> American Heart Association made some recommendations like this in the 90s that caused everybody binge on carbs and weigh 300lbs. Recent studies (http://ajcn.n

> American Heart Association made some recommendations like this in the 90s that caused everybody binge on carbs and weigh 300lbs. Recent studies (http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/early/2010/01/13/ajcn.2009.. http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/early/2010/01/13/ajcn.2009.... https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9635993 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9635993 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19364995 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19364995) failed to find ill effects from saturated fats. (Trans fats are another story.) An unhealthy diet is an unhealthy diet in any case. Saturated fat is not good for you. It's the reason you get type 2 diabetes, among other stuff. No one will tell you it's healthy. > hormones Still one reason less to eat meat when the alternative is free of that crap and healthier in every other way too. And there is also all the science that says it is a problem. Especially in dairy, but also in meat. We don't need it, and we (possibly) suffer from consuming it, so doing so is plain stupid when there are alternatives. > Scientific consensus is that eating cholesterol has zero effect on cholesterol levels, since the body regulates production of it anyway. That's not true at all. The scientific consensus seems to be that it (dietary cholesterol also called ldl cholesterol) contributes about 0.3-0.4 of what saturated fat does when it comes to raising your blood cholesterol. But the fact is that humans need to consume zero dietary cholesterol - nothing at all - and consuming it has unhealthy effects, so doing so is plain stupid health wise when their is an alternative with zero dietary cholesterol. > True, though cows, sheep, goats, deer, etc. naturally produce B12 themselves (or more accurately, their bacteria do). So do humans. Still not a good reason to consume humans nor livestock. > It seems a little bit of red flag if a diet is deficient enough that you need pills to compensate, but I have no opposition to them per se. I take multi-vitamins now and then. I didn't make a comprehensive list of meat's better-than-average nutrients (e.g. iron comes to mind). Can you get the same nutrients without meat? Yes, it's possible. On the other hand, there's a reason humans are omnivores, even if we like to pretend they're not. You don't get the B12 from meat because of some special properties of the animals as a food source. You get it from meat because 1) the animals consumes supplements (which you can do too instead of getting it through an animal that consumed a supplement) 2) they consume poop (by accident or by choice) 3) their food is bacterially contaminated 4) they themself eat animal products where the occurrence are the same yet again. The reason why we need a pill in 2017 if we don't eat animal products or food that is fortified (like one could argue meat is, and that lots of plant-milks are for example) is because our water and our food is sanitary compared to what livestocks and our ancestors consumed. Health wise, getting B12 from meat is highly disadvantaged compared to a vitamin pill, which is a great thing for people to consume in any case.