Logan Streondj wrote:
I'm rather confused why you'd do that.
historically humans have always had starch as the main component of the diet.
it is what gives people energy to do things,
also nuts are mostly high in fat.
Actually this rather depends on the location and culture, the Philippines for instance eat very little in the way of starches, and aside from the corn everyone knows about, most native Americans didn’t either. Greens, meats, fish, fruits, and nuts are much more the "historical" diet, and in fact if you read up on the paleo diet there's quite a bit to be said for the health of it.
Logan Streondj wrote:
meat is mainly a source of fat, good for keeping warm.
vegetable protein is much easier to digest.
Also 10 percent protein is considered optimal for maintenance,
only really need more if you're straining your muscles.
Lentils and beans are near 30% protein.
Sprouts and greens frequently over 20%.
mice fead..
Theres actually alot more in meat than people realize, such as b vitamins, minerals, and all sorts of other needed things. Which one is more digestive is also a really hot debate, and really seems to depend on the culture and ancestry. Just like asians are more likely to have problems with milk, some people have an easier or harder time with certain protiens, often mirroring the cassic diets of their ancestors. Some racial background are more likely to process the murcury in large amounts of fish more safely than others for instance. Many people actually digest meat easier, thats why certain reset diets that involve going back and eating nothing but an entire chicken a day then adding a single new food a day are so efficient. There are some that are the opposite also!
If you are trying to eat a low calory diet that can fuel significant muscle work then plant protien sources quickly becomes impractical, though not impossible. I would think that most people really working at a homestead and starting permaculture are going to be straining their muscles. Lentils and beans are near 30%, but that means for you to get 30% you would need to eat nothing but beans, but if you eat a normal portion of starchy vegetables like you recommended you will have already dropped that promotion down to 15% or less, and you are still missing alot of nutrients.
Stating that mice die on a 30% high protien diet is a bit silly I think. For one thing.. we aren't mice! Nor do our digestive and metabolism systems work the same, similar, but not the same. For another point, what did they use for this protien? I'd imagine soy protien, which has been proven to have all sorts negative bodily interactions, including damaging the metabolism. Furthur, if they raised the mouse diet to 30% protien that means they lessened other things, was the mouse still getting a normal mouse nutritional dose of everything else? If so they probably had to concentrate those vitamins to make up for how much of the diet was now soy, were those concentrated vitamins safe, and digestable? So many problems with this study. Besides the mouse study, there are entire human communities of people who have lived almost entirely off of meat for generations, and they are often among the healthiest and long lived communities in the world. Just as there are groups that are largly herbivorous that are also incredibly healthy.
Logan Streondj wrote: a forest-gardner main task is to get species established,
then nature can do much of the work of maintaining them.
As long as there is a food source and predators,
generally a balance is achieved.
I find this statement a bit biased and one sided. There are often bird or mammal species that can quickly over breed in an area, just because we as humans are there and so other large predators are not. For instance in much of the US right now the white tailed deer population is so out of proportion to the rest of things they are getting mass outbreaks of disease from over population.. because we humans have mostly killed off all the wolves and mountain lions. Most permaculture people with actual land are likely to be around farming communities too, which pretty much guarantees a large population of rabbits, which in some parts have also begun having over population diseases. If you don't want to be the one to assist with their over population that is all well and good for you, and i respect your decision. The fact is they need something to eat them though, or they will face a much bigger die out from wasting diseases and starvation, which i would consider much worse, for them individually and the environment.
I respect your desire and decision to be meat free, and have contemplated it myself several times. The sad fact is that animals must die somehow, and simply by our presence here other predators can't do that. Anyone who chooses the lifestyle may feel free to not participate in that process. I do not think we should look harshly at meat eaters and hunters though, or ignore or good reasons nutritionally or ecologically to eat meat.
.jpeg)
