So much confirmation bias in your statements. Let's out right deny the pollution in India. Your EPA study show 2/3 pollution caused by fossi fuels. But hey let's focus on converting people to the religion of veganism. I like how people say they are "plant based" but easily have some religious vegan rhetoric to respond with.

Leaving aside the fact that back then, the human population was significantly smaller, and that smaller population wasn't burning fossil fuels at the rate we do now...

The cattle population is artificially high only because of the demand for meat and dairy. If we weren't using them for food, the population would only be a tiny fraction of what it is today, and if dietary preferences changed that population would drop in response...

---

"I'm thinking of a number between 1 and 10, and I don't know why!"

You mean this epa study? https://www.epa.gov/...e-gas-emissions-data

Glad you at least glanced at it but I think you need a lesson in comprehension. You said 2/3 is caused by fossil fuels, which is incorrect. 2/3 (65%) is caused by Carbon Dioxide. Some of this is fossil fuels but if you drill into carbon dioxide further you'll realize that only 34% of this 65% is caused by transportation. https://www.epa.gov/...gases#carbon-dioxide

Have a look at the other part of that graph, methane, which is 25 times worse than co2 https://www.epa.gov/...nhouse-gases#methane

Again, as I said to multiple commenters, including yourself. You can do what you want, it's a free country, but it's important to not just view the information that's presented, but properly analyze it. Just based on this comment you left it's clear that you have issues comprehending these figures either willfully or through lack of education. Regardless, your anti-education attitude and unwillingness to keep an open mind to evidence based research means that this conversation has hit a road block. If you would like to have a proper debate then perhaps this isn't the platform since you're unwilling to provide any logical or sourced counter points.

edit: Since I didn't specifically address the "india" issue. https://data.worldbank.org/...&name_desc=false

If the U.S dropped co2 emmissions to the equivelant to india it would mean a reduction of co2 emissions from 16.5 kt to 0.68 kt.

But I'm still not sure why you said, "Why is India so polluted yet they dont eat cow?" when India is in fact one of the leaders in cattle livestock. https://www.downtoearth.org.in/coverage/rise-of-livestock-35670 , https://www.downtoearth.org.in/...e-of-livestock-35670 , https://www.globalmethane.org/...country.aspx?c=india , https://www.thehindubusinessline.com/...t/article9912925.ece

I don't know if it's a race for CO² but yeah i ditch a car, that i was using less than 4000 miles a year. I still share one with my wife but i do almost everything by bike. In fact the car is mainly used to go to triathlon. Also i ditched races abroad and travel that require a plane. I was planning on going to catch a slot in lanzarote but i'll keep racing in france/switzerland maybe spain. Many alternate interesting races to do, so life is good ! I can do some of them by train too. I think it's important to realize that life has so many enjoyable facet that don't require bursting the planet to pieces, and eating differently is part of it.

Point of India is, they don't eat cattle, yet methane still produced by them. Most of the pollution in India, caused by humans industrial/travel pollution. We need to off some humans before cows

This is similar to what I'm eating already with the following changes: fewer legumes, more nuts, more eggs. Otherwise very close. I haven't eaten meat since I was 7 and I got up to 230 lbs and 6'3" by college because I enjoyed weight lifting (with abs but not as lean as today). Did my first IM in 12:45with a 4:00 run at 220 lbs. As I've transitioned my focus from lifting to triathlon, I dropped my weight to 195 lbs and my IM PR to 9:45 with a 3:12 OTB run.

If you think 3000 calories is a lot, consider this: when I was maintaining 220 lbs and training for IM's, I was in the 5,500 calorie range. I don't track macros anymore, but I'd guess I consume about 4,000 now that I'm maintaining 195 lbs.

Meat is fine, especially in moderation, but certainly not needed. I think the idea that you need meat to be competitive, healthy, strong, smart, etc is just cultural. Made sense when the only two options were meat and potatoes, but no so much anymore.

I literally provided 4 sources that day why India's methane levels are so high because of livestock production. Your level of ignorance is astounding.

The fact you would rather kill humans instead of making minor changes to your lifestyle....is....interesting.

That is false. Took about 2 minutes of research to find out that's a myth. You know what rots in your gut? Plants.

Just one of many sites that debunk that claim: https://www.bowelcancerfoundation.org.nz/...at-rot-in-your-colon

---

___________________________________________________
Taco cat spelled backwards is....taco cat.

I mean, what do you consider "rot" in your gut.

All food will ferment in your gut with bacteria breaking it down and producing acids.

Foods high in plant fiber will produce short chain fatty acids like butyrate, propionate and acetate which help in healing your intestinal lining. That is fact, you can't deny that.

Meat will produce putrescine and cadaverine which are designed to break down meat and cause inflammation. That's also a fact.

Here are some actually scientific studies instead of position papers or blogs.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/...articles/PMC3070119/

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/...articles/PMC2728689/

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/...articles/PMC5385025/

Are you sure it isn't flatulence from all the vegans there?

