ecolo-vegetarian meat alternatives, big polluter!

Consumption and sustainable and responsible diet tips daily to reduce energy and water consumption, waste ... Eat: preparations and recipes, find healthy food, seasonal and local conservation information food ...
Christophe
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 79117
Registration: 10/02/03, 14:06
Location: Greenhouse planet
x 10972

ecolo-vegetarian meat alternatives, big polluter!




by Christophe » 06/05/14, 11:52

A subject that will please Janic! We all know the tofu but the alternatives are much less known: seitan, tempeh, Quorn ...

What is a vegetarian steak?

Each year 300 million tons of meat are produced in the world. An expanding market, which has important consequences on the environment and public health. What about vegetarian substitutes?

DIE ZEIT. The Hamburg weekly published each week in his column "Wissen in Bildern" (Knowledge images) original graphics. The latter, published on March 27 and conducted by Bernd Eberhart, Haike Hinze, Jelka Lerche and PM Hoffmann, describes meat alternatives, increasingly popular in Germany. The world produces about 300 million tonnes of meat per year. A figure constantly increasing. These meat diets weigh as much on public health that emissions of greenhouse gases.


Image

Source: http://www.courrierinternational.com/ar ... vegetarien
0 x
Janic
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 19224
Registration: 29/10/10, 13:27
Location: bourgogne
x 3491




by Janic » 06/05/14, 14:21

christophe hello
A subject that will please Janic! We all know the tofu but the alternatives are much less known: seitan, tempeh, Quorn ...

Yes and no at the same time! When I read: " Protein: to eat only vegetables, you may miss quickly proteins. Substitutes high protein content provide a solution, but the body absorbs typically less bine the vegetable protein than animal (this is called the "biological value") One wonders if the author really knows something dietetics or if it merely reproduces literature sponsored by manufacturers of bidoche who strongly influenced all ideas (false) on the subject.
It is only to see the biggest vegan animal on earth (elephants, rhinos, cattle from us) to realize the fallacious arguments on the subject.
Otherwise, I personally am not in favor of these substitutes that are like the electronic cigarette for smokers: change the shape without changing the substance. So very, very occasionally for some guests non veg it allows them to taste fake meat and it is not always happy elsewhere. Better a good preparation for the old with the products normally used by the entire population, except the Gammon and tasters generally emerge satisfied without having to rush to these supposed alternatives to high biological value (which mean anything else!)
0 x
Ahmed
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 12298
Registration: 25/02/08, 18:54
Location: Burgundy
x 2963




by Ahmed » 06/05/14, 18:30

I have often learnedly explained to me that being composed of animal proteins, it was necessary for me to consume it in order to manufacture them and replenish their stock, therefore to eat cow (called "beef" for convenience!).
Yet the cow is also composed of animal protein ...
Well, at this point I will admit that the digestive system of the cow is fundamentally different from mine, but conversely, I do not see what I would look like a carnivore ...

Some primitivists advocate a diet based on raw vegetables and meat on the pretext that our ancestors were hunter-gatherers. I doubt that these arguments are solid: the prehistoric period is by far the longest of the human adventure, we are very ignorant of these very remote times and it is quite improbable that a single nutritional configuration is prevailed over such a long time ...
Another consideration on changing eating habits is what is often presented as progress (cooking, supply of cereals ...) must be qualified: this is favorable to the survival of the species at a time given has nothing to do with the individual optimum (inappropriate food for medium-term individual integrity can be considered favorable to the species if it allows sufficient for survival leave descendants).
It is certain that food opportunism has contributed significantly to the expansion of the human species ...
0 x
"Please don't believe what I'm telling you."
User avatar
sen-no-sen
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 6856
Registration: 11/06/09, 13:08
Location: High Beaujolais.
x 749




by sen-no-sen » 06/05/14, 19:27

Ahmed wrote:It is certain that food opportunism has contributed significantly to the expansion of the human species ...


This is actually our omnivorism and mastery of fire that allowed us to colonize the planet ... unfortunately for other life forms!

I also often hear that to be strong must eat red meat etc ... were myths that still persist and are contradicting by recent epidemiological work, but good dogmas die hard!

but the body absorbs typically less bine the vegetable protein than animal (this is called the "biological value")


proteins having the best assimilation rates are in order eggs, followed by milk and soy, it is a fact check.
However Excessive milk consumption can cause the onset of tendonitis in athletes, most of the lactose intolerance in many people do not facilitate this contribution.
For eggs is the same, it is quite harmful to binge eggs, less to consume only the white (what the bodybuilders, but vivid waste!) Because of the cholesterol content of the yolk.
0 x
"Engineering is sometimes about knowing when to stop" Charles De Gaulle.
Janic
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 19224
Registration: 29/10/10, 13:27
Location: bourgogne
x 3491




by Janic » 06/05/14, 20:08

Ahmed goodnight

I have often learnedly explained to me that being composed of animal proteins, it was necessary for me to consume it in order to manufacture them and replenish their stock, therefore to eat cow (called "beef" for convenience!).
Yet the cow is also composed of animal protein ..
.
To judge the value of arguments, we must determine the origin and it is linked to multiple factors, few of which are dietary, but more cultural and financial.
Well, at this point I will admit that the digestive system of the cow is fundamentally different from mine, but conversely, I do not see what I would look like a carnivore ...

