extremely frugal vegan keto,keto, and carnivore diets

Simple living, extreme early retirement, being wealthy, ...
monkeymanwasd123
Posts: 49
Joined: Tue Apr 09, 2019 12:14 pm

Re: extremely frugal vegan keto,keto, and carnivore diets

Post by monkeymanwasd123 » Fri Apr 19, 2019 7:53 pm

ok i read a summary of the book the impression that i got was that it was that if we ate the grain in place of the critters we would be able to fight global hunger easily, while still producing 1/2 the meat via allowing the critters to eat from resources nut used by humans... ok one time I did a calculation for the carrying capacity of the world via permaculture and i calculated that the earth could support 14 billion people on a conservative estimate. note the math was of a monocrop of chestnuts or apples. i think veganism has the highest total carrying capacity, while the carnivore diet takes the least amount of work. i also think that the vegan diet has a lower speed of revegetating the planet and i would prefer that we fix climate change first before anything else

bigato
Posts: 2126
Joined: Sat Mar 05, 2011 12:43 pm

Re: extremely frugal vegan keto,keto, and carnivore diets

Post by bigato » Fri Apr 19, 2019 7:56 pm

When you are looking for advice on diet on the internet, remember that you are talking to very biased individuals most of the time, or reading stuff they've written. For example, if you ask me, you'll have the vegan bias. Don't rely much on any individuals, try to see what Science knows about it. Which isn't always easy. But it is more likely to be less biased than any person's advice. There is a podcast that focuses on reviewing what Science knows about each subject so far, and I really like it. It's called "Science VS".

bigato
Posts: 2126
Joined: Sat Mar 05, 2011 12:43 pm

Re: extremely frugal vegan keto,keto, and carnivore diets

Post by bigato » Fri Apr 19, 2019 7:59 pm

The single change with the biggest impact that any individual could do to combat climate change, other than dying and thus never consuming again, is becoming vegan. So there's that if you are worried about the impact on the planet.

monkeymanwasd123
Posts: 49
Joined: Tue Apr 09, 2019 12:14 pm

Re: extremely frugal vegan keto,keto, and carnivore diets

Post by monkeymanwasd123 » Fri Apr 19, 2019 9:56 pm

if you do not invest in forestry, regenerative farming or regenerative grazing then you will always be carbon positive instead of carbon neutral or carbon negitive

IlliniDave
Posts: 2597
Joined: Wed Apr 02, 2014 7:46 pm

Re: extremely frugal vegan keto,keto, and carnivore diets

Post by IlliniDave » Sat Apr 20, 2019 5:52 am

monkeymanwasd123 wrote:
Fri Apr 19, 2019 7:31 pm

im more interested in the difficultys/ and solutions for more extreme environments such as drylands in the tropics or cold climates
im most interested in solutions that do not include importing food from long distances and greenhouses
Possibly you're familiar with it already, but arguably the most impressive example of reclamation through transformation of crop-based agricultural management in a semi-arid place (rainfall < 20 in/year in this case) is the Loess Plateau in China (documentaries readily available on Youtube). I admit to not knowing enough about vegan keto regimens to speculate about whether such a climate is suitable for small scale (or even large scale) agriculture geared towards vegan keto, but the project required huge amounts of both human sweat equity and central government financial investment (I think it's in its 2nd or 3rd decade and still ongoing) to essentially terraform an area to undo desertification caused by thousands of years of human habitation.

Savory on the other hand has pioneered techniques to restore desertified land through use of improved agricultural management focused on livestock. Unfortunately livestock has been blamed for the adverse effects of human management of livestock, so his ideas have a strong headwind due to prevailing attitudes. But his foundation and their efforts have proven the viability of reclamation of desertified land on a smaller scale (small village or family) with less financial backing from a strong centralized government. The net result is restored (and net carbon negative) semi-arid land that is productive for agriculture with a blend of crops and livestock. Most of the actual "work" is done by the livestock, but the livestock must be actively and carefully managed by human intervention. This is probably the technique most likely to succeed in areas whose original suitability for human habitation was rooted in a natural landscape of grasslands/savannahs populated by large herds of grazing animals and the predators that exploited them. It's simply mimicking the solution nature provided using livestock to replace the roaming herds. These habitats are also the habitats humans evolved in, and in which we first started practicing agriculture and developed civilization; and were the first areas we turned into deserts, and are continuing to desertify at accelerating rates. They apparently account for something upwards of 2/3 of the earth's land surface, which is why I devoted more words to him.

