Exposing nutrition fallacies -
Sorry, no foods burn fat, make you lose weight more quickly or increase your metabolism enough to have an effect on weight loss.
Diets that focus on single foods, like those mentioned above, are restrictive and lack nutrients the body needs. They're also unsustainable, and any weight loss that may occur is a result of calorie restriction and likely will come back once you discontinue. The — dietary guidelines for Americans recommend having no more than 2, milligrams of sodium per day.
The average American consumes 3, milligrams of sodium per day. The problem isn't as easy as taking the salt shaker off the table. Much of the excess sodium that Americans consume from their diet comes from the salts added to processed, ready-to-eat foods and restaurant meals.
Limit the processed foods, and enjoy more fresh, home cooked meals. Many products labeled low-fat or fat-free contain added sugar or sodium to help make up for the loss of flavor when removing or reducing fat. In addition, fat helps with satiety — making you feel fuller longer.
Choosing a fat-free product to reduce calories can backfire as you may find yourself snacking soon after. Always look at the nutrition label when choosing between fat-free, low-fat and regular. Pay attention to sugar and sodium content.
Allie Wergin is a registered dietitian nutritionist in New Prague , Minnesota. Skip to main content. Posted By. Allyn Wergin, R. Diabetes Education, Nutrition. Recent Posts. Speaking of Health. Topics in this Post.
Eating healthy is too expensive. It may take some planning and time in the kitchen, but eating healthy on a budget is possible. Some helpful hints include: Plan meals and snacks around sales. Shop seasonally, especially with fruits and vegetables.
Create a shopping list and stick to it. Stock up on staples, such as brown rice, whole-wheat pasta, dried beans and lentils, when on sale. Consider purchasing frozen or canned fruits and vegetables as an alternative to fresh products. Be sure to check the ingredient list to avoid items with added sugars or salt.
Everyone should follow a gluten-free diet. Use unrefined sugars, such as honey, maple syrup or coconut sugar in place of white table sugar. Full-fat products equal weight gain. Avoid carbs if you want to lose weight.
But not only does the claim "meat is nice" commit the fallacy of suppressed evidence, it also betrays yet another fallacy—the fallacy of equivocation.
We may formalize such an argument as follows—dead animals taste good; therefore, eating dead animals is good. But to derive this conclusion, we must equivocate on what we mean by good, from pleasant in taste, to good, ethically speaking. Since this argument relies upon a fundamental equivocation, the conclusion does not follow from the given premise.
Thus have we now refuted the four N's of justification—that meat is natural, normal, necessary, and nice. In the first instance, we demonstrated that the perceived naturalness of eating dead animals from factory farms and slaughterhouses is insufficient to establish the goodness of this behavior, if only because there are many things we consider natural, but which we do not simultaneously consider good.
In the second instance, we demonstrated that the perceived normality of eating dead animals from factory farms and slaughterhouses is once more insufficient to demonstrate the goodness of this behavior, if only because what we consider normal is not always what we consider good.
In the third instance, we demonstrated that eating dead animals from factory farms and slaughter-houses is simply not necessary for proper nutrition, reducing the farm animal population, or feeding the human population. In the fourth and final instance, we demonstrated that the niceness of meat is an illusion, unsupported by the reality that meat entails for the animals, our health, and the environment.
Whereas the first two instances descend from common, informal fallacies, the appeal to nature and the appeal to normality, respectively, the latter two descend from the fallacy of suppressed evidence and the fallacy of equivocation, respectively.
Thus, we have demonstrated that the core justifications for carnism are also relatively straightforward fallacies. And in so doing, we have classified the vast majority of responses to the vegetarian proposition as utter fallacy.
But before I conclude our essay, I would like to address several criticisms, discuss my observations about other objections to the vegetarian proposition, and identify avenues forward in a carnistic world.
To address the criticisms I anticipate, I will answer the following questions. First, why is carnism so central to my analysis?
Second, why do I focus almost exclusively on factory farmed animals? What about humane alternatives? Finally, why do I dismiss the 4 N's of justification so readily when I have yet to examine their every facet? What about exceptions to my arguments? The first question will answer why I included carnism in an essay more fundamentally about the fallacious objections to the vegetarian proposition, while the second question will not only clarify my use of language, but also explain my particular fixation on factory farmed animals, rather than perceived humane alternatives.
Meanwhile, the final question will explain why we can, with confidence, dismiss the 4 N's of justification as illegitimate responses to the vegetarian proposition. We will ultimately conclude that carnism relies upon a rich constellation of mutually-reinforcing fallacies, such that, when overcome, the vegetarian proposition emerges as one of the greatest moral propositions in the history of mankind Throughout this essay, I have used the concept of carnism to provide a mental framework for both organizing and conceptualizing the most common fallacies we encounter in response to the vegetarian proposition, namely, the 4 N's of justification.
Next, I focus on factory farmed animals for many compelling reasons, but in the extremely limited space of this essay, let me give the primary one. Namely, after researching and debating the everyday treatment of animals for over eight years, I have noticed that even the most intelligent, educated, and philosophically literate individuals would rather consider farfetched scenarios, such as the infamous desert island, or quibble over minutiae, such as precisely which moral dilemmas Tom Regan's theory of animal rights fails to resolve, than address the overwhelming reality before them—that is, the undeniable evil of factory farming in which they daily participate.
With a few, specific examples, we can demonstrate the absurdity of this line of reasoning, which arises precisely because of the cognitive dissonance of being morally opposed to, yet behaviorally supportive of, factory farms and slaughterhouses, a moral anxiety carnistic defenses were crafted to alleviate.
And without fully realizing it, the carnist almost always at least implicitly advances the conclusion that he or she is justified in continuing to support factory farming, even if he or she does not explicitly say so, thus committing the fallacy of red herring, among a host of other fallacies of relevance.
