Meatless Mondays: A Healthier You, a Healthier Planet

Save the planet, and get healthier in the process. Sounds too good and easy to be true, right? Well, only takes three meals one day a week to make it happen. No superpowers required. Meatless Mondays is as simple as it gets: once a week replace meat with nutrient dense plant food, and in the process improve your own health, and the health of the environment. Here's the gist:

Health Benefits

• LIMIT CANCER RISK: Hundreds of studies suggest that diets high in fruits and vegetables may reduce cancer risk. Both red and processed meat consumption are associated with colon cancer.

• REDUCE HEART DISEASE: Recent data from a Harvard University study found that replacing saturated fat-rich foods (for example, meat and full fat dairy) with foods that are rich in polyunsaturated fat (for example, vegetable oils, nuts and seeds) reduces the risk of heart disease by 19%

• FIGHT DIABETES: Research suggests that higher consumption of red and processed meat increase the risk of type 2 diabetes.

• CURB OBESITY: People on low-meat or vegetarian diets have significantly lower body weights and body mass indices. A recent study from Imperial College London also found that reducing overall meat consumption can prevent long-term weight gain.

• LIVE LONGER: Red and processed meat consumption is associated with modest increases in total mortality, cancer mortality and cardiovascular disease mortality.

• IMPROVE YOUR DIET. Consuming beans or peas results in higher intakes of fiber, protein, folate, zinc, iron and magnesium with lower intakes of saturated fat and total fat.

I know what you're thinking: these don't apply to you since you're already a dedicated athlete who takes care of your body and has a healthy diet. And it's definitely true that these health issues are more for the general population, and that moderate consumption of meat is perfectly healthy. But even if you already have a well-balanced diet, it can be easy to not consume an optimal amount of plant foods, and miss out on the countless health benefits from them. A campaign like Meatless Monday is a great way to focus on fruits, veggies and other plant foods, and enjoy the phytochemicals, low saturated fat, high nutrient density, zero cholesterol, and high fiber that plant foods have.

And even if you're a nutrition wiz with a meticulous diet like Sliz, the environmental benefits are still something you can enjoy

Environmental Benefits

- Land: Animal agriculture uses 70% of the world’s agricultural land, and 30% of the planet’s total land area.

- Water: It takes 5,000 gallons of water to produce 1 lb of meat—but only 25 gallons to grow 1 lb of wheat.

- Rain Forests: An area of the rain forest the size of seven football fields is destroyed every minute to make room for grazing cattle.

- Pollution: Every second, animals raised for food in the U.S. produce 89,000 lbs of waste—130 times more than that of the U.S.’s entire population.

• REDUCE YOUR CARBON FOOTPRINT. The United Nations’ Food and Agriculture Organization estimates the meat industry generates nearly one-fifth of the man-made greenhouse gas emissions that are accelerating climate change worldwide . . . far more than transportation. And annual worldwide demand for meat continues to grow. Reining in meat consumption once a week can help slow this trend.

• MINIMIZE WATER USAGE. The water needs of livestock are tremendous, far above those of vegetables or grains. An estimated 1,800 to 2,500 gallons of water go into a single pound of beef. Soy tofu produced in California requires 220 gallons of water per pound.

• HELP REDUCE FOSSIL FUEL DEPENDENCE. On average, about 40 calories of fossil fuel energy go into every calorie of feed lot beef in the U.S. Compare this to the 2.2 calories of fossil fuel energy needed to produce one calorie of plant-based protein. Moderating meat consumption is a great way to cut fossil fuel demand.

It's a really cool campaign, and the friends and family members I've got to try it all report substantial health improvements after a month of consuming a high plant food diet just once a week. If you already have a great diet, then Meatless Monday won't improve your health, but hey not eating meat for three meals a day is a pretty small price to pay for huge environmental benefits

For more information check out http://www.meatlessmonday.com or watch the video below.

Jv8u9VOgkiQ

I'm Catholic and I never eat red meat on Fridays. I have fish on Fridays

I love Fridays

Patrick Smith said:

I'm Catholic and I never eat red meat on Fridays. I have fish on Fridays

I love Fridays

Catholicism should really advertise a Sushi Friday or something Doesn't roll off the tongue as nicely as "Sushi Saturday" but hey better than nothing. I thought the no red meat on Fridays custom was only during Lent, though?

Vegetarian vs. omnivore debates will never end.

It's no different than people arguing over politics.

Also, you're attacking a strawman by mentioning processed meat. No one thinks processed meat is healthy. Just like no one thinks processed plants are healthy.

