[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Jimbuna

Throw it in a pan of hot curry and nobody will notice.

You see, that is what I am about. These oh so super new foods they propagate are always designed only on taste, but you hear almost never anything on nutrients and content: fats and fatty acids (Omega 3 versus Omega 6), vitamines, minerals, trace elements, fibres, and so much more. If then they even find it acceptable to throw in soy stuff, or wheats, use rape seed oil or sunflower oil and so forth, then I see a recipe for a rise in inflamatory deseases over the coming years and decades, and more adipositas and diabetes and so forth, but especially inflammatory deseases (doctors speak alreay today of a pandemic of silent inflammations). They propagate today milk surrogates: some grain mixed with water. It tastes awful (imo), it does not behave like milk when you use it for cooking (try to make a cooked hot pudding with it, it does not get hard, but stays greasy and does not taste...), and it floods the body with plenty of stuff that can trigger an especially high insuline spike, not to mention the complications if the surrogate is soy "milk". Soy should only be consumed if fermented, I say.

They propagate too much bad stuff today for reason of "climate protection", militant/aggressively enforced veganism, or outdated views on healthy food (low salt regiment for example), and by doing so they accept generations of people getting ill over the course of their life and seeing a shortening of their life expectancy. Dying early for the climate? Well, yes, in the end that is the logic in it. Excessive use of sugar is not the only way to bring yourself down and dying early - you can do that with many of the now reocmmended new foods as well. You can even poison yourself and do harm to yourself with things that if taken individually are indeed perfectly healthy, or organic (called Bio in German).

To hell with these damn ideologists. They hurt. They kill. If only you look close enough.

The essence: meat surrogates may or may not be tasty, for your taste. The question is whether they are healthy, and indeed can replace meat: in the way it behaves in the pan, can be processed, spiced, and regarding its chemical composition on the molecular level. About the latter you hear practically nothing. And just a general defamation of meat, on grounds of some super-slim, super-thin correlations. There is not one study until today that shows even a single person has died or having seen a shortage of life or got cancer due to consuming red meat. But the claim is in the world that all this is the case, but the acience behind this claim is super-lousy, is not even minimum standard of science. Its pure ideology-driven. Some fanatics want it to be so, so it must be so. I researched this claim that red meat causes cancer intensively late last year and early this year, but what i found in data not behind paywalls was pure ####. A terrible abuse or lack of knowledge of statistics and methods. Nonsense. Fanatcial claim. Pure ideology as a motivation, obviously. Remermber that piece from last year, "The illusion of evidence based medicine"? March-edition of BMJ, I linked to it three or four times, and Campbell did, too. The whole field of ecotrophology, the "science" of food and eating, must be seen in that light, too. People are so individual and their metabolisms are as well, and moral and ethics limits prevent this "science" from indeed doing experiments as would be demanded by the standards of scientific methodology, you would not get it passed by any ethics board of any university worth its name. So what you are left with is individual observations that you claim to be linked by correlations, but you cannot prove that link, because your methods are so limited that you necessarily almost never can prove anything.

The logical virtue of ecoptrophology thus must be modesty and hesitation in making claims and dictating "advice". The opposite is the case, its recommendations come in the ductus of imperial demands, assumed likelihoods turn into confirmed truths, the reaons are given as if they are hard evidence. And of course, its so often inked to saving energy, saving the climate, your social responsibility... Pfffft. Why proving, why evidence when you are on a holy mission that you know is so right. Convincing the intellect is hard work. Better just uncritically believe in some random hear-say that happens to be popular with the masses. That way you can enjoy membership in your peer group.

Lack of evidence does not stop the many messiahs that come in so huge numbers to bless the world with their glorious myths. Reduce salt to a minimum. Acrylamide causes cancer, no frying above 170°C therefore. Drink 3.5 literes per day, additional to food. Red meat causes cancer. No milk, use grain-in-water. Aspartam causes cancer. Every drop of alcohol is one drop cracking down on your health.

Shoot them all. They are fanatical stupids who think they have a mission that justifies just any lie and any nonsense. And they do harm and they cause death.