Are there any vegetarian or vegan footballers?

[BrockBlitz]

The only argument for veganism is a moral one.

Every vegan health related study is pretty much trash. All diet based studies are terribly poor quality because they are surveys. This is true in any direction of food related studies unless they are investigating direct biochem.

 

[Bicco]

A really interesting article outlining the food production sustainability issue facing all of us, no matter what diet you follow.

Sustainability of meat-based and plant-based diets and the environment

ABSTRACT. Worldwide, an estimated 2 billion people live primarily on a meat-based diet, while an estimated 4 billion live primarily on a plant-based diet. The U

academic.oup.com

Slowly the myths around sports performance going hand in hand with an animal based diet are being exposed. Now big name sports people are standing up against the corperations, the tide will turn.

 

[BrockBlitz]

A really interesting article outlining the food production sustainability issue facing all of us, no matter what diet you follow.

Sustainability of meat-based and plant-based diets and the environment

ABSTRACT. Worldwide, an estimated 2 billion people live primarily on a meat-based diet, while an estimated 4 billion live primarily on a plant-based diet. The U

academic.oup.com

Slowly the myths around sports performance going hand in hand with an animal based diet are being exposed. Now big name sports people are standing up against the corperations, the tide will turn.

For every one athlete that is vegetable based you can find and equal mainly animal based.

For each of those you can find thousands of true omnivore.

Everyone’s body responds differently, nutrition as a science is largely a crock of s**t because the goal moats constantly move.

 

[StiffArm]

The only argument for veganism is a moral one.

Every vegan health related study is pretty much trash. All diet based studies are terribly poor quality because they are surveys. This is true in any direction of food related studies unless they are investigating direct biochem.

You seem to be completely ignoring the environmental reasons, which for many people are the most compelling.

If the majority of people were to go vegan, global warming would just about cease to be a problem.
Currently animal agriculture contributes more greenhouse gasses than all forms of transportation combined.

Animal agriculture is also one of the largest polluters worldwide. Grazing is the primary reason for deforestation of rainforests worldwide, either to make space for cattle, or grain crops to feed livestock.

You can feed a vegan on 1/18th of the land.

 

[BrockBlitz]

You seem to be completely ignoring the environmental reasons, which for many people are the most compelling.

If the majority of people were to go vegan, global warming would just about cease to be a problem.
Currently animal agriculture contributes more greenhouse gasses than all forms of transportation combined.

Animal agriculture is also one of the largest polluters worldwide. Grazing is the primary reason for deforestation of rainforests worldwide, either to make space for cattle, or grain crops to feed livestock.

You can feed a vegan on 1/18th of the land.

Dig a little deeper than the propaganda. I double dare you.

 

[StiffArm]

Dig a little deeper than the propaganda. I double dare you.

I'd like to think I have. Do you have anything of substance to add, or are you one of the nuffies claiming that global warming itself is a hoax?

On simple first principles you can see that a vegan diet is less energy intensive. Animals are about 10% efficient at turning grain energy into flesh. It doesn't take a master propagandist to see that eating the grain directly is going to be less energy intensive than feeding it through an animal.

 

[Bicco]

Dig a little deeper than the propaganda. I double dare you.

I can say the same for you. Thats what the movie is all about. The propaganda from the meat industry and how its all not true.
I've followed a plant based diet for two years and the hardest thing to get my head around was understanding the level of misinformation from the meat industry to serve their marketing purposes.
I hope you see the film when it comes out.

 

[Ghost of Punt Road]

Why don't you tell me?
And concentrate on Australia if you don't mind.
If we had to feed 25 million people on the small amount of arable land we have, with the undoubted limited water sources we have...just how would we feed them on a plant based diet?
Do you understand that intensive horticulture is the greatest contributor to a total monoculture on the face of the planet?
Everything, and I do mean everything, dies when you intensively cultivate for plant based foods.
What, exactly, would happen to the millions upon millions of acres of broadacre grazing land that then becomes useless?

Growing plants takes 90% fewer resources than growing animals (including water). So we'd find it very very easy!

All the grazing land can be returned to nature, which reduces our carbon issues significantly.

 

[BrockBlitz]

You seem to be completely ignoring the environmental reasons, which for many people are the most compelling.

If the majority of people were to go vegan, global warming would just about cease to be a problem.
Currently animal agriculture contributes more greenhouse gasses than all forms of transportation combined.

Animal agriculture is also one of the largest polluters worldwide. Grazing is the primary reason for deforestation of rainforests worldwide, either to make space for cattle, or grain crops to feed livestock.

