States and Europe. There's some farming of Pacific salmon in Chile and New Zealand, but overall it's a rounding error compared to the amount of farmed Atlantic salmon.
Most salmon (Atlantic or Pacific) only spawn once and then die, but occasionally an Atlantic salmon will survive to make another trip.
There's really no hard and fast distinction between what's called a "salmon" and what's called a "trout", other than salmon typically spending time at sea. For example, Oncorhynchus mykiss is called a "rainbow trout" if it remains in freshwater its entire life. It naturally has pale flesh (though farmed rainbow is often given the same pigments as the farmed salmon). If it spends time at sea, the exact same fish is called a "steelhead" (occasionally, a "steelhead salmon") and has red or pink flesh.
A near-relative, Oncorhynchus nerka, is called the "red salmon" or "sockeye salmon"if it spends time at sea, but "kokanee", "kokanee trout" or "silver trout" if it remains landlocked.
And so on.
Most salmon (Atlantic or Pacific) only spawn once and then die, but occasionally an Atlantic salmon will survive to make another trip.
There's really no hard and fast distinction between what's called a "salmon" and what's called a "trout", other than salmon typically spending time at sea. For example, Oncorhynchus mykiss is called a "rainbow trout" if it remains in freshwater its entire life. It naturally has pale flesh (though farmed rainbow is often given the same pigments as the farmed salmon). If it spends time at sea, the exact same fish is called a "steelhead" (occasionally, a "steelhead salmon") and has red or pink flesh.
A near-relative, Oncorhynchus nerka, is called the "red salmon" or "sockeye salmon"if it spends time at sea, but "kokanee", "kokanee trout" or "silver trout" if it remains landlocked.
And so on.
Grey flesh or skin can be the result of either applying too much carotenes to the diet; or maybe (I'm speculating in this second point) because its diet was high in vegetable protein contents (using soy as replacement for marine proteins is cheaper).
Pacific salmon is quite different, the colour is also much darker.
Can you stop with the winky faces?
When I read these types of articles and the myriad of "studies" that come out daily, I always think there's really only one way to eat as healthy as possible for the typical "urban westerner" - To eat a bit of everything, no big rules, or removing any specific food from your diet. Just integrate lots of variety and never get accustomed to consume too much of anything.
Include the notion of not being loyal to brands or geographic origin.
Examples: Don't eat too much tuna, but when you buy tuna always buy a different brand/type. When you buy meat, don't always eat beef or pork, alternate, and choose from different brands suppliers. Same with vegetables, etc.
By all means avoid sugar added / too much processed foods, I think these 2 points are above reasonable doubt today.
It's a real luxury and privilege to have access to the variety of foods we enjoy today, we should exploit it more IMHO.
Include the notion of not being loyal to brands or geographic origin.
Examples: Don't eat too much tuna, but when you buy tuna always buy a different brand/type. When you buy meat, don't always eat beef or pork, alternate, and choose from different brands suppliers. Same with vegetables, etc.
By all means avoid sugar added / too much processed foods, I think these 2 points are above reasonable doubt today.
It's a real luxury and privilege to have access to the variety of foods we enjoy today, we should exploit it more IMHO.
This makes me think of that 'antifragile' principle. Sounds like a good idea.
It's hard to take something like this seriously when it spends 3 (large) paragraphs scare mongering about the fact that fish "may" contain plastics, only to end with:
>> Even though current research shows we do not absorb most plastics, it’s possible that a small amount (about 1 percent) can still accumulate in our bodies over time. That number might change: research on microplastics in our food is still in its infancy, and while some studies have documented the detrimental effects of plastics on fish and other aquatic animals, we still don’t know much about their long-term effects on humans.
So, all current scientific evidence points to this not being a problem. But it _might_ _maybe_ _someday_!
edit - I've also never heard of any food safety guidelines that specify different storage temperatures for different species of fish. The whole thing is pretty suspect.
>> Even though current research shows we do not absorb most plastics, it’s possible that a small amount (about 1 percent) can still accumulate in our bodies over time. That number might change: research on microplastics in our food is still in its infancy, and while some studies have documented the detrimental effects of plastics on fish and other aquatic animals, we still don’t know much about their long-term effects on humans.
So, all current scientific evidence points to this not being a problem. But it _might_ _maybe_ _someday_!
edit - I've also never heard of any food safety guidelines that specify different storage temperatures for different species of fish. The whole thing is pretty suspect.
> So, all current scientific evidence points to this not being a problem.
Do you mean our lack of current scientific evidence? The fact that we have no idea about long term effects of ingesting those plastics should be alarming enough.
I didn’t sign up to be a guinea pig for this experiment. Thanks to this article at least I know I’m part of one.
Do you mean our lack of current scientific evidence? The fact that we have no idea about long term effects of ingesting those plastics should be alarming enough.
I didn’t sign up to be a guinea pig for this experiment. Thanks to this article at least I know I’m part of one.
Anyone using a computer several hours each day will collect probably much more micro particles of plastic in its fingers; as our badly worn-out keyboards can tell us.
Note, too, that he abruptly switches from "microplastics" to "plastics" in mid-sentence.
As far as I know, the "detrimental effects of plastics" that have been "documented" are stuff like getting caught in six-pack rings, getting intestinal clogs, etc., none of which are likely to be an issue with microplastics.
As far as I know, the "detrimental effects of plastics" that have been "documented" are stuff like getting caught in six-pack rings, getting intestinal clogs, etc., none of which are likely to be an issue with microplastics.
Labeling is a major issue for all products, but I have to say, I think he'd stop eating everything else he's eating if he was also a scientist in touch with their production.
