zlacker

[return to "Eat Real Food"]
1. woodru+fO[view] [source] 2026-01-07 20:41:44
>>atestu+(OP)
Of note: the US's per capita consumption of meat has increased by more than 100 pounds over the last century[1]. We now consume an immense amount of meat per person in this country. That increase is disproportionately in poultry, but we also consume more beef[2].

A demand for the average American to eat more meat would have to explain, as a baseline, why our already positive trend in meat consumption isn't yielding positive outcomes. There are potential explanations (you could argue increased processing offsets the purported benefits, for example), but those are left unstated by the website.

[1]: https://www.agweb.com/opinion/drivers-u-s-capita-meat-consum...

[2]: https://ers.usda.gov/data-products/chart-gallery/chart-detai...

◧◩
2. jdlsho+WO[view] [source] 2026-01-07 20:44:19
>>woodru+fO
It says 1.2-1.6 grams of protein and healthy fats per kilogram of body weight, from animal and plant sources (including milk). Is that really advocating for more meat?
◧◩◪
3. woodru+2Q[view] [source] 2026-01-07 20:49:16
>>jdlsho+WO
The implication is that the current food pyramid disproportionately weights against proteins and fats. Assuming that Americans follow the current pyramid (this is a hell of an assumption), then any change to the pyramid that asks them to change their diets in favor of more protein and fat is likely to result in them eating more meat.

In reality, I don't think anybody in the US follows the food pyramid religiously. But I do think people (try to) follow the main strokes of what the government tells them is a healthy dietary balance, and so any recommendation to increase their fat/protein intake will result in more meat consumption even if the guidelines doesn't itself proscribe that as the only source.

◧◩◪◨
4. ericd+s91[view] [source] 2026-01-07 22:00:46
>>woodru+2Q
As I see it, the point of this new pyramid is not to add more emphasis to meat specifically, but to undo some of the past vilification of fat (note the emphasis on whole milk and full fat dairy), and to move emphasis away from carbs as the basis of the diet. And honestly, I think that's pretty much correct - the low fat movement was a disaster for our collective health, because food manufacturers added more sugar to compensate for the bad effects on taste that that has, and because if you eat a good amount of full fat stuff, there's not nearly as much need to snack between meals.

If you go to Western Europe, they're not drinking lots of skim milk, and if you eat things from the bakeries, there's more butter and not as much low quality vegetable oil or sugar. When my French cousins come here, they find lots of the stuff sold here revoltingly sweet.

◧◩◪◨⬒
5. throwa+bG2[view] [source] 2026-01-08 10:45:27
>>ericd+s91
What is "low quality vegetable oil"? I never heard that term before. Are some types considered high quality?
[go to top]