A third way of doing it is typified by the Selah ranch, where a wealthy man restored a ranch essentially ruined by livestock mismanagement through nudging the landscape back towards its natural state, but the net result is more of a nature preserve without emphasis of agricultural food production. It is potentially a path towards hunter/gatherer sustenance which would naturally be lower in grain and starch-based carbohydrates.

The point of the ramble is that there are "many roads to Dublin". My instinct is that looking to the solutions provided by nature prior to human interference and either mimicking their effect or restoring them outright is the most efficient long-term way to address desertification.

The prevailing wisdom at the present time is:

human activity->atmospheric carbon-based climate change->desertification

But there seems to be a second cycle that predates industrialization by millennia that is relatively ignored:

human activity->desertification->climate change

Much of the approach has to be based on location. In places where the majority of the year is relatively wet and any dry season that exists is moderate in dryness and short (eastern US, northern S. America, NW Europe, SE Asia, etc.) we have a lot of latitude because the environment is resilient and forgiving. In places where drought is the norm (western and southwestern N. America, southern S America, most of Africa, west and southwest Asia, most of Australia, etc.) the range of choices are narrower.

It also depends on what you mean by efficiency.

If it's just a matter of feeding yourself in the desired manner by spending the least time/effort and money to accomplish that, than it is a real estate problem: location, location, location. Pick a benign location and do what suits your fancy.

If you want to approach it as a more holistic investment and consider the net ecological benefit as an offset to invested time and money when calculating the net cost of your nutrition, maybe even prioritizing ecological benefit aspects, then your options expand to include combined ecological restoration-food production projects. Our fellow board members like 7wb5 can speak more eloquently to the system frameworks to formally evaluate such things. I'm much more simple-minded and when I see something like small impoverished villages in Africa transition away from being fed by grain imported from the Midwestern US and turn their little patch of dry, dusty earth into something that looks suitable for human habitation while feeding themselves, I conclude the ideas behind it are sound although I can't evaluate their efficiency.

I must also admit that while such noble ideas stir my heart, I still just drive to the grocery store and forage the shelves for the lowest-dollar means of meeting my nutritional goals.

Kriegsspiel
Posts: 874
Joined: Fri Aug 03, 2012 9:05 pm

Re: extremely frugal vegan keto,keto, and carnivore diets

Post by Kriegsspiel » Sat Apr 20, 2019 8:02 am

monkeymanwasd123 wrote:
Fri Apr 19, 2019 7:53 pm
ok i read a summary of the book the impression that i got was that it was that if we ate the grain in place of the critters we would be able to fight global hunger easily, while still producing 1/2 the meat via allowing the critters to eat from resources nut used by humans...
That particular point from the book is that we would produce MORE food if we didn't feed livestock on grain grown for that purpose. So it's not that we could still produce 1/2 the livestock (that was an estimate, it's worth reading about how that estimate was attained in Chap 3, very thought-provoking) even if we didn't feed them grain, it was that the animals close the loop on waste and increase efficiency. So when you accept that premise...
i think veganism has the highest total carrying capacity
... is incorrect, because you produce more food when animals close the loop on waste & bring more biomass into the food chain. The book is pretty fascinating, especially if you describe yourself as a permaculture hippie who wants to do holistic grazing and agriculture. As he says in the introduction:
The conflict between vegans and animal farmers has loomed large in my life: as an agricultural worker, smallholder, environmental journalist, and hippie, I have frequently come into contact with both. Too many farmers have a narrow perspective of the social and environmental issues that confront us; and too many vegans have an equally limited understanding of the way nature works.

Kriegsspiel
Posts: 874
Joined: Fri Aug 03, 2012 9:05 pm

Re: extremely frugal vegan keto,keto, and carnivore diets

Post by Kriegsspiel » Sat Apr 20, 2019 8:12 am

BTW iDave that was a neat video. I remember seeing that concept before in reference to some Californian farmers (searching "california grazing carbon sequestration" brings up a lot of results but I couldn't find the one I remember), and with Joel Salatin.

User avatar
C40
Posts: 2323
Joined: Thu Feb 17, 2011 4:30 am
Location: PNW
Contact:

Re: extremely frugal vegan keto,keto, and carnivore diets

Post by C40 » Sat Apr 20, 2019 11:10 am

bigato wrote:
Fri Apr 19, 2019 7:59 pm
The single change with the biggest impact that any individual could do to combat climate change, other than dying and thus never consuming again, is becoming vegan. So there's that if you are worried about the impact on the planet.
For most of the people reading this, that is not accurate. Unless someone is living very frugally but happens to be eating a large portions of beef or lamb for most meals, becoming vegan is more like the 3rd to 5th biggest impact, behind most of these:
- Not having children
- Not flying on airplanes
- Driving less or not at all
- Living in a smaller home and buying less stuff