The food we eat is mass produced, we should assume very low quality and environmental sustainability.
Now, should I stop eating fish? Nothing was proven a health concern, what's the effect of the small plastic I'll ingest through fish?
Most studies I've seen on health correlate healthy individuals with eating fish. Now, those are probably a few years or decade old, is fish worse today? I think it's still inconclusive.
The food we eat is mass produced, we should assume very low quality and environmental sustainability.
Now, should I stop eating fish? Nothing was proven a health concern, what's the effect of the small plastic I'll ingest through fish?
Most studies I've seen on health correlate healthy individuals with eating fish. Now, those are probably a few years or decade old, is fish worse today? I think it's still inconclusive.
Right! How many places did you work that made you vow to never use after seeing behind the curtain?
We live in happy ignorance of the horrible shit in most of our food but we have pretty reasonable controls that none of it is complete poison.
We live in happy ignorance of the horrible shit in most of our food but we have pretty reasonable controls that none of it is complete poison.
> Most studies I've seen on health correlate healthy individuals with eating fish.
Eating fish would also correlate with a lot of other things in many parts of the developed world, like spending more on food, or following mainstream “healthy” advice, which correlates with other choices.
Eating fish would also correlate with a lot of other things in many parts of the developed world, like spending more on food, or following mainstream “healthy” advice, which correlates with other choices.
>The food we eat is mass produced, we should assume very low quality and environmental sustainability.
Is it? The food I eat predominantly isn't. Speak for yourself.
Is it? The food I eat predominantly isn't. Speak for yourself.
I treat fish with much suspicion after reading (ZeroMQ author) Pieter Hintjens' opinion, which is based on similar reasoning: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11626182
To be fair, it seems like he's making a case against eating sushi, and not all fish in general. But yes, good point.
This again. There are a few good takedowns of the Oceana report and how even the seemingly modest 20% is vastly exaggerated for click bait reasons. Even The Huffington Post attacked it, not exactly a site known to go easy on businesses:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tamar-haspel/mislabeled-fish_b...
I can't find it, but there is an even better article that explains how the US fishing industry got Congress to make imported fish be called something else so they wouldn't be seem as competition. Can't find that though.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tamar-haspel/mislabeled-fish_b...
I can't find it, but there is an even better article that explains how the US fishing industry got Congress to make imported fish be called something else so they wouldn't be seem as competition. Can't find that though.
That is my understanding also. That said, I have started eating fish again on the advice of my doctor: I have been on the Eat to Live diet (no red meat, little meat in general, no dairy, no sugar that is not in whole fruit, lots of seeds and nuts). My doctor likes the diet but asked me to add two servings a week of oily fish high in omega 3. Expensive, but there are a few brands of Norwegian sardines packed in water that taste good to me.
I won't eat fish in a restaurant or from a grocery store chain.
I won't eat fish in a restaurant or from a grocery store chain.
Not sure if you have access to a good place that smokes fish but you may want to give it a try. I really enjoy it and find my body craves the oil. Smoked lake trout is my favorite because its very oily and to me tastes delicious. It can be a little salty though if you have to watch your salt intake.
You can get it with head on and skin so you can tell what kind it is. Also if you ever do try it, try to get a whole one smoked with bone in. Something about leaving the bone in makes it have a slightly different texture and taste, to me at least.
One other thing is make sure its smoked well, meaning if it isnt smoked long enough it can be too moist. I wouldnt want anyone to try it and sort of get a soggy smoked fish lol. Nothing "wrong" with it but I think its better eating.
Edit..person who posted about smoked sardines just made me so hungry! never had em and its going on list, thanks for suggestion!
You can get it with head on and skin so you can tell what kind it is. Also if you ever do try it, try to get a whole one smoked with bone in. Something about leaving the bone in makes it have a slightly different texture and taste, to me at least.
One other thing is make sure its smoked well, meaning if it isnt smoked long enough it can be too moist. I wouldnt want anyone to try it and sort of get a soggy smoked fish lol. Nothing "wrong" with it but I think its better eating.
Edit..person who posted about smoked sardines just made me so hungry! never had em and its going on list, thanks for suggestion!
Best smoked fish in the entire world (they deliver globally) google the Hebridean smoke house.
(This ruined smoked salmon for me, I guarantee they won't disappoint however be warned you can't uneat it and you can't go back...)
Give it a go.
(This ruined smoked salmon for me, I guarantee they won't disappoint however be warned you can't uneat it and you can't go back...)
Give it a go.
> One other thing is make sure its smoked well, meaning if it isnt smoked long enough it can be too moist. I wouldnt want anyone to try it and sort of get a soggy smoked fish lol. Nothing "wrong" with it but I think its better eating.
Would you say that this applies to smoked eel as well? It's always quite moist when I buy it and while I love it, now I'm curious if it could be even better.
Would you say that this applies to smoked eel as well? It's always quite moist when I buy it and while I love it, now I'm curious if it could be even better.
if you buy smoked eel whole with skin it is usually better than the packaged skinned one, which can be quite moist. But eels is endangered, and you should generally not get it...
Yeah, I know :-/. I don't buy it often for that reason, but sometimes I'm naughty.
In my experience smoking it longer dries out almost every meat. I notice smoked fish is not like steaks where "well done" "rare" etc are sort of standard. It took me a fair amount of years before I found my fave smoked fish place because of those difference.
I think this thread prompted me to buy a smoker and start learning to do it myself.
I think this thread prompted me to buy a smoker and start learning to do it myself.
That sounds like a great hobby to have :).
Smoked sardines with a splash of lemon are amazing.
