For a counter argument to the "Locavore" movement, I recommend reading "Just Food: Where Locavores Get It Wrong and How We Can Truly Eat Responsibly" by Jame E McWilliams.[1]
As others more knowledgeable on the subject than me have stated (in various places), eating less red meat greatly improves the environment and your health. An example of eating less red meat would be treat it as a side dish instead of the main dish.
There was a study released last week that basically stated the same thing. Refined grains, potatoes and meat attribute to greater weight gain vs diets centered around vegetables. It's really looking like the best meal ecologically, economically and for your health is one where the primary calories come from vegetables.
It is true that fats are among the most calorie dense food in existence but that doesn't make them necessarily 'practical'. If animal fats have lots of external costs (in terms of environmental damage) then they aren't very practical. The costs are just not well understood.
As for the spinach straw man argument...I don't think anyone is suggesting that you eat 10 kilos of spinach, that would be extremely unhealthy. I think the OP was suggesting simply that calories come mostly from plants. This includes nuts (peanut butter is very high calorie), fruits (also high calorie) and vegetables.
If you allow "plants", then yes- starchy staples, nuts, fruits all have you covered on calories. It's up to the OP though to clarify whether he meant plants or celery.
Dietary cholesterol has not yet been shown to be harmful.
Some well-researched books on the subject include "Fat and Cholesterol are good for you" by Uffe Ravnskov and "The Great Cholesterol con" by Anthony Colpo.
High levels are correlated with atherosclerosis and cardiovascular disease, but they haven't been shown to cause those conditions. Some cholesterols are also "good" (high density) in that they have positive effects for people with high cholesterols -- they can lower levels.
See? This article is a freakin' yo-yo. It causes heart disease, it does not cause heart disease, it causes cancer, it does not cause cancer, everyone is jumping on everyone else's methodology, and sometimes it seems as though the conclusions were decided before the study was performed.
Here it causes heart disease:
>a survey ,conducted in 1960, of 25,153 California Seventh-Day Adventists, found that the risk of heart disease is three times greater for 45-64 year old men who eat meat daily, versus those who did not eat meat.
Here it does not:
>In another study[84] in 2010 involving over one million people who ate meat found that only processed meat had an adverse risk in relation to coronary heart disease. The study suggests that eating 50g (less than 2oz) of processed meat per day increases risk of coronary heart disease by 42%, and diabetes by 19%. Equivalent levels of fat, including saturated fats, in unprocessed meat (even when eating twice as much per day) did not show any deleterious effects, leading the researchers to suggest that "differences in salt and preservatives, rather than fats, might explain the higher risk of heart disease and diabetes seen with processed meats, but not with unprocessed red meats."
The lack of attention given to statistical confounding in the diets of the people studied is concerning. The fact that new studies appear to refute previous studies suggests that one of three things is going on:
-the new studies are wrong
-the old studies are wrong
-the physical laws of the Universe have changed in some fundamental manner
I cannot hope to be convinced on this topic without hopefully a thorough examination of the methodology of the researchers and potential biases. It is not becoming of a scientist to make an assertion of knowledge without a thorough examination of the data and its origins, and I have my doubts about the quality of any of the current data, whether it condemns or acquits meat consumption. The work regarding heterocyclic amines and the recommendation to microwave meat before it is cooked seems now as a tiny ignored candle flame in a dark room full of people claiming to see the light.
I do, however, have the intuition that studying something as broad as "meat consumption" is almost inherently inclined to error and bias, and that it would be better to perform multiple specific analyses and hopefully even experiments involving perhaps directed diets, so that the question can be laid to rest, and people can make a decision based on evidence, fact, and their own relative valuation of health and hedonism.
All the more reason to take all health studies with a large grain of salt and simply eat everything in moderation. It's just smart to hedge your bets and not depend on any one food- that's why we are omnivores.
Example:
Every additional serving of potatoes people added to their regular diet each day made them gain about a pound over four years... every added serving of fruits and vegetables prevented between a quarter- and a half-pound gain ... Every extra serving of nuts ... prevented more than a half-pound of weight gain. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/potato...)
If we take these findings at face-value, if you hedged your bets and ate equal parts potato, nuts, fruits, and vegetables, you'd net 0 lbs weight gain.
No kidding it doesn't take a genius to figure this stuff out, also statistically at a 95% confidence interval, of every 20 studies you read 1 is pure chance.
I have a feeling that most of the reason for the weight gain from an extra serving of potatoes is the cola and burger that comes with it, all loaded with salt and sugar, that will spike your blood sugar, make you hungry in 20 minutes, and thirsty for another cola that will pack on more pounds.
No kidding it doesn't take a genius to figure this stuff out, also statistically at a 95% confidence interval, of every 20 studies you read 1 is pure chance.
That would only be true if all studies were published. (And only applies to studies that are testing a specific hypothesis, rather than scouring huge data sets[1] for correlations.)
Possibly, but potatoes are basically pure starch. I'm open to the possibility that can screw around with your body in great enough amounts- though I don't think I'd ever abandon potatoes completely. Tubers are an ancient food.
As others more knowledgeable on the subject than me have stated (in various places), eating less red meat greatly improves the environment and your health. An example of eating less red meat would be treat it as a side dish instead of the main dish.
1. http://www.amazon.com/Just-Food-Where-Locavores-Responsibly/...