Jacob posted a link about a year ago to a study with actual numbers showing what amount of impact different changes have and comparing those to what is actually being recommended... but it's difficult for me to find.

jacob
Site Admin
Posts: 11327
Joined: Fri Jun 28, 2013 8:38 pm
Location: USA, Zone 5b, Koppen Dfa, Elev. 620ft, Walkscore 73
Contact:

Re: extremely frugal vegan keto,keto, and carnivore diets

Post by jacob » Sat Apr 20, 2019 11:15 am


User avatar
C40
Posts: 2323
Joined: Thu Feb 17, 2011 4:30 am
Location: PNW
Contact:

Re: extremely frugal vegan keto,keto, and carnivore diets

Post by C40 » Sat Apr 20, 2019 11:25 am

Thanks :-)

In short, the impact numbers are:
Each child: +58.6
Driving a car: +2.4
Transatlantic flying (once annually): +1.6
Eating a meat-based diet: +0.8
Not recycling: +0.2
Using incandescent lights: +0.1

bigato
Posts: 2126
Joined: Sat Mar 05, 2011 12:43 pm

Re: extremely frugal vegan keto,keto, and carnivore diets

Post by bigato » Sat Apr 20, 2019 11:32 am

Eating a vegan diet could be the “single biggest way” to reduce your environmental impact on earth, a new study [2018] suggests. Researchers at the University of Oxford found that cutting meat and dairy products from your diet could reduce an individual's carbon footprint from food by up to 73 per cent. Meanwhile, if everyone stopped eating these foods, they found that global farmland use could
be reduced by 75 per cent, an area equivalent to the size of the US, China, Australia and the EU combined. The new study,
published in the journal Science, is one of the most comprehensive analyses to date into the detrimental effects farming can
have on the environment and included data on nearly 40,000 farms in 119 countries. [...] “A vegan diet is probably the single
biggest way to reduce your impact on planet Earth, not just greenhouse gases, but global acidification, eutrophication, land
use and water use. “It is far bigger than cutting down on your flights or buying an electric car,” he explained, which would
only reduce greenhouse gas emissions. “Avoiding consumption of animal products delivers far better environmental benefits than
trying to purchase sustainable meat and dairy,” he added.
https://www.independent.co.uk/life-styl ... 78631.html

tonyedgecombe
Posts: 249
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2012 2:11 pm
Location: Oxford, UK
Contact:

Re: extremely frugal vegan keto,keto, and carnivore diets

Post by tonyedgecombe » Sat Apr 20, 2019 11:44 am

C40 wrote:
Sat Apr 20, 2019 11:25 am
Thanks :-)

In short, the impact numbers are:
Each child: +58.6
Driving a car: +2.4
Transatlantic flying (once annually): +1.6
Eating a meat-based diet: +0.8
Not recycling: +0.2
Using incandescent lights: +0.1
The number for a child seems either too low if it is based on a lifetimes consumption or too high if it is an annual figure.

monkeymanwasd123
Posts: 49
Joined: Tue Apr 09, 2019 12:14 pm

Re: extremely frugal vegan keto,keto, and carnivore diets

Post by monkeymanwasd123 » Sat Apr 20, 2019 12:43 pm

i'm use the loess plateau as a bad example of permacultures potential XD im fairly sure that if the animals were grazed according to savory's work it would make the project maybe 10-20% cheaper. i think that climate might be able to handle vegan keto, they likely have higher biodiversity along with the frost shedding,higher light intensity, and higher solar catchement area thanks to being on those slopes. the main reason i dont favor that example is because of the high cost relative to the amount of work that was done. that area is the most suited to such and intensive change so if anything was going to happen it would have needed to be terraces of some form.

savorys work is more suited to large scale projects and it should be easier to maintain a large herd. (in theory) i have concerns about methane production but i suspect that once insects/chickens/pigs can take hold that they will reduce the emissions from that. savory's method is best definitely suited to simi habitable areas but in gaming there is a bell curve for level grinding effectiveness and i suspect savory is near the peak on that. its cheaper to have many "slaves" and a few managers, rather many paid workers and 1 manager. so for the type of work they are used for cattle are likely the best.
"They apparently account for something upwards of 2/3 of the earth's land surface, which is why I devoted more words to him" i didnt realize it was this much.

Selah ranch's work is likely the least financially viable, unless selah plans to allow succession into rainforest along with allowing hunting. i dont think the ecosystem services are worth the money they invested unless they were in a less brittle climate where it only would have needed that nudge.

"The point of the ramble is that there are "many roads to Dublin". My instinct is that looking to the solutions provided by nature prior to human interference and either mimicking their effect or restoring them outright is the most efficient long-term way to address desertification."
i can agree with this, appropriate technology and such.

