The problem with these alternatives is they are highly processed, the exact opposite of a healthy meal of vegetables, lentils, nuts...
That said, the modern industrial slaughter of animals is an ongoing atrocity on an unbelievable scale, worst than anything humans ever did to each other (and can only be deemed acceptable if you vouch for biblical notions of human supremacism). If this helps any, all the best to them.
There is nothing inherently wrong with processed food. Processed foods could only be considered "bad" if you're actually replacing healthy foods with them.
For example, a can of coke isn't actually bad for me per se, it's just nutritionally useless, and it's taking up 100something calories out of my calorie budget for the day that could be used by something with a higher amount of micronutrients in it.
I don't think any vegetarian or vegan is going to throw out all their veggies and start eating nothing but meat alternatives as soon as a viable replacement comes out.
My wife has not eaten meat or poultry for over 25 years. I do. Once, we were out at a restaurant and she sampled my pasta+chicken dish and got a piece of chicken into her mouth by accident. She did not like the texture and the flavour, at all. As in, the innateness of both in chicken was not appetizing to her anymore.
She will be sticking to her nut and bean burgers no matter how good a fake beef burger tastes (to me).
Gary Taubes, of course. This article says nothing about "killing" your organs. It simply mentions excess consumption raises your insulin resistance, which will be the case with overconsumption of ANY carbohydrates.
You're kidding right? There's a ton wrong with processed foods. We humans love to outsmart ourselves. Ooh, let's make our own food, screw mother nature and home-grown veggies, fruits, and animals! And then wonder why cancer and obesity rates are increasing.
And hunting and gathering? Screw that! We're gonna create higher abstract levels of work where u stare at a computer screen for 8 hours a day! Woohoo! Why expend so much energy running and walking for food when you can sit all day?!.. Then we wonder again why obesity rates keep going up.
I don't get what your point is. This sounds like a ton of hand-waving with out any kind of science. Your argument is essentially "since it's not natural, it's not good". Google "naturalistic fallacy".
I am not claiming processed foods are good, they're just not bad. Someone who eats nothing but coke and snickers all day will be unhealthy, but that's more because of what he wasn't eating than what he was eating. It's not like eating processed food somehow destroys nutrients in your body.
Obesity is an issue because of overconsumption of food, period. Granted, a lot of the food we overconsume is processed foods. They're cheap and available everywhere. Corn is heavily subsidized which makes HFCS incredibly cheap.
What about someone who has the ability to eat coke and snickers all day, AND veggies, fruits, and everything you need nutritionally? You're saying that's ok?
And no, this is not a fallacy. Most things natural ARE good because our bodies simply have evolved in those conditions. It's not a fallacy, cult, or religion... Hence why we have the Primal/Paleo diet.
Would this person lose weight? Sure, if they consumed less calories than they burned.
Would I recommend it? No, because snickers and coke are not satiating yet are very calorie dense. That person would probably end up consuming a lot more calories due to increased hunger, which would lead to weight gain.
Is it optimal? No, because whole foods are better at keeping you full, generally have less calories, and are richer in micronutrients.
So what approach would I recommend? That the majority (~3/4 or more) of your day's calories come from whole foods, and the rest can come from whatever you want. 100% of your food should fit into your goals, however. Junk food is not "free". If you're trying to lose weight, set your appropriate calorie goal for the day and make sure 100% of your food fits within this.
If you're interested, check out [this article](http://www.wannabebig.com/diet-and-nutrition/the-dirt-on-cle...). It has a weightlifting slant, but it's a well sourced article that goes into detail about how 10-20% of your calories can come from processed foods with no ill effects.
The paleo/primal diets are fine, but that line of reasoning behind them is not scientifically valid. If you can provide some peer-reviewed studies that prove otherwise, I'd like to see them.
It's not just a matter of gaining weight. It's also a matter of consuming things our bodies have NOT evolved to digest/use properly. I dunno about you, but I rather not consume those types of food often because they can lead to disease. There's plenty of evidence already out there that proves grains are not meant to be digested by most people.
