How much of the concerns regarding meat consumption are legitimate?

>>8478151
Animal agriculture, and especially cattle farming, is a major contributor to deforestation in Latin America and in general is a very intensive land use. It can take nearly 900 gallons of water to produce a single pound of beer, and cows release large amounts of methane into the air. Disposing of animal waste is also difficult, and in many places it's done simply by having artificial shit lagoons that have a tendency to seep into groundwater sources (more common with hogs than cows, depending on the location and method of farming).

As to the meat is unhealthy point I think red meat has been labeled a carcinogen by the WHO but I dunno if that's a meme or not. Certainly it is possible to be healthy without eating red meat, and most dietary studies seem to indicate that diets high in veggies, nuts, whole grains and fish and low in red meat are the healthiest.

You could probably eat meat as a staple and be healthy depending on exercise levels and the rest of your diet, but reducing meat consumption is a positive for the evnironment in addition to any personal health benefits

>>8478336
>beer
Beef I meant.

Also I didn't mention that large scale animal raising also tends to exacerbate the problems of crop monoculture we have in the USA, but I dunno if that is true worldwide or if it is inherently bad so I didn't mention it above.

>>8478151
don't worry about it. Now that trump is elected president we don't have to worry about the environment any more

Op i've studied nutrition for a while now, and im not gonna back up my claims with studies because that's too much work, and there is too much poor and/or biased,research out there. But here is what the consensus is leaning toward in the modern nutritional community:

Fats are not bad for lipid levels ,except for saturated fat and trans fat. However, saturated fats only,negatively impact blood triglycerides WHEN WEIGHT IS BEING GAINED. And weight gain itself seems to be the primary factor in negative health impacts, not the energy source. Dietary cholesterol (probably) isn't an issue for people that aren't genetically inclined to heart issues or whom already have heart problems.

We live in an inactive society. A lot of health problems stem from both improper diet and lack pf activity, so it is silly to blame one aspect, such as meat consumption. Reality is, if you wanna be healthy, you have to be physically active, not overweight, and ensure efficient micronutrient intake.

>tl;dr meat consumption by itself is not bad, but coupled with physical inactivity and weight gain it may be bad

>>8478151
1. Saturated fats have are still considered a major artery fucker-uper. No studies have disproved that.
Let the fat reddit memers die of heart attack and eat better fats.
Same goes for cholesterol and excessive salt.

However one thing I realised after all these years of internet health memes is that the most important thing is staying thin and active.
If you do lots of cardio and some weights, you'll probably be alright with relatively normal diet.

A better diet can be a big improvement on your long-term heath, but the diet doesn't matter as much as not being a fat couch potato.

>>8478151
200-300g weekly

>>8478151
Cattle is bad for the environment, it is true. Those fuckers take way more feed, land, water, and produce more waste+methane per calorie than other livestock by a wide margin. We would be better off switching to goat if we really need red meat. Goat is delicious anyway.

meat gives you ass cancer

>>8478368
>>8478368
All of the studies designed to control for calories / weight gain or adjust for them are poor and biased now?

Whatever the animal ate, you eat too.

Animals fed saturated fats were harder to kill with carcinogens, but animals fed plant, seed, and fish oils died easy.

read beyond the published majority

I eat 6 fried eggs and 10 pieces of bacon a day with a day or two of fasting between most eating periods.

Perfect cholesterol and I lose fat while gaining definition from weight lifting.

>>8478336

What a stupid thing. We live in a system of HUMANS. The primary concern is to outcompete other humans so that we have the power to express and impart our moral-aesthetic vision.

"A positive for the environment" is a childish thing for childish people who don't understand that in a system of humans, the primary thing is to go up in the hierarchy. A position in the hierarchy constrains the moral and volitional choices that people are able to make.

>>8479796

Or to put it another way

A faggot who thinks himself a moral being does nothing to improve his life but maybe volunteer at some stupid shelter. He dies with a pitiful amount of wealth.

A multimillionaire with no moral complex has many millions of dollars and can use that to more meaningfully impact the welfare of animals than the faggot with a holy complex.

"But that's unfair"

That's the world.

>>8479802
You're dumb. You're making a false dichotomy between being successful competing against other humans and being eco-conscious.

Not that I give a shit about animals, but your reasoning is flawed.

>>8479837

It's not flawed. The information asymmetry regarding a "golden path" of moral actions is far larger than the ability of modern cognition to cut it down to levels of positive verification.

It's doubly constrained by the power of the moral agent to affect other agents. A rich man has more power than the poor man.

A poor man would do wonders far more for the environment if he focused on autocataclytic modes of power increase and then used his surplus to "help the environment".

But know that in five huandred years the Earth will probably be a strip mine for cognitive entities taking advantage of zero gravity.

>>8478336
http://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms11382
>livestock provides many services other than food, for example, draught power, nutrient management and risk avoidance. For instance, livestock enables the use of land that cannot be used for cropping due to harsh environmental conditions and thus helps broaden society’s resource base33,34,43. This effect becomes visible in our analysis in scenarios that combine low yields with little cropland expansion. In such contexts, diets relatively high in ruminant products show advantages over the monogastric-based variants

some pasture-based systems are environmentally viable on lands with limited fertility / arability, but obviously this isn't the established way of doing things