Paleo and keto diets bad for health and the planet, says study. The keto and paleo diets scored among the lowest on overall nutrition quality and were among the highest on carbon emissions. The pescatarian diet scored highest on nutritional quality of the diets analyzed.
· 2 days ago · Stickied commentWelcome to r/science! This is a heavily moderated subreddit in order to keep the discussion on science. However, we recognize that many people want to discuss how they feel the research relates to their own personal lives, so to give people a space to do that, personal anecdotes are allowed as responses to this comment. Any anecdotal comments elsewhere in the discussion will be removed and our normal comment rules apply to all other comments.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
It also scores the healthiness of foods according to the Healthy Eating Index. Can you guess what is a factor in the healthy eating index? Eating a variety of foods including fruits and cereals, both of which are not encouraged by the keto and paleo diets.
So they're saying if you measure the health of a diet by whether or not it includes all of the foods in the food pyramid, keto and paleo are unhealthy. But that's kind of the point of the diets, they say you don't want to follow the food pyramid in the first place. They need to actually measure something about the diet's effect on bodies.
Overall the article OP linked is absolute trash-tier reporting, and the journal article that actually describes the study has major flaws: 4/10.
Important to note that the fish part does not include carbon emissions - just "nutritional quality". Fish have a lot of nutrition, but we can work around that with smart combinations of vegetables, fruits, grains, nuts, supplements, and eating fish sparingly.
It's much more difficult to work around the meat carbon emissions part that are a by product of a nearly all meat diet like keto.
Basically fish is great for us because it gives us easy access to a lot of important nutrients in a convenient package - but we can't all eat meat (including fish) at the rate we do. This study highlights that finding diet and supplement combinations that mimic fish is a key step in establishing a carbon sustainable food supply.
would you like some microplastics with your forever chemicals. have an aquatic diet... because nutrient counts don't show the whole picture. if you do a quick tally of the most healthy foods imaginable you will find that you can only get to 50-70% of most vitamins on a daily basis anyway. unless you eat 3000 cals and like hardcore maths/planning.
30 more replies
Did anyone actually read the article? if I am understanding correctly they used the metric of "calories consumed" vs carbon footprint which is absolutely laughable. By that metric living on a diet of cake and soda is "better for the environment" because I can get 3k calories in a single glass and meal.
About Community
Members
Online