...according to the link below.

http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=17379

I imagine a few folks will have a comment on this...

Skrat

LOL

That is too funny.

I have 2 points to make...

I don't know how many of you all eat 100 grams of protein or more a day, but I know that I don't....and can't. So that argument is faulty.

As for the use of land for crops...1) crops already produce more than is sold, so using it for feed seems like a good thing, 2) if low-carbers are not eating things like corn, than that reduction can be also used for feed, 3) we eat soybeans and lots of them...so why is soy in the list of "bad" foods?

Anyways....their arguments are not valid. The article is obviously written with a slant. Why don't they complain about the millions of acres used for golf courses. They cause a lot of damage to the enviornment....or how about all the plastic bags used for groceries and trash....or the styrene used to place foods on and in.

*shakes head*

agendas, agendas, agendas

Get to the real problems....please.

Ummm, I eat 150-200g protein a day....

All from beef?

I guess I should have made myself more clear. The article suggested that all low-carbers eat 100 g of beef protien a day.

I know that I don't. I eat fish, chicken, and beef. I drink protien suppliments to keep my protien up above 100 g. I just know that I could not eat 100 g of protien from beef everyday.

But this is just my opinion.

Mostly. I can easily eat a 10 oz steak every night. I HAVE eaten a 16 oz prime rib with no problem. And I LOVE beef jerky, although I can't eat much of it because I have arthritis in my jaw.
The rest of it is from chicken and a lot of pork. I eat 3 eggs at a time, usually with bacon or sausage.

Yes, you can get protein from vegetable sources but if you're going to do that then you need to take care to combine the right vegetable and grain sources (generally, grains + legumes = complete protein) to get complete proteins, unless your plant source is primarily soy. Most plant proteins (again, soy excluded) are incomplete, meaning that they are missing one or more of the essential amino acids that our bodies need. Since different plant sources contain different essential amino acids, you can get a complete protein by combining the right plant sources, but you do have to know what you are doing. Getting adequate protein this way also means that your carb intake will be higher (sometimes higher than what an individual's carb tolerance is) and is also difficult for those that have sensitivities to grains.
It would be a workable plan, though, for those who are not concerned with their daily carb intake or have a higher carb tolerance, don't have sensitivities to grains and have only grains and legumes to work with.

IMHO, if there's not enough land to sustain a population of LCers, then the problem is overpopulation. Low carbers are eating what humans are supposed to eat. Are we supposed to subsist on HFCS just to make environmentalists happy? I think not.

We've had this discussion before, although last time it did have a different focus: http://forum.lowcarber.org/showpost...58&postcount=75

The article above assumes that everyone who takes up low carb as their WOE increases their protein consumption. That wasn't the case with me. I eat about the same amount of protein now that I always have. What I have increased dramatically is the amount of calories coming from fat while decreasing dramatically the amount of calories coming from carbs. Come to think of it, I don't eat all that many eggs, either.
According to the article above, the average protein intake for humans worldwide is 28 grams per day. While this might be enough to sustain the lean body mass of my 50 pound 8 year old daughter, it's not enough to sustain a full grown adult and to hold that up as a standard (or even something that should be considered "normal") is irresponsible. Yes, some people do increase their protein intake when they begin low carbing, but many of those folks were protein deficient to start with.
Slanted? Well...when you work for an organization that supports agriculture (primarily grain agriculature: http://www.landinstitute.org/vnews/...08/10/37a747b43 ), it would be hard not to be a bit biased in favor of those you support.

You all ought to read this thing more carefully before you start taking shots at it



Actually, the article says worldwide consumption of ANIMAL PROTEIN is 28 grams per day. Presumably, total protein intake is somewhat higher.



Again, the article does NOT say that a low-carb diet requires 100 grams of protein from beef, it says it requires 100 grams of animal protein and specifically mentions increases required in meat, dairy, poultry and seafood production to meet such demand.

Presumably, but the article doesn't say that:

Their quote implies animal protein, but doesn't specifically state animal protein when it comes to that 28 grams. I would certainly hope that protein intake overall was higher, but it honestly wouldn't surprise me if it wasn't considering how much of the population is even currently living at starvation levels of food intake; protein, carbs or otherwise.
There are also very few plant proteins that are complete proteins or that provide adequate essential amino acids, so unless that 28 grams is animal protein, it's likely not of the greatest nutritional quality. Regardless of whether that 28 grams is plant or animal protein, it's not nearly enough to sustain a full grown adult or a growing child.

Granted, it could have been edited to be a bit clearer, but careful reading shows that the writer is referring to 28 grams of animal protein. Here is the entire paragraph:

"If all of those people went on an Atkins-style diet, their requirement for animal protein would rise to about 100 grams. A billion dieters each eating an extra 44 grams could not easily be satisfied by giving them a bigger share of current animal protein production. As it is, humans worldwide average only 28 grams per day."



Nowhere in this article are they advocating a diet based on 28 grams of protein. Your assertion that it does so is a red herring that begs the real question. That is, what are the probable ecological implications that would result from a massive, global shift toward a low-carb diet by 1 billion overweight dieters (however unlikely such a shift may be)?

I agree, and I am an ardent environmentalist. The problem is overpopulation coupled with high resource consumption. Most endangered species (both plant and animal) got thay way from habitat loss, regardless of whether that land was cleared for grazing or agriculture or home building. Planting more grains in place of cattle isn't going to bring back dwindling not-so-renewable natural resources.

Where is it ever written that humans have to eat animal protein? Protein can come from a number of different sources. That being veg. sources. Anyone ever read the 'PH Miracle'?

"The vegetarian will be dismayed to learn that while soya bean is rich in complete protein, and grains and nuts also combine to provide complete proteins, none contains the fats that are essential for proper brain development."

The above excerpt is taken from the following article by Barry Groves (author of the book Eat Fat, Get Thin). Everyone interested in this subject should read it because it explains everything there is to know about vegetarianism, usable, arable land and everything else related to the subject.

http://www.second-opinions.co.uk/vegetarian.html#link0

It is not as grim as everyone thinks.

nick im sorry im ridding with lisa on this one.... i raise beef in texas ....