"Much of the approach has to be based on location. In places where the majority of the year is relatively wet and any dry season that exists is moderate in dryness and short (eastern US, northern S. America, NW Europe, SE Asia, etc.) we have a lot of latitude because the environment is resilient and forgiving. In places where drought is the norm (western and southwestern N. America, southern S America, most of Africa, west and southwest Asia, most of Australia, etc.) the range of choices are narrower." im fairly sure that silvopasture
should be high on that list in most locations.

"It also depends on what you mean by efficiency." least amount of work/capital needed from humans to create a food producing system in a less favorable location followed by
systems to catch the maximum amount of carbon.

"If it's just a matter of feeding yourself in the desired manner by spending the least time/effort and money to accomplish that, than it is a real estate problem: location, location, location. Pick a benign location and do what suits your fancy."
i want to avoid the most favorable locations as im fairly sure that they can repair themselves/are already doing what needs to be done without interference aside from doing some tree thinning and such.

"If you want to approach it as a more holistic investment and consider the net ecological benefit as an offset to invested time and money when calculating the net cost of your nutrition, maybe even prioritizing ecological benefit aspects, then your options expand to include combined ecological restoration-food production projects. Our fellow board members like 7wb5 can speak more eloquently to the system frameworks to formally evaluate such things. I'm much more simple-minded and when I see something like small impoverished villages in Africa transition away from being fed by grain imported from the Midwestern US and turn their little patch of dry, dusty earth into something that looks suitable for human habitation while feeding themselves, I conclude the ideas behind it are sound although I can't evaluate their efficiency."
im fairly sure that i can help the most people over the longest time by investing in a business and creating profitable jobs that improve the environment/local economy.

"I must also admit that while such noble ideas stir my heart, I still just drive to the grocery store and forage the shelves for the lowest-dollar means of meeting my nutritional goals."
=P im young and stupid so im more willing to do dumb shit like investing in low return/"low skill"/"low stress" stuff like agriculture.
i also read too much fiction to be able to just relax...=P

jacob
Site Admin
Posts: 11327
Joined: Fri Jun 28, 2013 8:38 pm
Location: USA, Zone 5b, Koppen Dfa, Elev. 620ft, Walkscore 73
Contact:

Re: extremely frugal vegan keto,keto, and carnivore diets

Post by jacob » Sat Apr 20, 2019 12:46 pm

@tonyedgecombe - It's not just the impact of that child. It's the impact of that child's child/2 + that child's grandchild/4 + ... (See paper in original link for details. It's all explained there, so no need to guess at it.)

monkeymanwasd123
Posts: 49
Joined: Tue Apr 09, 2019 12:14 pm

Re: extremely frugal vegan keto,keto, and carnivore diets

Post by monkeymanwasd123 » Sat Apr 20, 2019 12:56 pm

That particular point from the book is that we would produce MORE food if we didn't feed livestock on grain grown for that purpose. So it's not that we could still produce 1/2 the livestock (that was an estimate, it's worth reading about how that estimate was attained in Chap 3, very thought-provoking) even if we didn't feed them grain, it was that the animals close the loop on waste and increase efficiency. So when you accept that premise...
(basically feeding food waste to pigs, i can agree with that)
... is incorrect, because you produce more food when animals close the loop on waste & bring more biomass into the food chain. The book is pretty fascinating, especially if you describe yourself as a permaculture hippie who wants to do holistic grazing and agriculture. As he says in the introduction:
yeah it was incorrect, i even contradicted myself from before when i said "savannahs are one of the ecosystems that absorb the most carbon" :lol:
i think i got caught up in trying to be agreeable. =P
the reason savannas are one of the best is because of animal impact+the high surface area.
70-90% plant based is likely the best for maintaining tropical rain forests while higher meat based diets are more suited to temperate/cold climate rainforests =P

monkeymanwasd123
Posts: 49
Joined: Tue Apr 09, 2019 12:14 pm

Re: extremely frugal vegan keto,keto, and carnivore diets

Post by monkeymanwasd123 » Sat Apr 20, 2019 1:14 pm

Each child: +58.6
Driving a car: +2.4
Transatlantic flying (once annually): +1.6
Eating a meat-based diet: +0.8
Not recycling: +0.2
Using incandescent lights: +0.1

it also depends on how many of your kids want to become hippies and have a net positive impact too... adopting/teaching is likely better unless you like having your kids be blood related to you. =P

for the plane and car bit geoff lawton may be a good example of how traveling can have a net
positive effect. its probably best to stick to online stuff like skype unless he needs to design a large property or speak to a head of state.