I imagine it's because 'processed foods' aren't bad in themselves. That you can add something bad to them doesn't mean they're inherently bad. If someone wants to crusade against bad foods, saying 'processed foods' is the wrong way to go.
It's like protesting against DHMO. Sure, it kills people. But it's not even a good simplification of the whole situation. (Yes, I know that DHMO is H2O, just in case anyone thought I didn't for some reason.)
It's a little disingenuous to suggest that the ingredients of a food are 'something that can be added to it.'
If processed foods tend to be bad (which they do) you can quite correctly crusade against them if you're interested in helping people not to eat bad food.
I have to agree with both of these points. Modern society is so insulated to the ethical costs and environmental costs of meat eating. We have no problem taking our children to go strawberry picking to get their food, but how about taking them to a slaughterhouse to get their McNuggets? And then environmental costs of using 10x-50x the amount of water to produce 1lb of meat compared to 1lb of grains is staggering.
That's manufactured problem. And I'd say extremely stupid. Cannot wait till activists will go on a mission to stop other animals from eating meat.
We are humans. We eat meat. How complicated is that?
And yes, I had an opportunity to witness how pig becomes bacon and tasty sausages when I was kid.
I'm not sure I agree with the "it's in our nature" argument. The thing about being human is that we're able to act according to a code of ethics and not just our base desires/traditions.
Your point about activists makes no sense. Would you accuse someone campaigning against sexual assault of going on a mission to stop male geese from raping females?
Just because we used to do it doesn't mean it's right or ehtical to continue doing so now that we can avoid it.
"Manufactured problem" is exactly the right phrase, but not in the way you mean it.
Other animals hunt other animals, and the ecosystem ends up in a sustainable equilibrium. Humans, however, get most of their meat from industrial agriculture, which is an extractive system that drains water tables and pumps carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.
That's very definitely an ethical problem that we have manufactured.
Yeah, so is farming. Most arable land has had its effectiveness severely reduced by salination from hundreds of years of farming. Perhaps we should stop eating farmed goods altogether?
This is not some simple ethical equation with a Pollyanna answer.
And that double-espresso fair bean organic latte is vastly more wasteful than a glass of water.
And your sharp looking clothes are far more wasteful than a peasant shirt and plain shorts.
And your smart phone is far more wasteful than a basic phone.
And a house with a yard is vastly more wasteful than a 150 sqft per person apartment.
And do you know how much wastage occurred to make that movie you watched? Or that TV show you like?
Everything can be considered wasteful by comparison. It comes down to balancing your needs/wants with energy requirements, and choosing which causes to bring up when preaching your moral superiority.
Agreed, we have a lot of things which are wasteful compared to spartan requirements. Definitely a sliding scale of luxury. So what are the real costs of meat eating? 10-50x more water for a meat diet, is that moral or practical superiority?
It's not the ethical cost of eating meat, it's the ethical cost of eating industrially farmed meat. Every year, tens of billions of animals suffer for their entire lives before slaughter because we want to eat lots of cheap meat.
I wouldn't say you're an accomplice in that most likely you were raised to eat meat. From the time you were a small child you've been conditioned to be OK or maybe even to love eating meat. You've also had the terrible conditions of the factory farming industry hidden from you. Because of this I don't think anybody can be blamed for eating meat. But I do think that once those conditions and factors are brought to your attention that people should have a long think about the situation and really spend some time deciding if they want to continue to support such practices.
Also, unless you/re eating organic most modern meats could be considered highly processed. Chicken for example used to be a healthy meat, but now most of the chicken you'll find in supermarkets is a high fat food.
That said, the modern industrial slaughter of animals is an ongoing atrocity on an unbelievable scale, worst than anything humans ever did to each other (and can only be deemed acceptable if you vouch for biblical notions of human supremacism). If this helps any, all the best to them.