You can feed a vegan on 1/18th of the land.

Here's the problem. Australia isn't the world. Blanket statements don't cut it. If you said Brazil, you'd be right but here that's just wrong.

Think about all the humans in the world and then think about how many of them have a vehicle. Then think about how many of them have access to a chunk of meat. Statistics can make things seem far worse than they are unless you break them down.

the US Department of Agriculture did a big ass study on the life cycle of beef. A 5 year study on the total footprint of a cow. They produce 3.3% of all GHG emissions compared with 9% of all agriculture and 56% for transport and electricity. NOTE: We actually produce more than the USA per capita by around 30%

Some quick maths - a one way flight from Melbourne to Brisbane produces the same amount of GHG as 27,000km of driving in a 10L/100km diesel vehicle. If you're worried about the environment you're better off driving everywhere than not eating meat.

We can't grow vegetables on the majority of the land we use for grazing - it's too barren. 98% of Australian beef is raised on pasture - around 2% at any given time are eating grain or in feed lots. Pasture lands consume C02 while were on that topic.

Grain. For every pound of cut beef (ie after it's been beheaded, skinned, gutted etc) 2.6 pounds of grain is required. Comparable to pork and poultry. And here in AUS we rarely use feed. It's a bit of a moot point but since you brought it up it's important to note.


I'll agree with the deforestation - I'm really not a fan of it, but it depends where you are.

Meat really isn't the enemy as a global warming issue.

I look at this as a health issue as much as anything else. A vegan diet isn't great for your health. With that comes a host of flow on effects. Some people can get away with it - and good luck to them - but there are hordes of folk returning to animal foods because of the negative effects.

 

[Bicco]

Here's the problem. Australia isn't the world. Blanket statements don't cut it. If you said Brazil, you'd be right but here that's just wrong.

Think about all the humans in the world and then think about how many of them have a vehicle. Then think about how many of them have access to a chunk of meat. Statistics can make things seem far worse than they are unless you break them down.

the US Department of Agriculture did a big ass study on the life cycle of beef. A 5 year study on the total footprint of a cow. They produce 3.3% of all GHG emissions compared with 9% of all agriculture and 56% for transport and electricity. NOTE: We actually produce more than the USA per capita by around 30%

Some quick maths - a one way flight from Melbourne to Brisbane produces the same amount of GHG as 27,000km of driving in a 10L/100km diesel vehicle. If you're worried about the environment you're better off driving everywhere than not eating meat.

We can't grow vegetables on the majority of the land we use for grazing - it's too barren. 98% of Australian beef is raised on pasture - around 2% at any given time are eating grain or in feed lots. Pasture lands consume C02 while were on that topic.

Grain. For every pound of cut beef (ie after it's been beheaded, skinned, gutted etc) 2.6 pounds of grain is required. Comparable to pork and poultry. And here in AUS we rarely use feed. It's a bit of a moot point but since you brought it up it's important to note.


I'll agree with the deforestation - I'm really not a fan of it, but it depends where you are.

Meat really isn't the enemy as a global warming issue.

I look at this as a health issue as much as anything else. A vegan diet isn't great for your health. With that comes a host of flow on effects. Some people can get away with it - and good luck to them - but there are hordes of folk returning to animal foods because of the negative effects.

What a post.
So I'll look at what you've written and try to make sense of it.
Australia is not the world. Got it. Except the poster was talking about worldwide pollution which agriculture absolutely contributes to on a massive scale. Are you talking about deforestation in Brazil? Because Australia is right up there in contributing to GHG through deforestation. I posted a link in an earlier post but you probably didn't read it.
I don't understand the vehicle and meat thing.
Yes, US Beef did do a study which found only a 3% contribution to GHG and if you believe that that study wasn’t compromised or intended to have a predetermined outcome then you need to have a good hard look at yourself. I made mention to that study above also, and I found other studies claiming a 50% contribution to GHG from US agriculture. Hence my personal thoughts that the truth should lie somewhere in the middle.
Now looking at the quick maths. Not sure what it's got to do with being vegan but anyway. A plane holds 180 people (30 rows of 6). Melbourne to Brisbane by road = 1600km. 1600x 180= 288000km if they all drive a car each. I think all of those people traveling in one plane is probably the way to go.
I don't know much about soil qualities but I would think that if its possible to grow grass then other things could probably grow in the same soil. And if the soil cant grow grass, it's probably no good for cattle either.
Again I don't know the weight of the offal compared to the 'cut', but if we assume its 50/50 and your stat of 2.6 pounds of grain is correct, that's still 5.2 pounds of grain per pound of cow. Grossly inefficient in anyones mind.
Good to know you're not a fan of deforestation, but where is it ok in your opinion?
Meat production is a massive problem for global warming.
A vegan diet can be very bad for your health if you only eat twisties and drink coke. A plant based diet however is universally recognized as the best diet for maintaining optimum health for your entire life. Id put some links but I don't think you'd read them.