i think the meat based diet wasn't referring to allan savory so that could be lowered.

recycling is one i have to agree with for any lifestyle. it could also be reduced via zero waste and minimalism.

paul wheaton did some stuff on incandescents:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3gjvOOlHmsU
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ta2ozf_uJJ8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T_7I-hgtQo4

...i like extreme stuff soooo derp...

monkeymanwasd123
Posts: 49
Joined: Tue Apr 09, 2019 12:14 pm

Re: extremely frugal vegan keto,keto, and carnivore diets

Post by monkeymanwasd123 » Sat Apr 20, 2019 1:56 pm

https://www.savory.global/wp-content/up ... ethane.pdf
info on allan savory's method in relation to methane production

IlliniDave
Posts: 2597
Joined: Wed Apr 02, 2014 7:46 pm

Re: extremely frugal vegan keto,keto, and carnivore diets

Post by IlliniDave » Sat Apr 20, 2019 6:07 pm

monkeymanwasd123 wrote:
Sat Apr 20, 2019 12:43 pm
savorys work is more suited to large scale projects and it should be easier to maintain a large herd. (in theory) i have concerns about methane production but i suspect that once insects/chickens/pigs can take hold that they will reduce the emissions from that.
I think it depends on where you start. If applied to a degraded/desertifying patch of ground, especially one currently managed the way it's typically done on his home continent (using burnoff to clear last season's dead grass). As the land and soil heals vast quantities of carbon are sequestered in the soil, where methane is also absorbed and broken down, making it a net greenhouse negative (or so he said the people who know about such things tell him). The much vilified cow farts will be more than offset in such an arrangement.

If you just add herds to wetter, more forgiving ecologies, and/or continue using currently common practices where herds already exist, it's probably a greenhouse booster.

I agree Savory's methodolgy is probably the cheapest, I'm guessing more than 10-20% cheaper then what the Chinese have done at Loess, but then again, given the terrain at Loess, it might be difficult to apply Savory's methods because chances are much of that that ecology never supported immense herds of grazers to begin with. The Chinese government paid the workers for years before they were seeing sufficient crop yields. Savory's methods seem to turn things around faster when applied in suitable locations.

Veering off topic just thinking about climate impacts, we already know with a high degree of certainty what desertification does to climates at the macro climate level, and what the resulting ecological collapse has been and will continue to be. Regardless, and arguably independently, of how we address atmospheric-driven global climate change and its ecological impact, we need to address the desertification caused by human agricultural activity since it is devastating even with lower atmospheric carbon. And if one accepts Savory's results and conclusions, there's a lot of land out there that requires the return of dense grazing to stop the desertification process (or perhaps reclaim already desertified land) and return the land to sustainable viability. There's other degraded or degrading land out there unsuitable for rehabilitation through dense grazing and requires vegetation-based treatment and sometimes terrain altering, and there's probably degraded or degrading land that could be rehabilitated either way or using combinations.

I don't think it's an either/or between curbing fossil fuel emissions and reversing desertification, it's a both/and.

IlliniDave
Posts: 2597
Joined: Wed Apr 02, 2014 7:46 pm

Re: extremely frugal vegan keto,keto, and carnivore diets

Post by IlliniDave » Sat Apr 20, 2019 6:22 pm

monkeymanwasd123 wrote:
Sat Apr 20, 2019 12:56 pm
the reason savannas are one of the best is because of animal impact+the high surface area.
70-90% plant based is likely the best for maintaining tropical rain forests while higher meat based diets are more suited to temperate/cold climate rainforests =P
If you are being literal with the term "rain forest", the name gives it away--these areas are typically densely forested and I would argue they should be left as forest as much we can. I would say the same for the forests in areas that wouldn't be considered rain forests, with maybe some well-planned timber harvesting (and undergrowth removal in unharvested areas) for the sake of biodiversity where humans tend to intervene with forest fires.

If you are just using it as an umbrella term for places that are wet year round, or nearly year round, then I would agree that both the most cost efficient, and likely most holistically beneficial would be vegetation-based management. Woodland-based lighter grazers like deer tend to coexist pretty well in human-impacted areas.

monkeymanwasd123
Posts: 49
Joined: Tue Apr 09, 2019 12:14 pm

Re: extremely frugal vegan keto,keto, and carnivore diets

Post by monkeymanwasd123 » Sat Apr 20, 2019 6:46 pm

XD exactly "all of the above" is my solution to climate change. i meant like rain forests established via permaculture so that they will be productive food wise. not naturally formed ones.
yay for deer... i hear people farm deer... any opinions on that?

Post Reply