Capers, or specifically caper brine, also make for a wonderful addition. You could also go for a combination of salt, dill, and Old Bay.
Capers, or specifically caper brine, also make for a wonderful addition. You could also go for a combination of salt, dill, and Old Bay.
Fresh sardines in olive oil and lemon are another fantastic one. I just wish I knew where to find them outside of a restaurant so I could make my own.
Here in India we eat mainly river fish, not seafood. So, does it also have the same issues?
Rather than handwringing over what meat it is OK to eat, just don't eat meat.
Meat has all essential amino acids, has Vitamin B12, can be minimally processed, is the only food source of creatine. Plus, we've been omnivores for millions of years.
The empirical health benefits of vegetarianism vanish once you control for health-consciousness.
Trying to paint some bleak health picture on all meats is plain FUD.
The empirical health benefits of vegetarianism vanish once you control for health-consciousness.
Trying to paint some bleak health picture on all meats is plain FUD.
After watching "What the Health"[1], it seems like there is no small amount of FUD coming from the meat industry. And the long-term health benefits of plant-based diets are well-established[2,3,4,5].
[1] https://vimeo.com/ondemand/whatthehealth/203617202
[2] Vegetarians less likely to develop cancer than meat eaters, says study https://www.theguardian.com/science/2009/jul/01/vegetarians-...
[3] Vegans live longer than those who eat meat or eggs, research finds - Every three per cent increase in calories from plant protein was found to reduce risk of death by 10 per cent http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/...
[4] 16 Studies on Vegan Diets – Do They Really Work? https://authoritynutrition.com/vegan-diet-studies/
[5] How Not To Die: The Role of Diet in Preventing, Arresting, and Reversing Our Top 15 Killers https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lXXXygDRyBU
[1] https://vimeo.com/ondemand/whatthehealth/203617202
[2] Vegetarians less likely to develop cancer than meat eaters, says study https://www.theguardian.com/science/2009/jul/01/vegetarians-...
[3] Vegans live longer than those who eat meat or eggs, research finds - Every three per cent increase in calories from plant protein was found to reduce risk of death by 10 per cent http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/...
[4] 16 Studies on Vegan Diets – Do They Really Work? https://authoritynutrition.com/vegan-diet-studies/
[5] How Not To Die: The Role of Diet in Preventing, Arresting, and Reversing Our Top 15 Killers https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lXXXygDRyBU
I do not necessarily disagree with your claims, but few people will take you seriously if your sources are a sensationalist newspaper and youtube. Even the nutritionist's blog in not particularly reliable, given how poor replication is in this discipline.
Also, OP made a specific claim about controlling for health-conscious behavior that is not countered here.
Also, OP made a specific claim about controlling for health-conscious behavior that is not countered here.
The Guardian article links to the paper, which has this in the introduction:
(One possibly life-prolonging behaviour observed more in vegetarians: not considering the Guardian to be a 'sensationalist' newspaper)
Relative risks (RRs) were estimated by Cox regression,
stratified by sex and recruitment protocol and adjusted
for age, smoking, alcohol, body mass index, physical
activity level and, for women only, parity and oral
contraceptive use.
(One possibly life-prolonging behaviour observed more in vegetarians: not considering the Guardian to be a 'sensationalist' newspaper)
The Guardian and the Independent aren't 'sensationalist', they're basically the two most highly regarded British newspapers.
Living in a padded room would likely add years to one's life, also.
It just wouldn't be a very enjoyable life.
It just wouldn't be a very enjoyable life.
Why do you think that people who don't eat animals don't enjoy life? Have you seen any correlation between happiness and the amount of animals one consumes?
I've seen a strong correlation between my happiness and the amount of meat I consume, yes.
I'm sorry if that sounds facetious, but do I really need to demonstrate that most people enjoy eating meat? Well, they do. They enjoy it a lot.
I'm sorry if that sounds facetious, but do I really need to demonstrate that most people enjoy eating meat? Well, they do. They enjoy it a lot.
Just go to any steakhouse and look around. They are having fun. You'd have to go a long way to enjoy tofu that much. Pretending to enjoy tofu doesn't count.
All the health benefits of meat can be obtained from eating salt-water mussels. Their sensory and motor abilities are extremely similar to that of plants, and they can be farmed on ropes with no environmental damage. This isn't true of bivalves in general (eg. scallops have primitive eyes and can swim).
https://sentientist.org/2013/05/20/the-ethical-case-for-eati...
https://sentientist.org/2013/05/20/the-ethical-case-for-eati...
Interesting.
And to clarity my earlier statement, there are plausible reasons to not eat meat: animal suffering, cost, environmental impact.
Avoiding absolutely all meat on the basis of health reasons (the original context of the discussion) is bogus.
And to clarity my earlier statement, there are plausible reasons to not eat meat: animal suffering, cost, environmental impact.
Avoiding absolutely all meat on the basis of health reasons (the original context of the discussion) is bogus.
Why do you figure that since it's established that it's less healthy than the alternatives?
It's really not that clear. Vegetarians live longer, but that probably means we should all live like them, not eat like them: they tend to smoke less, get more exercise, and (because they tend to be better educated and wealthier) have better healthcare and even social lives. Smoking is pretty easy to correct for, but then these vegetarians all run off, work in soup kitchens, and get flooded with endorphins from the joy of altruism, and physical exertion. Try measuring that!
If I had to summarise what I remember from when I studied something related, I'd say your best bet is to eat (a) small amounts of (b) mostly white meat.
(a) is pretty obvious: a bit of meat on occasion is enough to ward off any possible malnutrition. If you don't go fully vegan the risk isn't high, but neither is any negative effect the meat may have.