Actually we are neither one nor the other, or a mixture of both.
Some primitivists advocate a diet based on raw vegetables and meat on the pretext that our ancestors were hunter-gatherers. I doubt that these arguments are solid: the prehistoric period is by far the longest of the human adventure, we are very ignorant of these very remote times and it is quite improbable that a single nutritional configuration is prevailed over such a long time ...

Always right! The only way to be certain is scientific by anatomical comparison. Or anatomically we do not have NO natural means for grazing or predation. The rest is a question of socio-cultural situations of nutritional adaptation.
It is certain that food opportunism has contributed significantly to the expansion of the human species ...

It's still a misconception widespread. Actually confused geographic expansion (and there predation may play an important role) and digital expansion much easier by physical inactivity and suitable food abundance.

Sen no sen
Quote:
but the body absorbs typically less bine the vegetable protein than animal (this is called the "biological value")



proteins having the best assimilation rates are in order eggs, followed by milk and soy, it is a fact check.

The disadvantage of this kind of talk is that it separates the rapid assimilation (often confused with digestibility) and physiological overall balance. What interest is there to roll very quickly if the consumer follows the same curve? Eco-driving is to play on the different settings for maximum performance with minimum consumption. So some products such as meat, eggs, dairy products result in negative balances in terms of transit of intestinal putrefaction, constipation, etc ... that worsen with age and thus various diseases naturally disappear after removal the offending products.
The reduction in consumption is considered beneficial;
In a sense, yes, as with any reduction in anti-physiological products like alcohol, tobacco, or any other drug of the kind "an okay three hello havoc"whereas all damage starts with anti-physiological consumption, but the culture has a tough skin.
0 x
User avatar
Exnihiloest
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 5365
Registration: 21/04/15, 17:57
x 660

Re: Eco-vegetarian substitutes for meat, big pollutes!




by Exnihiloest » 25/03/19, 11:25

The meat is not polluting.

Cheating on the amount of water, cheating on the origin of the cattle feed, cheating on the effects on the climate, the manipulative catastrophism of eco propaganda is staggering:
"Be green, eat meat!"
0 x
Christophe
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 79117
Registration: 10/02/03, 14:06
Location: Greenhouse planet
x 10972

Re: Eco-vegetarian substitutes for meat, big pollutes!




by Christophe » 25/03/19, 12:54

Pffff ... it starts badly:

Be green, eat meat!

We are often encouraged to reduce our consumption of meat to reduce our carbon footprint. But switching to all-plants would be catastrophic.


Common sense is enough to understand the cheating of this article! We need more than a kg of cereal (we could eat ourselves) to produce 1 kg of meat for human consumption ... This is called the concept of yield or productivity, something that the author seems not to not know ... we learn this in 4ieme (at least in my day ...)

It is not a question of being all vegetarians.liens but to reduce its consumption of meat (red especially)! The author contradicts himself in his intro and he treats others cheater? Hop an article trash again! : Cheesy:

ps: nice unearthing otherwise, thank you :)
0 x
User avatar
Exnihiloest
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 5365
Registration: 21/04/15, 17:57
x 660

Re: Eco-vegetarian substitutes for meat, big pollutes!




by Exnihiloest » 25/03/19, 13:16

Christophe wrote:...
[b] Common sense is enough to understand the cheating of this article! We need more than a kg of grain (we could eat ourselves) to produce 1 kg of meat for human consumption ...

Would this article have claimed the opposite? I do not see him anywhere. It was not even one of the three points I mentioned.

"Create a scarecrow argument is to formulate an easily rebuttable argument and then attribute it to its opponent."
"Take part of the arguments of his opponent, refute this part and claim that we have refuted all the arguments."
Your sophism is described here.

I still dare to hope that your outrageous simplification was only a paralogism and that you will recover yourself. In the meantime, I'll have a good steak.
0 x
User avatar
sen-no-sen
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 6856
Registration: 11/06/09, 13:08
Location: High Beaujolais.
x 749

Re: Eco-vegetarian substitutes for meat, big pollutes!




by sen-no-sen » 25/03/19, 14:38

Christophe wrote:
[b] Common sense is enough to understand the cheating of this article!


There are actually a lot of misleading approximations in this article ...
0 x
"Engineering is sometimes about knowing when to stop" Charles De Gaulle.
User avatar
Exnihiloest
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 5365
Registration: 21/04/15, 17:57
x 660

Re: Eco-vegetarian substitutes for meat, big pollutes!




by Exnihiloest » 26/03/19, 17:54

sen-no-sen wrote:...
There are actually a lot of misleading approximations in this article ...

And a lot of misleading and very real deceptions among environmentalists.

"Lies, lies, and statistics
Let's start with one of the most frequently used numbers to justify a reduction in meat consumption: the idea that 100 liters of water would be needed to produce a kilo of beef. "
This wind number of an agronomist, David Pimental.
Simon Fairlie, former editor of The Ecologist, meticulously deconstructs this figure. He argues that an average beef, raised 500 days before going to the slaughterhouse, generates 125 kilograms of meat. From the Pimental total, we can calculate that such an animal needs 12 million liters of water during its lifetime - ie a 0,4 ha ground drowned under 3 water meters : roll: . Except that a cow only drinks an average of 50 liters of water per day, which brings us to 200 liters per kilo, barely 0,2% of Pimental's figure. "
0 x

Back to "Sustainable consumption: responsible consumption, diet tips and tricks"

Who is online ?

Users browsing this forum : No registered users and 96 guests