No one should be convinced by your topics. Saying, "a recent study by so and so" is not in any way informative, helpful, or convincing. Those studies could be utter bunk, plus single studies prove nothing. You didn't even give us links to the studies mentioned, which undermines any credibility you were trying to achieve with this post. That's the same thing the media does and it's why anyone in the "know" has no respect for the media.

I'm not trying to berate you. I'm just giving you some constructive criticism.

RatioFitness said:

Vegetarian vs. omnivore debates will never end.

It's no different than people arguing over politics.

Also, you're attacking a strawman by mentioning processed meat. No one thinks processed meat is healthy. Just like no one thinks processed plants are healthy.

No one should be convinced by your topics. Saying, "a recent study by so and so" is not in any way informative, helpful, or convincing. Those studies could be utter bunk, plus single studies prove nothing. You didn't even give us links to the studies mentioned, which undermines any credibility you were trying to achieve with this post. That's the same thing the media does and it's why anyone in the "know" has no respect for the media.

I'm not trying to berate you. I'm just giving you some constructive criticism.

No worries, criticism is one of the greatest things in life since it allows us to continually improve ourselves and our views

The thread isn't about vegetarianism vs being an omnivore, so I hope it doesn't come across that way. I purposefully mentioned a few times that meat is perfectly healthy in a proper diet, and that the health benefits listed by the website apply to the general population as a whole (which the campaign is designed for) rather than people like dedicated athletes who already take care of their health and put detail into their diets. Citations aren't included in the original post since all of the specific studies for the environmental and health points are hyperlinked in the information section of the campaign's website, which I linked to if one wanted more information. I'll include them here to make things easier, though

The health-related research citations:

http://www.cancerproject.org/diet_cancer/facts/meat.php

http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pmed.0040325

http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pmed.1000252

http://www.springerlink.com/content/v1h7374736t010t0/

http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/abstract/81/6/1267

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20592131

http://archinte.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/169/6/562?maxtoshow=&HITS=10&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=1&author1=sinha&andorexacttitle=and&andorexacttitleabs=and&andorexactfulltext=and&searchid=1&FIRSTINDEX=0&sortspec=relevance&fdate=3/1/2009&resourcetype=HWCIT

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19394480

The environmental citations:

http://www.fao.org/docrep/010/a0701e/a0701e00.HTM

http://www.vl-irrigation.org/cms/fileadmin/content/irrig/general/kreith_1991_water_inputs_in_ca_food_production-excerpt.pdf

http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/abstract/78/3/660S

Health benefits of any given diet can become very tricky to discuss due to conflicting literature, and the fact that there's such an overwhelming amount of studies out there that it can be hard to wade through for those that aren't nutritionists or enthusiasts of the field. I myself am certainly not an expert, but if you have any criticisms of the health studies, or your own studies to share that you think invalidate the health claims of Meatless Monday's campaign, then I'd enjoy learning from them.

The environmental benefits are what I tend to focus on more for campaigns like this, since they apply to every one, not just people with mediocre diets. The data is also a lot more black and white than conflicting health studies. There can be no arguing that animal industries have a tremendous negative effect on the planet, consume far more fossil fuel than production of plant foods, and are a leading cause of global warming. Simply giving up meat on just Mondays would reduce environmental problems tremendously. Would it make them go away completely? Of course not, especially if you get into the trickier questions of whether or not people increase their meat consumption and such on the other 6 days of the week, negating the positive effects of their Monday diet. But awareness, and constructive criticism as you mentioned, is key to changing things for the better. Can't solve a problem unless we're aware of it, and programs like Meatless Monday help spread awareness of the effects of our dietary choices, and how we can make simple changes to improve the world. No need to go vegetarian or make large-scale personal changes to make the world a better place, just takes simple things like no meat on Mondays A single person taking one step might not cover much distance, but if everyone takes one step forward then it covers the distance of the world.

I don't believe growing grains is actually more sustainable than meat.

You have to take into account everything, transportation of water, production of pesticides, destruction of soil quality, etc.

This is obviously not a comprehensive coverage of the issue, I just don't like it when it is spouted that meat production is this terrible, unsustainable thing.

On a different note, Mat Lalonde in a recent podcast (I forget on what site, off the top of my head) talked about his own diet. Stating he does protein fasts during the morning (note; he still eats, just not protein), which he explained the theory behind as to what health benefits it presents. I've pretty naturally over time done something like this, usually once or twice a week though, normally on a Sunday (no work, school, etc) where I'll sleep late get up have some fruit or something vegetables and just be naturally inclined to fast for half the day.

Ed

Why would I want to replace nutrient dense meat with nutrient dense plants one day a week, when I eat both every day of the week, at every meal?