 

[StiffArm]

Here's the problem. Australia isn't the world. Blanket statements don't cut it. If you said Brazil, you'd be right but here that's just wrong.

Think about all the humans in the world and then think about how many of them have a vehicle. Then think about how many of them have access to a chunk of meat. Statistics can make things seem far worse than they are unless you break them down.

the US Department of Agriculture did a big ass study on the life cycle of beef. A 5 year study on the total footprint of a cow. They produce 3.3% of all GHG emissions compared with 9% of all agriculture and 56% for transport and electricity. NOTE: We actually produce more than the USA per capita by around 30%

Some quick maths - a one way flight from Melbourne to Brisbane produces the same amount of GHG as 27,000km of driving in a 10L/100km diesel vehicle. If you're worried about the environment you're better off driving everywhere than not eating meat.

We can't grow vegetables on the majority of the land we use for grazing - it's too barren. 98% of Australian beef is raised on pasture - around 2% at any given time are eating grain or in feed lots. Pasture lands consume C02 while were on that topic.

Grain. For every pound of cut beef (ie after it's been beheaded, skinned, gutted etc) 2.6 pounds of grain is required. Comparable to pork and poultry. And here in AUS we rarely use feed. It's a bit of a moot point but since you brought it up it's important to note.


I'll agree with the deforestation - I'm really not a fan of it, but it depends where you are.

Meat really isn't the enemy as a global warming issue.

I look at this as a health issue as much as anything else. A vegan diet isn't great for your health. With that comes a host of flow on effects. Some people can get away with it - and good luck to them - but there are hordes of folk returning to animal foods because of the negative effects.

Off the bat I'll say your numbers come across as highly misleading.

For example, you might be right that a car gets 27,000km for the same amount of energy as a flight Melbourne to Brisbane. What you're not taking into account is the car is taking one or two people and the plane takes a couple of hundred.
Depending on how many people in the car, it should be slightly less energy intensive than flying. Here's a first googled link, I don't think this needs a peer reviewed article.

No, Flying Is Not Greener Than Driving

thinkprogress.org

Similarly, if you are just looking at Carbon dioxide on the 100 year time scale that those in animal Ag prefer, then perhaps your numbers might come back as somewhat plausible...

The main issue is that Cow's don't just produce CO2, the majority of their output is belched methane. Methane is somewhere between 25 and 100 times worst than CO2 in global warming potential. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-bad-of-a-greenhouse-gas-is-methane/
Thankfully, Methane doesn't last in the atmosphere nearly as long as CO2 and will naturally break down within a few decades.
For this reason, people with an interest in making Animal Agriculture seem less environmentally damaging use a 100 year timeline to calculate greenhouse gas damage rather than a 20 year timeline (which has Animal Ag based greenhouse potential up around 50% of global emissions in terms of damage)

Study claims meat creates half of all greenhouse gases

Livestock causes far more climate damage than first thought, says a new report

www.independent.co.uk

Now, I agree with you that Australia is somewhat different to the rest of the world in terms of available land and grazing potential, but on a global scale there isn't enough grazing land on 3 "worlds" to raise grass fed cattle for current meat demand, and the idea that raising cattle on grass is carbon neutral or positive is not a serious position.

 

[Lindsay_Gilbee]

Luke Parker

26

Luke Parker

Age

31

Ht

183cm

Wt

88kg

Pos.

Mid

Career

Season

Last 5

D

24.2

5star

K

12.6

5star

HB

11.6

5star

M

3.8

4star

T

5.6

5star

CL

5.8

5star

D

22.1

5star

K

12.3

5star

HB

9.9

5star

M

3.9

4star

T

5.0

5star

CL

5.5

5star

D

21.2

5star

K

11.4

4star

HB

9.8

5star

M

2.0

3star

T

8.0

5star

CL

5.2

5star

.

 

[underthestars]

stop eating beef. eat kangaroo. better for you, far better for the environment. everyone happy. almost.
personally i eat chicken, turkey, and seafood. no mammals. but each to their own.