So, to sum up then, you used the term putrefaction (that's the correct spelling) purely as a scare tactic to imply that meat was literally rotting in your gut, whereas plants were not. Also, I'll note that the 3 articles you linked appear to be all about butyrate, and don't support your position about putrefying meat in the gut (I will admit to skimming the articles, but couldn't find any mention of putrescine or cadaverine in them). Oh, cool thing I learned while doing a bit of research on this...assuming you're a dude...you make cadaverine. It's in your semen.

---

___________________________________________________
Taco cat spelled backwards is....taco cat.

The third article touches on meat and microbiome but briefly. I think meat, putrefication and its effect on the microbiome is infantile research, like most microbiome research, and it's a tertiary issue when compared to cholesterol, saturated fat and carcinogenic compounds but it's still an issue.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22121108

https://www.frontiersin.org/...micb.2017.02166/full

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/...ll/10.1111/apt.13456

I also don't really trust any studies pre-2006 regarding the microbiome since they're just analyzing metabolites and not the actual bacteria species...since the lab techniques to do such research didn't exist until then. Newer studies can specifically look at not just the metabolites but the actual bacteria makeup of the colon which is a lot more interesting, like this one which shows you can actually reverse the genetic phenotype of ulcerative colitis by changing the microbiome:

https://www.nature.com/...s/s41467-018-07859-7

Best thing I’ve read about diet in a long time! Thank you!

Probably a good idea if we all eat less meat in this country, and on the animal extinction thing, well anyone see how most of these meat animals are treated? I mean, it is not as if they are living the life of Riley, and then one day just dont wake up. Probably one of the bigger factors in me not eating as much, seeing those videos of how the cows are actually treated, and then killed, well it is enough to lose ones appetite.

Now of course there are exceptions, so dont come and tell me about them, I live next door to one of them. But even the so called free range cattle is kind of a misnomer. Free to range, but among a million others in a very small range..And what was it about free range chickens, they had to have an open window and could see outside??

Not to mention - going vegan/plant-based might just turn you into one heck of an athlete: Carl Lewis, Serena Williams, Dave Scott (vegan or vegetarian while winning Kona 6 times), Scott Jurek, strongest man in the world Patrick Baboumian, and Matt Russell. Forgot to mention the guy who broke the record at Kona last year - He's vegetarian (https://www.cnn.com/...-spt-intl/index.html)

and if you want to hang with Beyonce, don't show up to her place with hacked up dead animals - she vegan too :) :) :)

Dave Scott (vegan or vegetarian while winning Kona 6 times)//

I cant comment on the others you posted up, didn't know them personally. But Dave Scott was never really a vegetarian, he ate fish, and I believe some chicken. And to listen to him now, I think he mostly only eats meat, fat, the keto diet. Says it was a mistake the way he ate as an athlete in his youth, so there is that to add to all of this. Said he would have gone even faster had he known what he knows now...

hahaha - So I guess his 6 wins were a mistake too??

hahaha - So I guess his 6 wins were a mistake too??//

No, not a mistake, just harder than they should have been, and slower!!! (-;


And on the flip side, Mark Allen used to eat a lot of meat back then, so guess he was performing to potential... I haven't talked to Mark recently, but interesting to see what his diet has evolved into, maybe Dave and he just flipped 180's and exchanged!!!

well gee, let me google some sources that have no mention of cow methane as pollution source but rather human based burnings:

https://www.vox.com/...els-air-delhi-health

http://www.urbanemissions.info/...olluting-delhis-air/

https://www.hindustantimes.com/...OzEZxxvdcatDD3N.html


now i stand on my soap box and call you an uneducated biased imbecile etc let-me-get-some-big-words-from-thesaurus-to-chalk-up-my-psuedo-intellect-like-you

This guy you mention, is not on the list: https://en.wikipedia.org/...ld%27s_Strongest_Man

also the list you provided, athletes mentioned have been out done by omnivores

You're confusing pollutants with greenhouse gasses. They don't equate. Close though.

One egg a week???

I eat 10-12 a week.

So, no, this diet is not for me :).

---

Long Chile was a silly place.

Thank goodness our OG ancestors didn't share your opinion / life-view. Otherwise, we'd still be swinging from trees.

It's a fact that the consumption of meat led to increased brain-size which put humans on the top step of the podium in the Evolution Games. (Read "Born to Run..." for the science)

Additionally, since this is ST and performance / endurance are pretty central to most of our lives, watch "Eat. Race. Win". Team Orica ate A LOT of red meat during the 2017 tour (and put Yates in White).

You can say 'stop the planet, I want to get off' but save your moralizing for the Lavender room.

Just cutting on the red meat make a huge difference for greenhouse gases so if you think meat is super important for your performance and your performance is more important than anything else then go on eat meat. Just not red meat. Also I bet orica ate almost no red meat because for performance it is really not that interesting. Chicken is good. Eat chicken it's also 5 time less impacting than cow. But really there were enough top vegan athlete to think one can perform in endurance sport with a plant based well thought alimentation. Sure they get beaten at some point. Even Schumacher was defeated in the end .

I think the people that want to be vegan/vegetarian should do so and all the best to them.

Then there will be more meat for the rest of us.

---

______________________________________________________________