(b) is probably more controversial, but contrary to what a certain crowd has been hyping, it seems like the evidence against red meat is still ahead. More in regards to cancer, a little less for cardiovascular diseases. The mechanisms aren't clear: Harald zur Hausen (Nobel for HPV) thinks it's viruses from undercooked red meat and only eats it well-done. Cholesterol is more of a symptom than a cause...etc.
If I had to summarise what I remember from when I studied something related, I'd say your best bet is to eat (a) small amounts of (b) mostly white meat.
(a) is pretty obvious: a bit of meat on occasion is enough to ward off any possible malnutrition. If you don't go fully vegan the risk isn't high, but neither is any negative effect the meat may have.
(b) is probably more controversial, but contrary to what a certain crowd has been hyping, it seems like the evidence against red meat is still ahead. More in regards to cancer, a little less for cardiovascular diseases. The mechanisms aren't clear: Harald zur Hausen (Nobel for HPV) thinks it's viruses from undercooked red meat and only eats it well-done. Cholesterol is more of a symptom than a cause...etc.
> (a) is pretty obvious: a bit of meat on occasion is enough to ward off any possible malnutrition. If you don't go fully vegan the risk isn't high, but neither is any negative effect the meat may have.
You can also ward off any possible malnutrition by eating completely plant-based. It's not hard. You gotta eat more varied than when you eat animal products, but that comes with a bunch of added benefits, so it's really a win-win, and even a small portion of white meat on occasion is a huge tax on the environment compared to plants, and it still comes with all the ethical drawbacks, if you are concerned about that at all.
> (b) is probably more controversial, but contrary to what a certain crowd has been hyping, it seems like the evidence against red meat is still ahead. More in regards to cancer, a little less for cardiovascular diseases. The mechanisms aren't clear: Harald zur Hausen (Nobel for HPV) thinks it's viruses from undercooked red meat and only eats it well-done. Cholesterol is more of a symptom than a cause...etc.
In any case, science is clear that it's a lot more unhealthy than eating a plant-based diet. It baffles me that people focus on the "it's possible it's not as bad as they say, even though science agrees it's bad, so lets eat it", instead of the "well, there is a lot of controversy about how quickly eating animal products is gonna kill me, so lets just eat the things that don't and that also doesn't unnecessarily destroy our planet and is ethically corrupt".
You can also ward off any possible malnutrition by eating completely plant-based. It's not hard. You gotta eat more varied than when you eat animal products, but that comes with a bunch of added benefits, so it's really a win-win, and even a small portion of white meat on occasion is a huge tax on the environment compared to plants, and it still comes with all the ethical drawbacks, if you are concerned about that at all.
> (b) is probably more controversial, but contrary to what a certain crowd has been hyping, it seems like the evidence against red meat is still ahead. More in regards to cancer, a little less for cardiovascular diseases. The mechanisms aren't clear: Harald zur Hausen (Nobel for HPV) thinks it's viruses from undercooked red meat and only eats it well-done. Cholesterol is more of a symptom than a cause...etc.
In any case, science is clear that it's a lot more unhealthy than eating a plant-based diet. It baffles me that people focus on the "it's possible it's not as bad as they say, even though science agrees it's bad, so lets eat it", instead of the "well, there is a lot of controversy about how quickly eating animal products is gonna kill me, so lets just eat the things that don't and that also doesn't unnecessarily destroy our planet and is ethically corrupt".
The problem is that it's a bad comparison to compare people that eat red meat with people that don't. Lots of people that eat red meat eat it in the form of highly processed low quality meat that's cooked in too much fat and oil, for a start. Lots of them eat far too much of it as well.
Nobody is saying 'a steak a day keeps the doctor away'. But red meat is good for you: it's full of all sorts of essential nutrients that you need. It's tasty, and if it were in any serious way harmful then we wouldn't be eating it.
Nobody is saying 'a steak a day keeps the doctor away'. But red meat is good for you: it's full of all sorts of essential nutrients that you need. It's tasty, and if it were in any serious way harmful then we wouldn't be eating it.
Indeed, unprocessed meat is better than processed meat. That the story with just about anything, also plants.
The unhealthy aspect of red meat is 1) it contains a lot of stuff you don't want to consume, like cholesterol, hormones, too much saturated fat, recycled drugs and shit and 2) you can get all these good and important nutrients from other food sources that does not contain the bad stuff, and since there is no benefit to consuming these things via red meat compared to say plants, red meat turns out to be a negative to your health instead of a positive.
The unhealthy aspect of red meat is 1) it contains a lot of stuff you don't want to consume, like cholesterol, hormones, too much saturated fat, recycled drugs and shit and 2) you can get all these good and important nutrients from other food sources that does not contain the bad stuff, and since there is no benefit to consuming these things via red meat compared to say plants, red meat turns out to be a negative to your health instead of a positive.
There is nothing wrong with consuming hormones or cholesterol.
There is. We don't need to consume them at all, as in, they are not beneficial AT ALL and they affect our bodies in a negative way. Dietary cholesterol contributes to clogged arteries and shit, like saturated fat, giving you type 2 diabetes, strokes and shit down the road, the hormones from meat and especially milk is found to give man-tittils, infertility and all kinds of stuff you probably don't want.
> they can be farmed on ropes with no environmental damage
Some activities are worst than other; but all have some effect on the environment. Mussel farms release sediments to the sea floor below, modifying its granular structure. This changes the communities of organisms living in the area.
Some activities are worst than other; but all have some effect on the environment. Mussel farms release sediments to the sea floor below, modifying its granular structure. This changes the communities of organisms living in the area.
