The article already mentions “or a vegetarian equivalent”.
Being vegetarian also means you have to have a balanced diet. That’s not easy when you’re poor.
Has anybody had the patience to investigate on the article and find out what is meant by “vegetarian equivalent”? I cannot believe that lentils or beans could be that expensive. Completely different picture for tofu, meat substitutes and the like.
But what is actually needed, then? I can 100% assure you that you can survive or even thrive on a diet consisting of nothing but potatoes and beans and a bit of green stuff.
Aside from nutritional value it’s not really feasible for the whole world to only eat potatoes, beans and a bit of green stuff. They will not grow everywhere in sufficient quantities.
Be noted that I am not advocating eating meat is necessary or healthy the way we do it currently. I was just explaining that you did not read the article carefully.
You are already aware of my counter argument, great. Also it’s for 60 days only and a publicity stunt. That’s not really shattering my knowledge about nutrition.
Why? https://xkcd.com/386/
You know other people might read this and think they can live and prosper only with potatoes and beans. And to be honest, that’s not good advice, which I assume you also don’t live by.
The article already mentions “or a vegetarian equivalent”. Being vegetarian also means you have to have a balanced diet. That’s not easy when you’re poor.
Has anybody had the patience to investigate on the article and find out what is meant by “vegetarian equivalent”? I cannot believe that lentils or beans could be that expensive. Completely different picture for tofu, meat substitutes and the like.
I tried to figure out what they meant by “vegetarian equivalent” but it’s not clear from the article and the source link seems broken…
But what is actually needed, then? I can 100% assure you that you can survive or even thrive on a diet consisting of nothing but potatoes and beans and a bit of green stuff.
You can assure me how?
Aside from nutritional value it’s not really feasible for the whole world to only eat potatoes, beans and a bit of green stuff. They will not grow everywhere in sufficient quantities.
Be noted that I am not advocating eating meat is necessary or healthy the way we do it currently. I was just explaining that you did not read the article carefully.
Have a look at e.g. https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-11864290. That was only a fun self-experiment, and not a scientific study at all, of course.
But who was mentioning the population of the whole world? This is a channel about Europe, linking an article about Europe.
You are already aware of my counter argument, great. Also it’s for 60 days only and a publicity stunt. That’s not really shattering my knowledge about nutrition.
So you’re saying for Europe is possible?
How about a year? https://www.menshealth.com/weight-loss/a19536403/can-the-potato-diet-help-you-lose-weight-safely/
Why are you so confrontational, dude? The sun is hot today, so we should be mellow.
Men’s health. Naw.
Why? https://xkcd.com/386/ You know other people might read this and think they can live and prosper only with potatoes and beans. And to be honest, that’s not good advice, which I assume you also don’t live by.
But I agree, let’s chill, it’s really too hot.