Low Carb

Is Low Carb Bad for the Environment?

Is Low-Carb Bad for the Environment? – Answers to Common Questions4.5 out of 5 stars5 stars67%4 stars22%3 stars8%2 stars0%1 star2%49 ratings4907:09
4.5 out of 5 stars5 stars67%4 stars22%3 stars8%2 stars0%1 star2%49 ratings1,811 viewsLow carb can revolutionize many people’s health and effectively treat obesity and diabetes.

But what about the environment? Won’t all the meat and animal products contribute to global warming and pollution?

We asked some of the top low-carb doctors in the world to give their quick and spontaneous answers, and produced the video above.

Start your free membership trial to watch it instantly – as well as over 150 video courses, movies, presentations, interviews, Q&A with experts, etc.

Do you have any other question that you’d like answered in a similar video? Feel free to let us know in the comments below.

PS

Do you want to check out a similar video without signing up? Check out the “Is Saturated Fat Bad?” video below.

More popular videos

Low Carb Made Easy How to Lose Weight Low-Carb Recipes Low-Carb Success Stories

9 Comments

  1. tz
    Back when they were telling us an new ice age as inevitable and it was settled science, there were two shifts starting to take place - Fat is bad and you need to count calories, and CO2 was causing global warming.

    The earth's temperature has been flat and people have been getting obese using this scientific consensus, both funded by government and green groups as well as crony corporations.

    Can we get back to actual empirical science with reproduceible results and public data sets and the methods and math used to analyze them?

    OTOH, if high-carb kills a lot of people and reduces the population, many environmentalists would think it would be the best thing since the black death or the 1918 flu.

  2. Marion
    The 'meat is unsustainable' mantra has been so hammered down that even the Low Carb 'experts' are spouting it.

    The idea that you can feed seven humans with what a cow eats and that you had better raise soy or corn on the space it occupies is wrong on several levels.
    First: a cow eats grass. Humans can't eat grass, and a large proportion of the Earth is covered with the stuff. Cows therefore converts the stuff we can't eat in highly nutritional stuf we can eat.
    Second: cows (and other ruminants) create topsoil. Agriculture depletes topsoil. Ask Lierre Keith.
    Third: pastured animals do not contribute to greenhouse gasses, quite the contrary.
    Fourth: a pound of meat contains far more nutrients than a pound of corn, so comparing the two in order to claim that it's 'wasteful' to eat meat is rather ludicrous.
    Fifth: agriculture was in big trouble sixty years, seventy years ago, but then some bright spark took crude mineral oil and produced artificial fertilizer and the Green Revolution took off, " led by Norman Borlaug, the "Father of the Green Revolution," who received the Nobel Peace Prize in 1970, credited with saving over a billion people from starvation, involved the development of high-yielding varieties of cereal grains, expansion of irrigation infrastructure, modernization of management techniques, distribution of hybridized seeds, synthetic fertilizers, and pesticides to farmers." Too bad that the oil industry isn't really environmentally friendly, the high-yielding grains are not as harmless as they seemed (read 'Wheat Belly') and fertilizers only give the plants the three minerals plants need while we humans need sixty or so, which isn't in the soil anymore so that we humans can eat until the cows come home but we're all quietly starving for nutrients.
    And lastly, two centuries ago, millions of buffalo roamed the American prairie. There were more buffalo then than there are cows in the US now. Strangely enough, those buffalo didn't create an enviromental crises, so what's the beef with the beef industrie? They produce methane gas because they are ill equiped for eating grains? Then don't feed them grains! Keep them on pasture or feed them fodder. The only reason why cows were kept in feeding lots in the first place was because that Green Revolution produced So Much Corn. They still do. They don't know what to do with it anymore. They make it into high fructose corn syrop. They put in into everything they can imagine. They dump in on the market of Third World Countries, ruining those economies by driving grain prices down and local farmers out of business. And then they have the gall to claim that eating meat is ruining the environment?
    Listen, if they were truly concerned about cowfarts, they would think killing all the zebras and wildebeest on the Serengeti would be the best idea since sliced bread, but no, apparantly it's only the animals we consume that are the problem. Yeah, right.

    And lastly, with a couple of hutches in the backyard, a family can keep itself in rabbit stew the year round. Rabbits are grass-eaters as well. Their only nutritional problem is that they are too lean.

    So let's not scrape and bow to the vegan pseudo-science crowd, shall we, and stop all that nonsense about low carb not being about eating meat and eating nuts is better etc, etc, because unless they start growing those nuts in my country (hah!), nuts and coconut oil has to be imported from across the globe, and you don't want to know the ecological footprint of THAT.

    Reply: #3
  3. bill
    BRAVO! ONE OF THE BEST POSTS EVER!

    Please excuse the hollering.

  4. Renee Piab
    BRILLIANT!!! Now, that's a post worth shouting about!
  5. Chris
    Such posts are getting lamer and lamer as a bunch of Global-Warming-Denial-Idiots (word of the year?) are coming to troll around...
    Are electic cars better than fossils? Of course, WAAAY better.
    Are emissions of those fossil cars toxic? Of course.
    Would it be good for the world if we shoot those denial-idiots into interstellar space? Of course...
    Reply: #8
  6. Bob Niland
    TheFatEmperor has an interview with a forage agronomist on this very topic today (48 min):
    http://www.thefatemperor.com/blog/2016/9/16/peter-balledstedt-forage-...

    Great Line: "The problem isn't the grain-fed cattle; it's the grain fed humans"

    To save readers a click, running ruminants on native grasses is more sustainable, and solves multiple problems at once, not the least of which is unsustainable growth trends in national expenditures to manage utterly optional ailments (misleadingly called "healthcare").

    The video also makes some great points on picking your battles on Omega 6.

  7. Apicius
    Allan Savory gives a fantastic TED Talk on how raising livestock in Africa has restored the health of the land, which was suffering from desertification. Free range livestock farming is the sustainable choice that will ensure health for us humans and our environment.

    https://www.ted.com/talks/allan_savory_how_to_green_the_world_s_deser...

  8. DT

    Such posts are getting lamer and lamer as a bunch of Global-Warming-Denial-Idiots (word of the year?) are coming to troll around...
    Are electic cars better than fossils? Of course, WAAAY better.
    Are emissions of those fossil cars toxic? Of course.
    Would it be good for the world if we shoot those denial-idiots into interstellar space? Of course...

    Ok let me get this correct. If I took your blood glucose once a day every day 1 hour after you ate a carb heavy meal and it read very high does that make you a diabetic? No it does not, because I am gathering information from a very limited time format. Humans have not been accurately gathering weather for a significant portion of our own existence let alone the Earth's. We honestly have no idea what the Earth's warming and cooling trends are.

    Secondly, have a look at a lithium mine (where we get lithium ions from for electric car batteries). Don't go bashing on oil and what not when rare metals mining is having just as bad as an effect and is used in almost every manufacturing system on the planet for what we buy.

    Thirdly, Are cars producing toxins? Yes, but so are you, everyday all the time, so do your friends, so do your pets, so does any organism in nature of any sort, and power plants, gas, oil, coal, and nuclear all do. Hydro power drastically alters wildlife landscapes and completely eliminates some rivers while completely drowning areas with lakes. Wind and solar power seem to be the only two things that don't have environmental negative effects, oh wait I forgot about the rare metals I mentioned earlier. Does this mean we should jettison every living organism on the planet into space?

  9. James0127
    All climate change is natural and closely correlated to the suns cycles...
    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=l-E5y9piHNU

Leave a Reply

Reply to comment #0 by

Older posts