You can't ignore the health concerns with meat and only focus on the good stuff. Especially when health is the focus, and you can get all those things from plants without the health concerns.
Less unhealthy does not mean something is healthy, and since meat is basically saturated fat, hormones, cholesterol, not to mention all the drugs fed to the animals that are recycled through it and shows up in the meat too. And about B12: that is recycled too. Livestock are fed B12 (and other stuff) which is why it's prevelant in meat as it is. If you worry about B12, it would seem to me that you worry about health, so getting B12 through meat where you also get all kinds of bad stuff sounds illogical instead of just taking a vitamin pill.
Less unhealthy does not mean something is healthy, and since meat is basically saturated fat, hormones, cholesterol, not to mention all the drugs fed to the animals that are recycled through it and shows up in the meat too. And about B12: that is recycled too. Livestock are fed B12 (and other stuff) which is why it's prevelant in meat as it is. If you worry about B12, it would seem to me that you worry about health, so getting B12 through meat where you also get all kinds of bad stuff sounds illogical instead of just taking a vitamin pill.
> saturated fat
American Heart Association made some recommendations like this in the 90s that caused everybody binge on carbs and weigh 300lbs.
Recent studies (http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/early/2010/01/13/ajcn.2009... https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9635993 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19364995) failed to find ill effects from saturated fats. (Trans fats are another story.)
> hormones
It's been years, and we're still waiting for any actual evidence on this one. If it concerns you, there is hormone-free meat, just there there are pesticide-free veggies.
> cholesterol
Scientific consensus is that eating cholesterol has zero effect on cholesterol levels, since the body regulates production of it anyway.
> Livestock are fed B12 (and other stuff) which is why it's prevelant in meat as it is.
True, though cows, sheep, goats, deer, etc. naturally produce B12 themselves (or more accurately, their bacteria do).
> getting B12 through meat where you also get all kinds of bad stuff sounds illogical instead of just taking a vitamin pill.
It seems a little bit of red flag if a diet is deficient enough that you need pills to compensate, but I have no opposition to them per se. I take multi-vitamins now and then.
I didn't make a comprehensive list of meat's better-than-average nutrients (e.g. iron comes to mind). Can you get the same nutrients without meat? Yes, it's possible. On the other hand, there's a reason humans are omnivores, even if we like to pretend they're not.
American Heart Association made some recommendations like this in the 90s that caused everybody binge on carbs and weigh 300lbs.
Recent studies (http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/early/2010/01/13/ajcn.2009... https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9635993 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19364995) failed to find ill effects from saturated fats. (Trans fats are another story.)
> hormones
It's been years, and we're still waiting for any actual evidence on this one. If it concerns you, there is hormone-free meat, just there there are pesticide-free veggies.
> cholesterol
Scientific consensus is that eating cholesterol has zero effect on cholesterol levels, since the body regulates production of it anyway.
> Livestock are fed B12 (and other stuff) which is why it's prevelant in meat as it is.
True, though cows, sheep, goats, deer, etc. naturally produce B12 themselves (or more accurately, their bacteria do).
> getting B12 through meat where you also get all kinds of bad stuff sounds illogical instead of just taking a vitamin pill.
It seems a little bit of red flag if a diet is deficient enough that you need pills to compensate, but I have no opposition to them per se. I take multi-vitamins now and then.
I didn't make a comprehensive list of meat's better-than-average nutrients (e.g. iron comes to mind). Can you get the same nutrients without meat? Yes, it's possible. On the other hand, there's a reason humans are omnivores, even if we like to pretend they're not.
> American Heart Association made some recommendations like this in the 90s that caused everybody binge on carbs and weigh 300lbs.
Recent studies (http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/early/2010/01/13/ajcn.2009.... https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9635993 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19364995) failed to find ill effects from saturated fats. (Trans fats are another story.)
An unhealthy diet is an unhealthy diet in any case. Saturated fat is not good for you. It's the reason you get type 2 diabetes, among other stuff. No one will tell you it's healthy.
> hormones
Still one reason less to eat meat when the alternative is free of that crap and healthier in every other way too. And there is also all the science that says it is a problem. Especially in dairy, but also in meat. We don't need it, and we (possibly) suffer from consuming it, so doing so is plain stupid when there are alternatives.
> Scientific consensus is that eating cholesterol has zero effect on cholesterol levels, since the body regulates production of it anyway.
That's not true at all. The scientific consensus seems to be that it (dietary cholesterol also called ldl cholesterol) contributes about 0.3-0.4 of what saturated fat does when it comes to raising your blood cholesterol. But the fact is that humans need to consume zero dietary cholesterol - nothing at all - and consuming it has unhealthy effects, so doing so is plain stupid health wise when their is an alternative with zero dietary cholesterol.
> True, though cows, sheep, goats, deer, etc. naturally produce B12 themselves (or more accurately, their bacteria do).
So do humans. Still not a good reason to consume humans nor livestock.
> It seems a little bit of red flag if a diet is deficient enough that you need pills to compensate, but I have no opposition to them per se. I take multi-vitamins now and then. I didn't make a comprehensive list of meat's better-than-average nutrients (e.g. iron comes to mind). Can you get the same nutrients without meat? Yes, it's possible. On the other hand, there's a reason humans are omnivores, even if we like to pretend they're not.
You don't get the B12 from meat because of some special properties of the animals as a food source. You get it from meat because 1) the animals consumes supplements (which you can do too instead of getting it through an animal that consumed a supplement) 2) they consume poop (by accident or by choice) 3) their food is bacterially contaminated 4) they themself eat animal products where the occurrence are the same yet again.