Aurele said:

Patrick Smith said:

I'm Catholic and I never eat red meat on Fridays. I have fish on Fridays

I love Fridays

Catholicism should really advertise a Sushi Friday or something Doesn't roll off the tongue as nicely as "Sushi Saturday" but hey better than nothing. I thought the no red meat on Fridays custom was only during Lent, though?

That's true, but Friday is believed to be the day that Christ died (or is the day that we assigned the event to), so Catholics will make some kind of sacrifice in honor of His death on all Fridays, not only in Lent.

ed x said:

I don't believe growing grains is actually more sustainable than meat.

You have to take into account everything, transportation of water, production of pesticides, destruction of soil quality, etc.

This is obviously not a comprehensive coverage of the issue, I just don't like it when it is spouted that meat production is this terrible, unsustainable thing.

Plant-based foods are far more sustainable due to the fact that while a large amount of corn, grains, soybeans, oats, and overall feed is consumed by animals, the meat and dairy they produce as a result is comparatively small; the bulk of the calories they're consuming is used simply to feed the animal's basal metabolism and keep it alive, rather than ultimately being converted into food itself. The common ratio of energy consumed versus energy produced is 4:1. According to the Livestock Marketing Information Center, in 2009 2.5 lbs of grains were used to produce a single lb of beef and chicken, and 3.5 lbs of grains to produce a single lb of pork.

Pesticides, soil degradation, water pollution, water shortages, and air pollution are certainly problems that apply to the production of plant foods, but remember that those problems are the same in producing feed for the animals, and that since 2.5 lbs of grains are used for a single lb of beef, by consuming a lb of beef rather than a lb of grains, you have that extra 1.5 lbs of grain production, and the environmental problems associated with it, to account for. Then on top of that you have to add all the extra processes involved with meat: Transportation of the grains to the manufacturers, operation of the feed mills, transportation of the feed to the factories, transportation of animals to slaughterhouse, operation of the slaughterhouse, transportation of meat to processors; operation of the processing plants; use of refrigeration and freezers until the meat is sold.

If you look at the statistics for environmental damage of animal food production versus plant food production, it's like comparing a pebble to a boulder. Which makes sense, since not only does animal production require plant production to feed the animals, on top of that it has all of the water, grazing, and land uses necessary for animal production.

If you're interested in the hard data and more information about the environmental damage produced by animal industries, check out the 390 page report by the United Nation's Food and Agricultural Organization, titled "Livestock's Long Shadow - Environmental Issues and Options." I'll just quote summaries since I don't think many people are willing to read a 390 page report.

"The assessment was based on the most recent and complete data available, taking into account direct impacts, along with the impacts of feed crop agriculture required for livestock production. The report states that the livestock sector is one of the top two or three most significant contributors to the most serious environmental problems, at every scale from local to global. The findings of this report suggest that it should be a major policy focus when dealing with problems of land degradation, climate change and air pollution, water shortage and water pollution, and loss of biodiversity."

"Following a Life Cycle Analysis approach, the report evaluates "that livestock are responsible for 18 percent of greenhouse gas emissions, a bigger share than that of transport.".[3] GHG emissions arise from feed production (eg chemical fertilizer production, deforestation for pasture and feed crops, cultivation of feed crops, feed transport and soil organic matter losses in pastures and feed crops), animal production (eg enteric fermentation and methane and nitrous oxide emissions from manure) and as a result of the transportation of animal products. Following this approach the report estimates that livestock contributes to about 9% of total anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions, but 37% of methane and 65% of nitrous oxide emissions."

Since the environmental impact of the animal industry is such a huge topic, it's impossible to include everything in a single post, so I'll include sources for those that want more information:

http://www.fao.org/docrep/010/a0701e/a0701e00.htm (here is the United Nation's massive report, which I already included, but it's the best one so I'll draw attention to it again)

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/usinventoryreport.html (United States Environmental Protection Agency's 2011 reports on greenhouse gas emissions, if you want to compare the data from different sectors)

http://www.noble.org/ag/Forage/efficiency-beef/index.html(reader friendly overview of beef production's efficiency)

http://www.wrm.org.uy/deforestation/indirect.html (information on deforestation, and the role of animal agriculture in it)

http://www.ncifap.org/bin/s/y/212-4_EnvImpact_tc_Final.pdf (another overview of detrimental affects)

There are so many studies and reports that I'll stop there. For a more reader friendly overview check out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_impact_of_meat_production, though really the United Nation's report is one of the comprehensive pieces of literature on the subject, so I'd read through that PDF if you want to find out more.

