03-05-2023, 08:22 PM
(03-05-2023, 07:09 PM)brocode Wrote: no you dont. you can survive with 700 calories of chicken just fine, as long as you feel satiated and full, which u do btw, 700calories of chicken get u super full. thats why i have been saying calories are not a good way to measure food energy requirements and we use weight as a general means to distribute food.
you can't survive with 700 calories of anything, that's common sense
you can not measure energy in weight main... only in calories, or joule
(03-05-2023, 07:09 PM)brocode Wrote: that fertilizers are the real cause not cow piss. i've been itirating this since forever.
which doesn't result from anything, since literature shows that cow piss is a legit contributing factor
(03-05-2023, 07:09 PM)brocode Wrote: wdym "it doesnt" prove anything, skewing statistics to skew the end result is so so common, its used so much in biotech for PR purposes (which is why most drugs' actual potency isnt known until the clinical trials conducted by governing bodies). this is a thing not just in biotech but in all industries.
there's no evidence those studies that the paper quoted are "skewed", but on the contrary, the one you posted on your video is straight up at the request of the agricultural industry and has been rebuked so...
(03-05-2023, 07:09 PM)brocode Wrote: so you're really gonna come here and give me a skewed report that says "beef consumption causes x amount of groundwater pollution, so we should switch to veganism"? seriously come on, there is no proper comparison with how veganism reduces pollution. no such study. that's why i said that line in the previous message in that tone.
and frankly speaking, the quality and nutrient richness of meat is just simply better.
where did I say this? I'm not vegan myself. Your starting point about ammonia pollution is wrong, deal with it.