 

[Virus]

A better question is do any of them live solely off of zinger boxes?

 

[GoGeta]

I like my meat but there is no question that a world feeding on meat is..
A: Extremely cruel by way of factory farming which is quite literally hell on Earth for those poor creatures.
B: Overall completely unsustainable for a host of reasons including land and energy needs, water and land degradation, the methane livestock produce, the carbon produced transporting them and so on..
C: Impacting immensely on natural biodiversity through grazing and land clearing.

They reality is we all need to cut back on meat consumption considerable, we westerners probably eat 3 to 4 times what is a healthy and sustainable level.

It's no longer just a question of morality, it's also a question now of responsibility. I don't do my share so I am not preaching but we all need to try harder and eat more fruit and veg.

Can't just turn a blind eye to scientific data when it doesn't suit our daily lives.

 

[GoGeta]

stop eating beef. eat kangaroo. better for you, far better for the environment. everyone happy. almost.
personally i eat chicken, turkey, and seafood. no mammals. but each to their own.

Agree 100% on Kangaroo. Each country should be free range farming and on-sight humanly killing their own native animals, the impact on land would be so much less damaging not to mention as you pointed out, meat like Kangaroo is very low in fat ect.

 

[JackFlash]

I'm sure there is, but i don't care. I have no problem with veganism. It's great for you and yours. Why would I ever give a stuff what another human eats, so long as it's not me?

 

[Upgrayedd]

Why you shouldnt eat meat
Rapid De-forestation and unethical farming practises, Welfare of animals, Sustainable practises and health (Everyone does eat too much meat in Australia) and the damage it causes the enviroment

Why you should
It's probably tasty, Unfortunately as well with the bullshit industry it's also relevitvely cheap for lower socio economic families to have a steak then money and time to prepare something healthier and overall better for you


Dont eat meat myself, I think people spouting "Well footballers need the protein!" is horse-s**t, I eat more protein then I ever did once I stopped eating meat. Im not (try not) to be preachy about it, hand on heart however I believe it is morally wrong to eat meat, But I wont change anyones opinion and it will be education which leads to more sustainable eating practises in the western world then guys being utensils with loudspeakers in city squares

 

[LightTower4]

Anyone know if Vlado's has re-opened?

 

[Goomba1973]

Gawn is

I think Brodie Grundy

4

Brodie Grundy

Age

30

Ht

202cm

Wt

105kg

Pos.

Ruck

Career

Season

Last 5

D

17.5

4star

K

8.0

3star

HB

9.6

5star

CL

4.1

5star

HO

32.0

5star

D

16.4

4star

K

6.8

3star

HB

9.6

5star

CL

4.0

5star

HO

34.6

5star

D

13.8

4star

K

5.2

2star

HB

8.6

5star

CL

2.6

5star

HO

20.6

5star

is as well ...

 

[JackFlash]

I'm making burgers tonight....

 

[GoldStandard]

any cannibals in the AFL?

 

[La Dispute]

any cannibals in the AFL?

 

[La Dispute]

These burgers are amazing. Better than any other meat burger you'll find.

They have them at Woolworths.

Old bump, but these burgers are some of the best replacement meat products I've ever had. Pretty much my go to for a Friday Night fry up last year.

They don't taste at all like hamburgers, but they're also completely distinct from other vegetarian burgers which usually taste super bland. Think there's a decent amount of cheese in them IIRC.

Are they still running the Rebel Whoppers? Those were pretty tasty too.

 

[TheFVK]

If we had to feed 25 million people on the small amount of arable land we have, with the undoubted limited water sources we have...just how would we feed them on a plant based diet?
Do you understand that intensive horticulture is the greatest contributor to a total monoculture on the face of the planet?
Everything, and I do mean everything, dies when you intensively cultivate for plant based foods.
What, exactly, would happen to the millions upon millions of acres of broadacre grazing land that then becomes useless?

Holy lolberries.

If Australia can't feed its piddling population with its available arable land then we are well and truly ****ed.

We've got near on 500,000 km2 of arable land, compare that to the Netherlands which has 40,000 km2 total yet is the world's second largest food exporter. Even accounting for the differences in water availability we should absolutely not be crying poor over our ability to feed ourselves.

I get that farmers defend their livelihood, I come from a family of farmers myself. But the destruction of wild spaces and biodiversity caused by clearing land for agriculture, the associated carbon and water footprint, and the mass slaughter of the intensive animal farming will be looked on in 100 years as one of the most shameful chapters in human history.