That's an interesting philosophy. Does it extend to all carnivores on the planet? I.e would we go out and destroy all carnivores, so herbivores never get killed? What about herbivores that kill, but don't eat? Like hippos

Where do you draw the line on life that should not be hunted? Or kept captive? Feed animals obviously, Worms, crickets and birds for crops? then pets, symbiotic bacteria, captive mitochondria... Where do you draw the line on captivity?

Nutritional argument/Game Changers part: This one I skipped mostly, as any argument that some particular kind of diet is more or less healthy depends on how the diet itself is structured and whether one takes it upon themselves to meet all the different macro- and micronutrients, be it with supplements or not.

I disagree. Nutrient bio-availability means that it's not how a diet is "structured" but what you eat. There are things that we require for health as a species that we can only obtain from animal sources. Since you're vegan you have no choice but to supplement, but please keep in mind that nothing in this world exists on its own. Nutrients removed from the matrix of food our body expects to receive them from aren't the same.

Every species has evolved to eat specific things. We are meant to eat the meat and associated fat of animals, preferably ruminants and fish. No other animal on this planet "structures" its diet and supplements to "meet all the different macro and micronutrients." They eat the thing that they've evolved to eat when they're hungry, and stop eating it when they're not.

Humans are the only species intelligent enough to manufacture our own food, and dumb enough to actually eat it.

Thanks for looking at Zoe's lecture! Thats really nice of you! I appreciate it. I'll respond to some of your points inline below.

Nutritional argument..... On B12, it’s often supplemented into the feed of factory-farmed animals if I remember correctly, and EPA/DHA can be found in algae, as that’s how fish get it in the first place.

Fair enough, you do you! But if a diet is impossible to satisfy on natural whole foods, then the diet can't argue it is the most historically matched to human evolution.

Animal argument.... in our current system, a good chunk of our land use goes to feed for farm animals

She addresses this, but I'll recap - ruminants should just eat grass, not non-edible human crops, they are fed those crops because they are cheap and to fatten up the animal (while making it sick), which isn't great.

Animal argument.... living vegan would lead to a reduction in overall land use

Technically yes, because the land used for ruminants isn't crop land.. but the current crop land would not yield more human food - animals are getting the waste products of that system, taking the animals out just leaves the waste.

Animal argument.... if we want to consume as much meat as a society as we currently do, doing it in an industrial fashion is kinda the only realistic option, as free-roaming animals would need much more space.

I think you will find most zero carb carnivores more or less agree with you - the industrial farming system is barbaric and needs to change. Animals in their natural environments are the most ethical and healthy.

The planet argument... stopping the methane from cows through a different diet is much simpler than attempting a worldwide extermination of termites, cockroaches, etc. And that it gets dismissed in climate reports is also pretty weird, since natural sources of methane are taken into account.

The core problem is the analysis of carbon emissions from animal sources makes huge assumptions, but more importantly doesn't look at the entire biocycle of a cow. A cow is not a net producer of carbon - it's inputs are just grass and water - any carbon it emits is coming from the grass and water. Looking at just the outputs of a cow's life it looks like a carbon polluter, but if you account for the inputs, its neutral, and if the cow is living in its natural habitat it's a carbon capture device. Cows eating grass cause the grass to sequester carbon in its root system, increasing soil health.

We can't isolate a single part of a single system in isolation and claim it's a bad thing, we have to look at the entire lifecycle.

Take note of Rule 6. As it is your first time posting here we'll go easy on you :)

I encourage you to watch the video and think critically about the information presented before regurgitating facts generated by an LLM about "this diet."

If we were to bring what I think your LLM is trying to say to its logical conclusion, what we'd have to do is also remove all pets since they too produce a large amount of food related emissions. Additionally, human gas emissions should be minimized, i.e. we should eliminate foods that cause flatulence in our diet. After all, from a philosophical standpoint, it's only fair, right?

Then there is the difference in how long methane and CO2 stays in the atmosphere that we should also consider, as well as various other cofounders such as green/blue water, arable/non-arable land, and the fact that ruminants regenerate topsoil and sequester co2 in various ways. The figures your LLM provided for emissions are inaccurate. Additionally, the initial number cited by many CO2 studies as the cost of cattle beef is in itself inaccurate and has been amended by the paper's author, so you should take a look that also.

There is also the environmental and societal cost of transporting plant matter around the planet for plant-based to even be possible in the winter months, dry/arid climes, or in the far north. If we were to only consume locally produced food that is seasonally appropriate, it is not possible to sustain a purely plant-based diet in many parts of the world.

And of course, as you are already well aware, nutrient bioavailability is an order of magnitude different between plants and animals, ignoring things that plants cannot provide that we require such as vitamin b12, cholesterol, fat soluble vitamins, heme iron, or specific amino acids.

All things considered, a sustainable and regenerative zero carb diet is superior environmentally to what I think your LLM is suggesting, which is veganism.

Btw, if all you're here to do is evangelize veganism, this is the wrong community for you. If you're open to having a sincere, good faith discussion about metabolic health, then you're more than welcome.

ps. it's just a little bit hypocritical to use an LLM, a technology with massive on-going environmental and societal costs, to generate hot air about environmentalism.

Happily Zoe has already addressed this argument in her lecture, I recommend you watch it.

DeepSeek 4 pro says regenerative farmed beef is between 0 and 240kg/year per person/food. That's far less than your ~4 kg / day = 1.4 tonne pa

We don't recommend grain finished beef here, we don't recommend factory farmed beef feed chemically fertilized grass