The reason why we need a pill in 2017 if we don't eat animal products or food that is fortified (like one could argue meat is, and that lots of plant-milks are for example) is because our water and our food is sanitary compared to what livestocks and our ancestors consumed. Health wise, getting B12 from meat is highly disadvantaged compared to a vitamin pill, which is a great thing for people to consume in any case.
An unhealthy diet is an unhealthy diet in any case. Saturated fat is not good for you. It's the reason you get type 2 diabetes, among other stuff. No one will tell you it's healthy.
> hormones
Still one reason less to eat meat when the alternative is free of that crap and healthier in every other way too. And there is also all the science that says it is a problem. Especially in dairy, but also in meat. We don't need it, and we (possibly) suffer from consuming it, so doing so is plain stupid when there are alternatives.
> Scientific consensus is that eating cholesterol has zero effect on cholesterol levels, since the body regulates production of it anyway.
That's not true at all. The scientific consensus seems to be that it (dietary cholesterol also called ldl cholesterol) contributes about 0.3-0.4 of what saturated fat does when it comes to raising your blood cholesterol. But the fact is that humans need to consume zero dietary cholesterol - nothing at all - and consuming it has unhealthy effects, so doing so is plain stupid health wise when their is an alternative with zero dietary cholesterol.
> True, though cows, sheep, goats, deer, etc. naturally produce B12 themselves (or more accurately, their bacteria do).
So do humans. Still not a good reason to consume humans nor livestock.
> It seems a little bit of red flag if a diet is deficient enough that you need pills to compensate, but I have no opposition to them per se. I take multi-vitamins now and then. I didn't make a comprehensive list of meat's better-than-average nutrients (e.g. iron comes to mind). Can you get the same nutrients without meat? Yes, it's possible. On the other hand, there's a reason humans are omnivores, even if we like to pretend they're not.
You don't get the B12 from meat because of some special properties of the animals as a food source. You get it from meat because 1) the animals consumes supplements (which you can do too instead of getting it through an animal that consumed a supplement) 2) they consume poop (by accident or by choice) 3) their food is bacterially contaminated 4) they themself eat animal products where the occurrence are the same yet again.
The reason why we need a pill in 2017 if we don't eat animal products or food that is fortified (like one could argue meat is, and that lots of plant-milks are for example) is because our water and our food is sanitary compared to what livestocks and our ancestors consumed. Health wise, getting B12 from meat is highly disadvantaged compared to a vitamin pill, which is a great thing for people to consume in any case.
Humans produce our own creatine if we eat enough of certain common amino acids that are found in plants. So it's not actually necessary to eat creatine.
You can get all those things from plants and supplements. As there are strong environmental arguments against raising meat, as well as strong ethical arguments against raising meat, "avoid meat" is sound advice.
Trying to paint some bleak health picture on all meats is plain FUD
For one, the WHO beg to differ
http://www.iarc.fr/en/media-centre/pr/2015/pdfs/pr240_E.pdf
tldr Red meat is group 2a, probably carcinogenic to humans, processed meat is group 1, carcinogenic to humans.
For one, the WHO beg to differ
http://www.iarc.fr/en/media-centre/pr/2015/pdfs/pr240_E.pdf
tldr Red meat is group 2a, probably carcinogenic to humans, processed meat is group 1, carcinogenic to humans.
What's wrong with refusing to eat one type of meat? I don't eat fish for the same reasons.
I'm not taking a side here. I eat all meats. That said, Jews had a lower susception to plague because they avoided pork. Of course, this was inferred as evidence that they caused plague.
From what I'm aware, that was largely attributed to regular bathing in the mikveh (ritual bath), rather than diet.
That undoubtedly had something to do it, but it's also a fact that pigs, in particular, are prone to many diseases that can be transmitted to humans (there are some with cows too, of course, but not nearly as many).
Same thing with shellfish (also forbidden by Kosher rules). Not only do they tend to collect nasty bugs from any human sewage in the water, but they have some truly scary toxins in their own right.
None of those are an issue with modern farming and aquaculture, though.
What probably happened was that a whole village got wiped out with (say) Paralytic Shellfish Poisoning, and the priest from the next village decided that God really, really didn't want people eating oysters any more.
Same thing with shellfish (also forbidden by Kosher rules). Not only do they tend to collect nasty bugs from any human sewage in the water, but they have some truly scary toxins in their own right.
None of those are an issue with modern farming and aquaculture, though.
What probably happened was that a whole village got wiped out with (say) Paralytic Shellfish Poisoning, and the priest from the next village decided that God really, really didn't want people eating oysters any more.
Diversity is good, seems our digestions evolved with the ability and perhaps even requirement to eat a lot of different things.. Mix it up a bit? Venison is a far superior meat to beef in my book however Ive never tried panda or zebra but I would.
Why don't you eat fish? I can't work it out :)
Why don't you eat fish? I can't work it out :)
Rather than handwringing over what meat it is OK to eat, just eat meat, emphasizing fresh over processed. Done.
Rather than handwringing over what water-living foods it is OK to eat, just don't eat water-living foods. No fish, no rice, no cranberries.
Fish is very different from something like mammal meat. They shouldn't be lumped together when talking about major nutritional tradeoffs.
Fish is very different from something like mammal meat. They shouldn't be lumped together when talking about major nutritional tradeoffs.
Fish is a whole lot closer to "mammal meat" than grasses are, and only a little farther away than "dinosaur meat", which we eat an awful lot of too. We routinely lump these things all together in the nutritional hopscotch grids or ziggurats or whatever is en vogue.
Basically I don't see what you're getting at. Fish is food. It can be analyzed as such.
