Acheta Protein…you may be eating bugs already

Crickets actually are really nutritious in many ways

I agree there.  But the whole idea of doing away with actual meat and replacing it with insects is just a way to pear down the population social engineering style.

Although one must keep in mind, beef, chicken and pork are also good for you.  I believe those have more vitamins and other things we need than crickets. Crickets are said to have more protein and little fat and less calories but the whole idea of eating food is for calories and without fat you die. I am not saying crickets are bad (they do have a lot of parasites in them even from farms) but much of what you see is out of context marketing (which is most marketing for anything).

Meats have a good balance of things.  I am not sure that’s the case for crickets.  Meaning you could not survive off them alone.  For example.  One could say rabbit meat was healthier because it has little fat and less calories. Well, if you eat primarily rabbit meat you end up with “rabbit starvation” and you can die because rabbit is so lean you are not getting essential fats and you get protein poisoning.

@vknid

Crickets are more rich in protein than beef for example, and doesn’t have fat which is bad for cholesterol and the heart etc. They also have more vitamins, fiber and iron. I’m obviously not advocating for switching to a cricket only diet, the key is to have a versatile diet and crickets are nutritious snacks.

It’s like you did not read what I posted and just regurgitated the WEF talking points.

You need fat to live.  Your brain is 60% fat.  Natural fats are not bad for you.  Natural fats are good for you.  Natural fats in correct amounts do not cause illness. Too many fats are bad like too much of anything.  Processed and or unnatural fats are horrible for you.

Crickets do NOT have more vitamins and minerals.  Crickets do not have more iron.

I did read and I also read research which pointed out that crickets do have iron, minerals, fiber etc. You can find papers on it on google scholar, for example.

And I know you need fat. The problem is, people are eating too much salt and fat. Which is one reason obesity is a problem.

I search nothing on Google.  I don’t use anything Google anymore than I am forced to.  Google is THE propaganda machine.  If you are performing your research on Google that explains a lot.  Not to mention the dystopian privacy nightmare they are.

Google is not the one writing, you can find papers on Google written by experts of the field in question, peer reviewed. I use Web of Science too, Google just has the widest source for anything and everything.

Google Scholar is where you can find scientific papers that aren’t biased, or are not supposed to be anyways.

is there evidence that Google Scholar provides biased papers? That’s what I used to write papers back in college.

There is no evidence as far as I know. I would be happy to see any evidence for that, as I believe it’s more of a case of ”the facts are against me so the facts must be biased and woke”.

You can literally see when, where and by who the study is written, Google has nothing to do with the studies itself. I think you can just apply Occam’s razor principle here: do experts in Poland write peer reviewed studies in science journals about crickets because they have come to the conclusion that crickets indeed are high in nutrition, or because they are participating in American culture war trying to press the population into becoming easily controlled bug eaters?

• This reply was modified 1 week, 3 days ago by SuperSoynic_Speed.