I expect this is just the beginning.
Populations of marine animals will migrate to new areas less suited for them (or try and fail), causing disruptions in their new location, spurring more migrations….
When this happens, local fishing industries collapse because their prey is gone and new invasive species either aren’t edible or aren’t caught with the gear they have (like Lionfish, inedible to most fish and mammals, and all but impossible to catch except by spear fishing).
Between ocean acidification, deep water warming, overfishing, invasive species, pollution, loss of ice packs, and other as yet unknown factors, the ocean’s ability to produce food is going to be severely limited in the near future. It already is, in fact.
The crab collapse isn’t the canary in the coal mine, it’s not even the first miner to drop dead. It’s like 1/4 of the entire night shift just disappeared….and they are all the engineers that keep things functioning.

This is like a massive corn blight on land. It not only kills the corn, it takes out everything that relies on corn too, like pigs, chickens, cattle, goats, pretty much any livestock, and an insanely large percentage of the calories humans eat too. A shitload of the ocean relies on crab meat, and more rely on crabs to keep the ocean floors clean….important if we don’t want clouds of hydrogen sulfide erupting from the ocean making all coastal states dead zones.

Watch it again and look at what the big dinos are going for.

What is in his hand. The cracker.

Which really is pretty stupid, because if you want the cracker, bite the holder of the cracker. Don't try for such a small target!

I learned a lot from what you wrote. Thank you!

And.

Big dinos laser focused and expending a great deal of energy for so few calories? THAT is the Hollywood nonsense.

This is MY pet peeve. I welcome company, of course. It is fun to be self righteously peeved!

My guess is that the value of a few calories would depend on whether the dinosaurs were warm- or cold-blooded. A cold-blooded lizard or snake can last a lot longer on a small meal than a warm-blooded human.

The debate on whether or not actual dinosaurs were cold-blooded is still open, as far as I know. My favourite point in the argument is that all dinosaurs alive today (i.e. birds) are warm-blooded but perhaps it was exactly that adaptation that let them survive through the mas extinction.

Looking at the predatory dinosaurs in the film, there's no hint of feathers (so they're unlikely to be actual t-rexes), which to me points towards the idea that they're cold-blooded and so a small morsel would sustain them a while.

As for three of them getting involved, to me they're also being opportunistic at the chance of getting Kong. He seemed comfortable enough handling one, but it was definitely not a given. He acted very wary of two of them, so a third joining should really swing things in the dinosaurs' favour. However, it looks like Kong was holding back, and really let things fly when the odds were against him.

So these giant lizards that require a great deal of calories to sustain themselves....

Are totally focused on what is not even a big appetizer? Expending all that energy for is basically a cracker?

Humans are so egocentric. Nature is out to get me! Especially if I am blonde and female.

Jurassic Park had the same logic, which annoyed me too.

I just see tons of calories and little nutritional value. It however sounds like it would feel amazing in my mouth

My body's doing it wrong.
From age 16-35 I drank nothing but Coke unless it wasn't available (Coke, no Pepsi). Between 5-12 a day! Somehow I remained rail thin (probably cycling). Around 35 I decided that was going to kill me if I didn't stop, so I did and switched to lower calorie natural sodas, juices, coffee, and teas.....now I'm fat. Go figure.
At least I didn't give myself diabetes....although I can't explain how.

*promote a *quality reminder of a serving size

Another empty calories blockbuster, but most blocks are devoid of people right now, will it go bust?

What a disgusting piece of shit and outright liar.
Her achievements already outweigh his by miles...he's only managed to get himself kicked off Fox, impressively hard to do if you're right wing. Fox has apologized for his disgraceful ad hominem attacks against a child who he couldn't factually contradict....but Laura Ingram has also personally attacked her on her show, as has Trump on Twitter.

Being on the autism spectrum, she says she has aspergers, is a developmental disorder NOT a mental illness.
Being a pathological liar, that's a mental illness apparently now shared by an entire political party.
Being a fecal golem is a personality disorder he clearly has in spades.

The Carnegie Mellon study he sites said no such thing, and it's authors have stated that it's a total misrepresentation of their findings....repeatedly.
The study actually said certain produce at it's worst might be more ecologically harmful per calorie than some kinds of white meat eating by comparing things like bacon vs lettuce on a calorie to calorie instead of serving to serving rate, so 4 strips of bacon were compared to > 40 cups of lettuce. Get real.
To compound the confusion they chose a calorie poor produce like lettuce with high greenhouse gas emissions instead of kale, broccoli, rice, potatoes, spinach and wheat (just to name a few) which all rank lower than pork in terms of greenhouse gases.
The same argument holds for water usage...they chose lettuce, with high water requirements, instead of things like corn, peanuts, carrots and wheat which all use less water than all non-seafood meat.
It's also assumed the produce will be wasted at exponentially higher rates than meat, which can be preserved more easily. That may be true, but they don't include the preservatives or energy to refrigerate and/or freeze meat on the bacon side of the equation.