Basically I don't see what you're getting at. Fish is food. It can be analyzed as such.
They're similar in terms of protein percent. Not in terms of mislabeling and storage and plastic feed and mercury.
> Fish is food.
At a high enough level they are both foods. But I'm talking about a lower level, where you are choosing between types of food. When looking at the types of concerns the article has, there is no justification at all for lumping all meats and only meats together.
> Fish is food.
At a high enough level they are both foods. But I'm talking about a lower level, where you are choosing between types of food. When looking at the types of concerns the article has, there is no justification at all for lumping all meats and only meats together.
Microbeads get a small mention yet they went viral, with a clambering of global policies and government bans; and endless industry activity in response.
Now you can't buy Nivea face wash for example, with these beads. Their R&D team came up with a replacement, done and dusted by the end of 2015.
Change happens rapidly when reputation and sales are on the line.
Now you can't buy Nivea face wash for example, with these beads. Their R&D team came up with a replacement, done and dusted by the end of 2015.
Change happens rapidly when reputation and sales are on the line.
If anyone wants to skip over the veganism, and the locavore and the organic and the ecovore and all of that, it's going to come down to this:
You should only eat animal products that came from your pets, i.e. you observe their lives, empathize with what's happening to them, and take responsibility* for their subjective experience.
Beyond that, on the cosmic scale, it doesn't matter what your practices are. We can disagree about what constitutes a subjectively good experience for a chicken or a fish. Future generations will disagree on those things too. They won't judge you for where your empathy steers you, but they will judge you for opting out of the responsibility.
If you want to pay someone to take care of "your" pets, that's fine too, but they're just your employee. You can leave your dog with the dogsitter, but you're still responsible for their care. The same is true of chicken you eat. You're still the CEO in that interaction, and still responsible for the life of the animal, so due diligence is necessary.
Ecological care, health, animal welfare, labor welfare, all of these things naturally shake out empathy and responsibility.
Vegans will be looked down on the same as meat eaters, because they are not taking responsibility for animal welfare either. They use "vegan" as a proxy for "humane" but it's not good enough. It's better than a meat eater who is absconding responsibility, but not as good as a meat eater who is taking responsibility. The vegan myth is that it's possible to produce food with no animal impacts.
"Don't eat fish" or "Eat local" or "Don't eat animal products" all suffer the same fate: they're rough heuristics in a process where we need actual responsibility. Before computers it was too hard to actually understand what was happening to your "pets" or where your "vegetables" were coming from but now that we have computers we can do it.
You should only eat animal products that came from your pets, i.e. you observe their lives, empathize with what's happening to them, and take responsibility* for their subjective experience.
Beyond that, on the cosmic scale, it doesn't matter what your practices are. We can disagree about what constitutes a subjectively good experience for a chicken or a fish. Future generations will disagree on those things too. They won't judge you for where your empathy steers you, but they will judge you for opting out of the responsibility.
If you want to pay someone to take care of "your" pets, that's fine too, but they're just your employee. You can leave your dog with the dogsitter, but you're still responsible for their care. The same is true of chicken you eat. You're still the CEO in that interaction, and still responsible for the life of the animal, so due diligence is necessary.
Ecological care, health, animal welfare, labor welfare, all of these things naturally shake out empathy and responsibility.
Vegans will be looked down on the same as meat eaters, because they are not taking responsibility for animal welfare either. They use "vegan" as a proxy for "humane" but it's not good enough. It's better than a meat eater who is absconding responsibility, but not as good as a meat eater who is taking responsibility. The vegan myth is that it's possible to produce food with no animal impacts.
"Don't eat fish" or "Eat local" or "Don't eat animal products" all suffer the same fate: they're rough heuristics in a process where we need actual responsibility. Before computers it was too hard to actually understand what was happening to your "pets" or where your "vegetables" were coming from but now that we have computers we can do it.
I don't understand the argument that opting out of using animal products is avoiding responsibility. Isn't that equivalent to saying that by boycotting sweatshop products we aren't taking responsibility? Are you arguing that we should work within the system?
> Vegans will be looked down on the same as meat eaters, because they are not taking responsibility for animal welfare either.
Vegans aren't interested in animal welfare in the way we usually think of it, i.e. in terms of bigger cages, access to fresh air, etc. Vegans are interested in animal rights as in not using animals at all. It might not be possible to product food without hurting some animals, but there's a moral difference between accidentally and intentionally hurting someone.
> Vegans will be looked down on the same as meat eaters, because they are not taking responsibility for animal welfare either.
Vegans aren't interested in animal welfare in the way we usually think of it, i.e. in terms of bigger cages, access to fresh air, etc. Vegans are interested in animal rights as in not using animals at all. It might not be possible to product food without hurting some animals, but there's a moral difference between accidentally and intentionally hurting someone.
Vegetable farming kills animals outright and displaces others. It's often a smaller number than the animals killed and displaced for animal products, but not always. Veganism is about keeping your body "pure", it's not actually about doing a real accounting of your relationship with the animals in the ecology that feeds you. At best it's a rough heuristic for "low animal cruelty", but it's rough enough that e.g. many hunters have lower animal impacts than the standard vegan diet, despite outright murdering animals.
How many fieldmice do you have to maim for it to be considered equivalent to a quick death for a deer, after a happy, wild life, in a region where that animal was effectively torturing other animals through overgrazing? How many rivers can you dam, destroying entire ecologies, before it's equivalent to someone taking care of a pig like it's their own child for a year and then bopping them on the head and slitting their throat before the pig knows what's happening?
Certain vegan products constitute outright animal torture. Palm oil from burning orangutan habitat is the classic example. How is torturing orangutans to get palm oil better than killing a deer who is torturing other deer?