I report these observations with great confidence, for years of debate have taught me the great trickery carnism plays on our brains. Namely, carnism will compel us to find a rationalization for our continued support of factory farms and slaughterhouses where no such compelling justification actually exists.
No wonder we succumb so frequently to the sheer power, seduction, and intoxication of the grand lie of carnism. Having exposed the almost unfathomable depths of one of the greatest lies ever told, we emerge, at last, at the true reason I focus on factory farmed animals—because I demand intellectual honesty Moreover, we would acknowledge that the vast majority, if not all, of the meat, eggs, and dairy we individually consume comes from factory farms and slaughterhouses.
Until we address these the most daily of behaviors, I do not believe that we are entitled to proceed to those the rarest of situations So it is time we stopped focusing on the desert islands, the lifeboats, and the Eskimos; it is time we critically examined our support of factory farms and slaughterhouses and lived in alignment with our core values of justice, love, respect, compassion, and nonviolence toward all rather than in the wake of death, murder, and destruction perpetuated by the core fallacies of carnism.
My definition of carnism is deeply indebted to the work of Dr. Melanie Joy. I strongly recommend you watch her TED talk on the revolutionary concept of carnism, one of the most enlightening concepts you will ever encounter.
Once more, I am heavily indebted to Dr. If you have the time, I would strongly recommend her book as well. It is extremely easy to read, taking me but one evening to complete, and it also provides fresh, fascinating philosophical and psychological insight into the soi-disant paradox of meat.
com, a publisher of peer-reviewed scholarly journals. To remediate this guilt, I simply suggest doing your best to avoid supporting factory farms and slaughterhouses. Indeed, most people feel greatly relieved after they embrace a healthy, plant-based diet, so I recommend you do so as well, especially given your devotion to critical thinking.
com , a website which inspired the title of this essay. I found this statistic on WorldWatch. However, due to a lack of records, it is difficult to quantify the exact number of farm animals alive at any given time.
Even so, slaughter totals may well exceed the given statistic, since the number of chickens slaughtered each year alone may exceed 50 billion. This figure also does not include the number of animals killed by fishing, zoos, and other animal enterprises. I found this information on an article titled UN Urges Global Move to Meat and Dairy-free Diets, published by www.
Carnists frequently argue that a global shift toward a plant-based diet will not automatically solve world hunger, a view I share. Nevertheless, a global shift toward a plant-based diet is an integral part of the solution to world hunger, and must be, as the UN rightly acknowledges.
But many carnists, unassuaged, insist that, for certain people, particularly those in developing countries, the consumption of animal products may be necessary either for continued existence or proper nutrition.
But focusing on the particularly misfortunate individuals to whom these carnists refer, I will respond two ways. Death thus poses a significant harm to many non-human animals killed against their will at a fraction their natural lifespan for no good reason.
Second, the argument from marginal cases, detailed in the recent book, Just the Arguments: of the Most Important Arguments in Western Philosophy, indicates that many nonhuman animals, at least those as mentally sophisticated as cats, dogs, cows, chickens, and pigs, qualify as the moral equivalent of human children.
Taken together, these two views indicate that we must satisfy an extremely stringent set of criteria in order to ensure the justifiability of killing, a standard which is almost never met, even among people living in the third world. At this point, some carnists may object that the human pleasure derived from eating dead animals from factory farms and slaughterhouses outweighs the suffering of these non-human animals.
Such carnists may then allege that, by the utilitarian calculus, we morally ought to consume dead animals from factory farms and slaughterhouses. Undeterred, a particularly robust carnist may nevertheless insist that there exist certain ways to ethically procure animal products.
To this objection, I rightly cede, but it still fails to secure the resounding victory many carnists desire. For example, eating grass-fed cows does not exempt us from wrongdoing, for most grass-fed cows are killed whereupon they reach market weight, around 27 months of age.
Thus deprived of life against their will at a fraction their natural lifespan for no good reason, we have still committed a serious wrong. For example, suppose your cow, Chloe, having lived a long, happy life, dies in the middle of the field of natural causes.
Could you ethically consume her corpse? Could you generalize such a pattern of consumption? Probably not. To explain why, suppose we respect her legitimate interest in continued existence see Regan, The Case for Animal Rights, section 3.
Suppose moreover that we respect the legitimate interests in continued existence of other cows who are like Chloe in morally relevant ways.
Then, instead of sending mother cows to slaughter after their productivity declines around age four or five, due to the constant demands of forced pregnancy and lactation, suppose we allow Chloe and mother cows like her to live not only on lush, green pastures, but also with their beloved children.
Suppose moreover that we allow Chloe and mother cows like her to live for a full twenty years, their natural lifespan. However bucolic a scene you construct, we have an enormous problem. To see how, let us reconceptualize the problem before us.
Imagine we have four generations, generations g1, g2, g3, and g4, each equally populated and each separated by exactly one year of age, such that we have an equal number each of one-, two-, three-, and four-year-old cows.
Suppose moreover that each generation of 4-year-old cows bears an equal number of babies, such that the cycle can proceed indefinitely, each generation exactly replaced by the next.
So we allow Chloe and all cows like her to enjoy their natural lifespan, anywhere from years.
But equally clear is nutrotion the Exposing nutrition fallacies has nurtition them a horribly Exposing nutrition fallacies platform from which to shout Esposing lunatic ideas. As presenter Adam Buxton wryly pointed out, we all know, deep in our insecure hearts, exactly what a healthy diet looks like. Whenever and wherever pseudo-science has existed, it has never held a credible alternative. Register Now. Site powered by Webvision Cloud.
Wacker, die ausgezeichnete Idee und ist termingemäß
Wacker, es ist der einfach prächtige Gedanke