People can argue all day about ethics, since ethics are inherently subjective, but environmental damage? That's science, and the raw data unequivocally shows that the animal industries consume far more resources, produce more greenhouse gas emissions, and have a worse effect on land than production of plant foods.

Just eat sustainable grassfed meat. Healthier for you and the environment than any grain consumption.

Some of those subsitutes (grain,soy, corn) are going to make this 2 steps back Monday.

Patrick Smith said:

I'm Catholic and I never eat red meat on Fridays. I have fish on Fridays

I love Fridays

Dude, what's the problem with red meat? For God sake, the meat is from the cow, not from Jesus... :roll:

Razz said:

Just eat sustainable grassfed meat. Healthier for you and the environment than any grain consumption.

+1

Better to the environment, better to the animal and better to us.

Mikael said:

Patrick Smith said:

I'm Catholic and I never eat red meat on Fridays. I have fish on Fridays

I love Fridays

Dude, what's the problem with red meat? For God sake, the meat is from the cow, not from Jesus... :roll:

If you guys wanna make this another Paleo vs. Vegan battle then okay, but please let's not take it this way. Not that I'm taking any sides here, but this could offend people. Let's just leave religion opinions out of this.

And of course when it comes to diet choice, I'm paleo. No one will ever convince me that grains, vegetable oils, or legumes are healthy. There is just too much evidence against "Healthy" Whole grains, diets high in (poly)unsaturated fat and the madness about lowering the cholesterol levels in blood. Even more sad is that meat and cholesterol are blamed for all of the civilization diseases. :?

Falcon said:

Let's just leave religion opinions out of this.

Opinions? I spoke a fact, there is no arguments against facts, you agree or not, period. The catholic guy don't eat cow on Fridays because supposedly Jesus died in this day, this don't make any sense. What the relation between the death of Christ and eat red meat? Nothing.

Mikael said:

Falcon said:

Let's just leave religion opinions out of this.

Opinions? I spoke a fact, there is no arguments against facts, you agree or not, period. The catholic guy don't eat cow on Fridays because supposedly Jesus died in this day, this don't make any sense. What the relation between the death of Christ and eat red meat? Nothing.

Better idea. Let's take bets on how long it will take for this topic to be locked.

Why lock it?!

“Do not believe in anything simply because you have heard it. Do not believe in anything simply because it is spoken and rumored by many. Do not believe in anything simply because it is found written in your religious books. Do not believe in anything merely on the authority of your teachers and elders. Do not believe in traditions because they have been handed down for many generations. But after observation and analysis, when you find that anything agrees with reason and is conducive to the good and benefit of one and all, then accept it and live up to it.â€

Siddharta Gautama

And I'm not buddhist...

Uh, Mikael, it's just a tradition. It's not a strict obligation except for during Lent. It's like a fast. No disrespect intended, but you should show more respect for someone else's beliefs/traditions. Simply because you don't see the connection or understand the reason for the tradition doesn't mean you should bluntly insult it by oversimplifying and then dismissing it.

Anyway, I agree with Falcon. It's Irrelevant, so let's move on.

I eat a mostly plant based diet now and it's the leanest I have ever been as well as by far the most effortless time in my life for being lean.

I have meat sometimes, and I think it's a good idea to do so, but not so much the disgusting stuff fed to us in the supermarkets. Taking one day a week and being all plant is probably a great idea. It is an opportunity to explore new flavor and cooking options for things you normally never eat that can help you discover all sorts of delicious foods, like butter-sauteed leeks with toasted pecans and sweet potato. A delicious treat in my book.

Then there are the sweets options, with my favorite being sweet potato cookies with gluten free oats, raisins, dried cherries, and sprouted buckwheat folded in. Mmmmmmm Delicious, nutritious, and not too full of sugar.

You might be surprised at how much you like what you eat Doesn't mean you have to abandon your PETA (People for Eating Tasty Animals) roots forever!

Razz said:

Just eat sustainable grassfed meat. Healthier for you and the environment than any grain consumption.

The topic of grass-fed meat versus conventional meat is a great topic, and I'm glad you brought it up. I've personally spent hours researching the question, but have had trouble finding any sources I could consider excellent. Almost everything out there is either heavily biased, or lacking enough peer-reviewed literature to back up the claims. Might be an answer we have to just wait a few years on, since it hasn't been very long since grass-fed meat came into the spotlight and there's not as much research on its environmental effects as there is on the conventional production methods.