Veganism is appealing to people who want to pretend that violence doesn't happen. But violence is an inevitable part of ecologies functioning. Consuming calories is violence, despite what it might feel like in the supermarket. The best we can do is deliberate respectful violence in place of unnecessary violence (torture).
How many fieldmice do you have to maim for it to be considered equivalent to a quick death for a deer, after a happy, wild life, in a region where that animal was effectively torturing other animals through overgrazing? How many rivers can you dam, destroying entire ecologies, before it's equivalent to someone taking care of a pig like it's their own child for a year and then bopping them on the head and slitting their throat before the pig knows what's happening?
Certain vegan products constitute outright animal torture. Palm oil from burning orangutan habitat is the classic example. How is torturing orangutans to get palm oil better than killing a deer who is torturing other deer?
Veganism is appealing to people who want to pretend that violence doesn't happen. But violence is an inevitable part of ecologies functioning. Consuming calories is violence, despite what it might feel like in the supermarket. The best we can do is deliberate respectful violence in place of unnecessary violence (torture).
How dangerous is it to ingest microplastics? Isn't this stuff just coming out the rear end completely unprocessed?
it also acts as a sponge for toxins.
can microplastics pass membranes or get stuck?
can microplastics pass membranes or get stuck?
Too late now.
We have created an incredible dependency on fish:
- "Fishmeal", fish based product fed to animals.
- "Fish emulsion", fish oil used as fertilizer for our crops. Yes, your vegeterian meal might not be vegan.
- Fish fed to other animals including other fish
- Fish, fish that we eat
We have created an incredible dependency on fish:
- "Fishmeal", fish based product fed to animals.
- "Fish emulsion", fish oil used as fertilizer for our crops. Yes, your vegeterian meal might not be vegan.
- Fish fed to other animals including other fish
- Fish, fish that we eat
If you're going to eat meat, fish has the least ecological impact. That is, if it's produced in systems that don't trash natural ecosystems. Or use wild-caught fish as food. The point is that fish, being ectotherms, don't waste energy keeping warm.
Populations of commercially-important species are only about 50% of he size they were 100 years ago. And, i shit you not: that is a rather conservative estimate.
Don't take my work for it. The most cited number is 10%.
And farmed fish are wreaking havoc in the local marine environment wherever they are. Most countries have laws protecting water from "overnutrition" (which kills most marine life) yet the farmed fishing industry seems largely exempt from those laws. Outside my home town of 100.000 inhabitants they just opened a new salmon farm that lets out as much nitrogen into the water as would the whole town's sewer system if we just dumped it all at sea.
Fish might be sustainable from a co2(e) point of view, but most fisheries and fish farms are not.
Don't take my work for it. The most cited number is 10%.
And farmed fish are wreaking havoc in the local marine environment wherever they are. Most countries have laws protecting water from "overnutrition" (which kills most marine life) yet the farmed fishing industry seems largely exempt from those laws. Outside my home town of 100.000 inhabitants they just opened a new salmon farm that lets out as much nitrogen into the water as would the whole town's sewer system if we just dumped it all at sea.
Fish might be sustainable from a co2(e) point of view, but most fisheries and fish farms are not.
Yeah, I get that. That's why I added the proviso about ecosystem damage. I'm talking about designed ecosystems that process human waste into soil, plants, fish, and finally potable water.
This both interesting and depressing.
When I grew up cod was a "love it or hate it" thing, because of it's strong taste. Nowadays, cod means some white flaky texture with no taste.
When I grew up cod was a "love it or hate it" thing, because of it's strong taste. Nowadays, cod means some white flaky texture with no taste.
>The Case Against Eating Fish
>thewalrus.ca
It's the little things.
>thewalrus.ca
It's the little things.
And here I am trying to eat less meat and more seafood thinking it's more healthier.
I think that this problem probably isn't just restricted to fish. I think if you dug deep into any kind of food, you would find similar issues.
By what mechanism would it get into other foods?
Ok admittedly I'm a Costco fan boy but I only buy fish from there because I believe their supply lines are more trustworthy.
I just had an awesome monkfish with scallops for dinner last night. And earlier this week a John Dory. And they were great!
But then again, I don't order fish from any restaurant, but go to a fishing village and the restaurants there show you the fresh fish for you to choose from. Good fresh fish is not cheap.
I cannot understand why the writer, a scientist, engages in scaremongering instead of presenting a holistic picture. A dinner of fresh fish paired with an excellent white wine makes for a healthy and very enjoyable evening.
But then again, I don't order fish from any restaurant, but go to a fishing village and the restaurants there show you the fresh fish for you to choose from. Good fresh fish is not cheap.
I cannot understand why the writer, a scientist, engages in scaremongering instead of presenting a holistic picture. A dinner of fresh fish paired with an excellent white wine makes for a healthy and very enjoyable evening.
Oh look - another item on my list of justifications for my vegan diet. Nice.
We are destroying the planet
> Drs. Mozaffarian and Rimm put this in perspective in their analysis in the Journal of the American Medical Association. (1) First, reviewing data from the Environmental Protection Agency and elsewhere, they calculated that if 100,000 people ate farmed salmon twice a week for 70 years, the extra PCB intake could potentially cause 24 extra deaths from cancer—but would prevent at least 7,000 deaths from heart disease. (source: https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/fish/)
I'm certain a similar argument can be applied to the dangers of mislabeled fish or micro-plastics. To put it in perspective: if the sort of argument this article presents convinced even 7% of people to not eat fish, it would counteract the 7000 potential heart disease deaths in the above example.