Of course the lettuce takes more resources if you eat 40+ cups instead of 4 thin bacon strips, just like when you compare a single fish stick to several giant pumpkins.

*rant over*

At a life expectancy of 44 heart-disease for the Masaai is the least of their concerns.... but the it's also a myth that they have perfect health on beef https://nutritionstudies.org/masai-and-inuit-high-protein-diets-a-closer-look/

Traditional Okinawan's eat very little fish - less than 4% of their calories is from animal products.
https://www.superfoodly.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/pie-chart.png

These are the people who we now see living to well over 100 years old. Where as modern Okinawa's have a far worse life expectancy now that they have more animal foods in their diet.

Both of these cultures are further examples of how fewer animal foods in the diet always has better health outcomes.

And thanks to the vegan 7th Day Adventists in Loma Linda, we know that zero animal products has the best health outcomes.

This is a very strong indication that animal products are obsolete in the human diet.

He did mention fish/white meat, however he was making the point that meats aren't what is making them healthy - the Mediterraneans are healthy despite these animal foods. They are healthy because of the large intake of whole plant foods, as is the case in Japan.

And we know this, because within Japan itself there's a clear relationship between health, and amount of animal products consumed. The traditional Okinawan diet (the place which has the most centenarians int he world) is just 6% calories from animal products, the rest being from sweet potato and rice and veg. Where as mainland Japan where they eat more animal products they don't do as well as their Okinawan neighbors.

This relationship of animal food intake & rates of chronic diseases works on a local level or a global level. Less is always better, all the way to none (Loma Linda 7th day Adventists many of which are vegan by religion tend do the best out of all of the blue zones, when it comes to chronic disease).



------


Omega 3 is present in so many plant foods - such as flaxseed/linseed, hemp, chia, and even sea algae (which is where the fish get their omega 3 from)

The benefit of getting omega 3 from plant sources means almost no saturated fat, no cholesterol, no mercury, no IGF-1 raising protein structures (and no antibiotics if you are eating farmed fish). Also they say the ocean will be fishless by 2048..... (which also coincides with the Post Atomic Horror era for the Trekkies out there lol)

Fish also don't have any fiber, (the one macro nutrient everyone pretends doesn't exist, and most people are deficient in). Stay regular and prevent diverticulitis/diverticulitis, and avoid hemorrhoids, and even varicose veins.

Flax also contains lignans which prevents/treats prostate cancer https://www.healthline.com/health/prostate-cancer/flaxseed-and-prostate-cancer.


You just get so much more nutrition out of plants over all. Animal products tend to have a higher amount of a single compound or nutrient, but they have a lot of baggage with it. It's like buying a car, you don't necessarily want the one with the biggest engine, the total package is what's important.


------

Whether or not Barnard is a vegan shill, doesn't change the nutritional profiles of foods as shown above.

It also doesn't change the fact he looks, acts and speaks amazing for someone that's 65 years old - clearly putting his theory into practice with wonderful results. And while that is anecdotal, that's certainly something nobody would say about Atkins, or Loran Cordain (Paleo advocate) or Jimmy Moore (Keto advocate), who all look like they could drop dead any minute (and Atkins literally did drop dead).

That Indian one take a lot of labor to do... and the most calories.

That's gotta be 2,500 calorie, easily.

How ironic that the part where they talk about misrepresenting studies that they reference Gary Taubes, who's made a living misrepresenting science.

It's a common thing to compare fat vs sugar to make carbs look bad. But when you actually eat proper carbs (not sugar) then carbs win every time.

These people who ate 80% carbs, and only 10% fat, and effortlessly lose weight without calorie restriction or exercise: https://www.drmcdougall.com/health/education/health-science/stars/stars-written/

Also the fat you eat really is the fat you wear. They can radioactively mark it and find it again in your body.

Despite sugar consumption going down, diabetes and heart-disease is rising too.

Regardless of any study. Try eating 80/10/10 for a few weeks, and you'll see the results for yourself. Stuff your face with this food https://www.forksoverknives.com/recipes/?recipe_type=wraps-and-burgers

There's no portion or calorie restriction. Eat yourself thin.

Edit: And yes fat does definitely contribute to weight gain and heart-disease, take it from the only cardiologist to ever reverse heart-disease https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b_o4YBQPKtQ&feature=youtu.be&t=6

I think you're right about people moving around less in general, and it no doubt has played a part.

But there are also studies which show that even if calories in/out remains the same between all diets, the diet which is less processed food and lower fat food does better.

E.g. https://www.nature.com/nutd/journal/v7/n3/pdf/nutd20173a.pdf

Now what is the average caloric expenditure for the "average American" over the same period? I bet that in addition to the average caloric consumption going up 800/day, the average caloric expenditure went down due to a lot less people working in physical jobs now compared to 50 years ago...

It seems calories-in/calories-out would be a much simpler explanation for the "obesity epidemic" compared to eating high/low fat high/low carbs etc. etc.