Ethically, I support grass-fed meat far more than conventional meat. But in terms of environmental reasons, that's much trickier. The conventional meat industry is about as efficient as it gets in terms of producing the finished product, and brings animals to slaughter much faster than grass-fed animals since the corn diet fattens up animals at a quicker rate. 23 months for grass-fed beef, versus 15 months for corn-fed beef, according to one study. Those extra months that grass-fed animals are alive in turn requires more water, creates more waste, and produces more methane.

Even if grass-fed beef is more environmentally-friendly than conventionally raised beef, however, there's still no comparison between it and plant foods. The statistics for environmental effects of animal foods versus plant foods aren't even in the same ballparks in terms of water consumption, greenhouse gas production, waste, water pollution, and degradation of land. While eating grass-fed beef might end up being better for the environment than corn-fed beef, not eating beef at all every Monday would still have a more positive environmental effect.

If you, or anyone else, knows of some great literature on the subject of grass-fed vs. corn-fed for the environment, though, I'd really appreciate it being shared. Hopefully in the upcoming years, due to the recent popularity of grass-fed, we'll have tons of more conclusive research.

Here in Brazil started a new process in which animal organic wastes are used in the production of biogas, biofuel and manure, then with it they fertilize the soil that will give rise to the grass that the animal will eat. Is a kind of cycle, so this new process is more sustainable than the original one. Also, here 99% of the meat is already organic, the so-called grassfed meat, the cattle live in open grassland.

Mikael said:

Here in Brazil started a new process in which animal organic wastes are used in the production of biogas, biofuel and manure, then with it they fertilize the soil that will give rise to the grass that the animal will eat. Is a kind of cycle, so this new process is more sustainable than the original one. Also, here 99% of the meat is already organic, the so-called grassfed meat, the cattle live in open grassland.

Any idea how recent the new processes are? I'm trying to find some articles online about any new sustainability practices Brazil has implemented, but haven't come up with anything, so I might need some help finding links. In the past few years there have been huge concerns about bout the environmental damage of beef production in Brazil, as well as human rights organizations showing concern about the treatment of the workers in that industry. Last year I was reading that Brazilian beef has very damaging effects on the environment, even in comparison to the meat produced elsewhere in the world. Here's one article about it from March 2011: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 091504.htm

Have the livestock practices there changed that dramatically in a year?

Certainly some practices for raising livestock are more sustainable than others, but even with the most sustainable modern methods out there there is still huge environmental damage. I don't think we should ask ourselves what is the better choice, but what is the BEST choice.

Sad to say there really is no cut a dry answer to any of this.

FWIW to both sides, keep an open mind look at facts from both sides of the issues that concern you. For any issue there are people who are very invested in their viewpoint. Ecological and nutritional groups are very often politically motivated.

EDIT:

Here is an excellent example of how the environmental movement going wrong, trading on problem for a worse one

4ZalyKzXnlo

My only sources on this are Robb Wolf and Mat Lalonde who both say that grassfed local is the way for a sustainable food business in the future.

Check out polyface farms on sustainability too http://www.polyfacefarms.com/

Aurele said:

Any idea how recent the new processes are? I'm trying to find some articles online about any new sustainability practices Brazil has implemented, but haven't come up with anything, so I might need some help finding links. In the past few years there have been huge concerns about bout the environmental damage of beef production in Brazil, as well as human rights organizations showing concern about the treatment of the workers in that industry. Last year I was reading that Brazilian beef has very damaging effects on the environment, even in comparison to the meat produced elsewhere in the world. Here's one article about it from March 2011: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 091504.htm

I do not know the details of the process, it is being used mostly by small farmers, but the big producers are already adhering to this sustainable change too. The deforestation in the Amazon is illegal, isn't the correct practice and not all producers do it, for sure is minority . Also, a new law started this year forcing these producers reforest part of these areas and The Project Monitoring Deforestation in the Amazon (PRODES), which analyzes the deforestation in the biome over 12 months, in December presented the finding of 11% drop in the devastation of the forest. The things are getting better.

Have the livestock practices there changed that dramatically in a year?

Yes, is what I'm knowing.

Certainly some practices for raising livestock are more sustainable than others, but even with the most sustainable modern methods out there there is still huge environmental damage. I don't think we should ask ourselves what is the better choice, but what is the BEST choice.

Maybe we'll discover what's the best choice the next years. Here, the scientists are manipulating the soy and they are able to "deploy" in the plant growth hormone, what a splendid thing, because before it was believed that plants could have no hormons animal / human. But it is still only the beginning. And maybe Siddhartha was right when said: "The Earth would be happy if all beings were united by the ties of benevolence and only feed on pure foods, without bloodshed. The GOLDEN GRAIN, bright fruits and delicious herbs that grow for all, would be enough to feed and give abundance to the world."