If you really want to avoid or reverse type 2 diabetes a high fat low carb is the way to go.And that should include a diet high in animal and dairy fats.
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct...com/diabetes&usg=AOvVaw3LP9hkEYMjZMgLXOmLVNdj
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct...com/diabetes&usg=AOvVaw3LP9hkEYMjZMgLXOmLVNdj
I suppose if vegans replaced plants with insects, they'd harm fewer animals. Other than that i've not given it a lot of thought. I can't imagine that would be a very popular alternative.
That doesn't quite follow as insects are animals too.
But I take your point. In the West it's an issue of taste, not so much elsewhere, have you read any of the literature suggesting that vegans may actually be "obliged" to eat insects on ethical grounds?From what I've read, to put your body in a state of ketosis for long periods of time can increase mortality quite substantially. It's more of a band aid solution not addressing the underlying problem.
That doesn't quite follow as insects are animals too.
No I haven't heard that one. What's the idea behind that?
This was linked to earlier in the thread, it's an interesting starting point If Vegans Replaced Plants With Insects, They'd Harm Fewer Animals | HuffPost
That is why the diet is high in fats.Low carb/low fat diets might cause ketosis but the fat component prevents that.
Regardless of that we have evolved to tolerate periods of fasting and associated ketosis.Indeed fasting twice a week is another way of improving your health-especially if you are pre -diabetic.
They could also opt to eat shelfish like oysters and mussels which can be produced with minimal impact on the environment.
The high fat doesn't prevent ketones from being formed, ketones are literally formed from fat and are used as energy. Its otherwise known as going into survival mode.
The Vegan Society say it's not unethical to kill and eat animals if it's unavoidable. Now define unavoidable . If people dropped the us and them BS a way could be found to the benefit of all...no?
Presumably the chosen varieties of insects would have to be bred in quantities far in excess of their present population size in order to feed large numbers of human beings. This begs the question, where does the extra food needed to feed these extra insects come from?,
Energy is lost at each stage in a food chain because the organisms use some of the energy they get just to survive (move, reproduce etc.). This energy is therefore not available to be passed on to the next stage in the chain. This is where the inefficiency comes in. In what way would creating a food chain involving insects and humans increase efficiency?
People are looking into it, I'm no expert, our resident farmer would know more. Other than the less suffering to furry animals I think the idea is that it would be easier to get more proteins from poorer land or unsuitable areas and there's the added benefit of fertiliser, I think the only problem other than taste would be whether you consider it unethical
That's not the only inefficiency. Food digestion is 100% efficient either, there is plenty of energy left over in waste. Of course waste does go completely to waste.
(But it does cause a lot of other problems like water pollution)
The trick is to find insects which derive their energy/food from substances we can not release the energy from efficiently.
Mopane worms (the grub of a moth) are quite tasty and eat Mopane leaves which are otherwise useless to us unlike the wood which is very useful indeed being termite proof.
So while we could be growing trees to harvest the wood we could harvest another crop annually at no cost in money or energy.
PS: Not sure how eating insects reduces the number of animals harmed. Insects are animals so a lot more animals would be harmed if anything.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.