It seems that someone has convinced many of you (on HN) that negotiations with Russia would inevitably lead to an attack on NATO countries within Europe. As a result, some now feel justified in mocking or harassing those who believe that continuing a seemingly unwinnable war—at the cost of thousands of European lives—is not the best course of action. Ironically, this stance was widely held by left-leaning individuals not long ago.
What disgusts me isn’t the fear of a potential Russian attack, but how easily people can be manipulated into reversing their beliefs while still considering themselves morally righteous, and feel justified into mocking and silencing people holding their past ideology.
I've seen the decline in Italy of young people going out in the evening to meet new people. They are all buffed with splendid livers, but barely get laid, and spend most of their time playing monopoli and drinking tea.
This is often false. Many people following this way of eating are still sick, weak, and often skinny fat.
I was one of them. Of course this is going to be better than a McDonald diet, but it does a terrible job at fixing problems for people with any kind of metabolic problems.
Younger persons don't have the knowledge and wisdom to assess what previous generations did. Their own thoughts sounds more like pre-conceived, propaganda driven, ready made sentences. (I know because I have been there and only know realize how dumb and manipulable I was, and probably still are. At least now I can see it).
As time passes the environment, morals and the goals of a population can change drastically, and its behavior is attuned by those variables.
Anyone born in the boomer generation would probably have behaved exactly like them, for the good and the bad.
The professors in that article might be speaking like that, making amend to the young, but deep inside every generation thinks to be smarter than the previous and the successive ones.
You are supposing that recipes were passed down through books which is totally false.
They were passed down in families and communities and were based to what was available at the time.
Meat is more prevalent in recipes coming from regions where it was more available. Some other places have instead a fish based diet.
In any way animal based food has always been preferred by every culture that didn't avoid it for religious reasons.
Most cultures who have a plant based diet come from a recent past of extreme poverty and food deprivation.
EDIT: Of course as soon as meat got available, recipes that were before only affordable by a small circle, got picked up by a larger share of the population.
What meat eaters? If we are talking about health conscious people the ones eating meat will always have an advantage compared to people who eliminates food groups.
If you are comparing a health conscious vegan to the average fast food freak then yes, I can agree with you.
Still, the deficiencies caused by meat avoidance are usually more dangerous with worse consequences.
"People from the anglosphere comes with their own idea of health, which is for the most part originated by their past religious idea of purity more than rock solid science.
Many of them can't accept studies which prove that a good life can sometimes also come out from what they view as a "sinful" behavior.
Old Italians never saw meat eating and alcohol consumption as a negative aspect of life and enjoyed it just because it was part of their culture.
And, against all these calvinist principles, they still enjoyed a pretty long life."
Thanks, I have admit that imagining an early 1900 shepherd "following a fad diet" made me laugh.
People from the anglosphere comes with their own idea of health, which is for the most part originated by their past religious idea of purity more than rock solid science.
Many of them can't accept studies which prove that a good life can sometimes also come out from what they view as a "sinful" behavior.
Old Italians never saw meat eating and alcohol consumption as a negative aspect of life and enjoyed it just because it was part of their culture.
And, against all these calvinist principles, they still enjoyed a pretty long life.
I'm not aware of those studies so I can't judge. What meat are you talking about? From which country? Was it cheap supermarket meat or locally sourced from a trusted butcher?
I hope all of those questions are taken into consideration when judging which foods we should avoid.
But still I don't buy this whole meat avoidance stunt. Most studies show only small effects linked to meat avoidance which can be usually be well explained by the fact that vegetarians are usually health conscious people:
While for some people a plant base diet might well be good if well constructed and supplemented this is not always true on a population level.
The average person isn't drs Greger disciple and will not wake up early in the morning to be measuring his foods to be sure that his intakes are following the RDAs.
Combine that with the fact that nutrients from vegetables are not as easily accessible by our bodies, meaning that for some people with digestion problems it could cause dangerous deficiencies.
And last but not least, yes meat can be contaminated or polluted, so you should be very careful when choosing your cuts. But the same can be said about vegs and fruits I'm afraid:
"European citizens have been exposed to a
dramatic rise in the frequency and intensity of
residues of the most toxic pesticides on fruits
and vegetables sold in the EU. This report
and its primary conclusion contradict official
claims that toxic pesticides use is declining
and that food residue levels are under
control. This report also exposes a complete
failure by Member States and the European
Commission to implement EU Regulation and
protect consumers. "
This hypothesis is still part of some anti-meat propaganda. They start from the idea that red meat is bad, and then they retroactively try to adjust their "science" with creative solutions.
Research done in Italy about the Sardinians showed that the people who got to live longer where specifically the shepherds. They had a very peculiar life style which brought them to get much more exercise and to eat more animal sourced foods.
The remaining townfolks had a more "average" lifespan even though they shared the same genes.
Yes, meat consumption in the USA is huge. But I think the greatest difference between the 2 countries is our distrust towards food processing.
Italy is a country very resilient to innovations which can be sometimes a sin, but some other times a blessing.
But we are losing that too. When I was a kid mcDonalds could barely survive here. Nowadays new ones are popping everywhere, and young people completely lost this culture we had about genuine foods.
When speaking about Sardinia they keep saying that their diet was mostly vegetarian:
"The classic Sardinian diet is plant based, consisting of whole-grain bread, beans, garden vegetables, and fruits. Meat is largely reserved for Sundays and special occasions. Sardinians drink wine moderately."
Truth is that the Shepherds (the centenaries are mostly found in this group) were actually eating more animal protein and fat compared to the rest of the population.
They can keep lying to most people just because you can't understand Italian but whenever people from those towns are interviewed they always repeat that they were not vegetarians.
Here a quick translation from this yt video:
Graziano who got to 102
got asked if he got to 102yo
because he had always followed a
mediterranean diet.
He asked what's that?
It means that you always ate vegetables.
Vegetables are bad for you, I
ate the grass of 100 sheeps because
I ate the sheeps. And indeed
he only ate meat, meaning that this whole
alimentation thing should be checked again.
Combine this article with the other one about contamination of fruits and vegetables in Europe and we have a pretty bad picture of the situation:
European citizens have been exposed to a
dramatic rise in the frequency and intensity of
residues of the most toxic pesticides on fruits
and vegetables sold in the EU. This report
and its primary conclusion contradict official
claims that toxic pesticides use is declining
and that food residue levels are under
control. This report also exposes a complete
failure by Member States and the European
Commission to implement EU Regulation and
protect consumers.
