3 ms·

I wrote this in another comment earlier, but red meat is the most energy-efficient food source available for consumption in digestive terms, simply because our

I wrote this in another comment earlier, but red meat is the most energy-efficient food source available for consumption in digestive terms, simply because our bodies were designed to process large amounts of protein rapidly - compared to plant matter that needs to be broken down multiple times. There's a reason herbivores have 4 stomachs. Human bodies basically evolved as Apex predators and a meat diet helped that, as well as was responsible for it. Meat, berries and tubers for hunter-gatherers to put it succinctly. We only adopted carbs because back in the day, cereals were the most efficient way to feed a large population (compared to say large-scale veggie cultivation) for an active societal workforce. But with us slowly and inevitably turning into lumbering sedentary creatures, it makes no sense to continue eating as many carbs as we are culturally accustomed to, instead resorting to meats and veggies to adequately cover up that deficit. Unfortunately, you need a ton of veggies to make up that deficit, but you can make do with a much smaller sized portion of meat than you're usually accustomed to (as we see with East Asian diets).

_w1tm 2y ago
Why are you treating vegetarianism as the alternative to red meat? You can drastically reduce the “redness” of your diet by eating chicken and fish. Even pork is less “red” though I’m not sure if it counts as red meat for this study.
- fakedang 2y ago
  The issue is that chicken in the US (even the "free-range" ones) are often factory-farmed, else I would have gladly recommended it. I was extremely astounded by the (high) quality of free-range chicken and eggs one can get in the UK. In the US, it's more likely for your grassfed beef to be free-range than it is for your chicken. Coming from a heavily pescetarian culture, I wouldn't recommend a lot of seafood today. Fish are loaded with oceanic carcinogens, not to mention you have even little control over how they're sourced (it's nearly always a factory ship).
adrian_b 2y ago
You can get some energy quickly from proteins like meat, but you cannot get enough energy for a day of work. Humans need to get most of the energy either from fat or from carbohydrates like starch, otherwise they die. Even for the speed of obtaining energy from food, nothing beats a mixture of glucose with fructose, like long-distance runners or cyclists have to consume, if they want to win. Red meat may be very tasty, but it is not the best for any criterion. As a source of proteins, lean white meat is superior, e.g. turkey breast, chicken breast or fillet from various kinds of fish with white meat, e.g. cod or zander. As a source of energy, any food rich in starch or in oil is superior and also many times cheaper. During the last few tens of thousands of years, the humans have evolved to be much better at digesting starch than their ancestors and than most other apes or monkeys, by increasing the ability to synthesize the enzymes used in starch digestion. So our body physiology has already shifted somewhat from being best adapted to a hunter lifestyle to one where the plant seeds can satisfy most of the energy requirements. Meat still remains one of the best choices as a source of proteins, but not as a source of energy.
- fakedang 2y ago
  > You can get some energy quickly from proteins like meat, but you cannot get enough energy for a day of work. Humans need to get most of the energy either from fat or from carbohydrates like starch, otherwise they die. That itself is a fallacious notion. Mammals can get energy from a multitude of sources, including carbs, proteins and fats. True, carbs are the fastest source and are prioritized first by the body, and any surplus is converted to fat, which is then stored as lipids. But fats are slower than proteins to digest, which take the second order in priority. The body breaks down protein to generate energy in the absence of carbs. You could make do with eating a much lower portion of carbs and still cover your energy intake needs, as the world has moved on from an active lifestyle to a sedentary lifestyle. But you can't forgo the protein you get from meat and adequately substitute it, unless you eat exorbitant amounts of legumes. On a societal scale, it's much simpler to just have cattle around and eat on some grass, instead of allocating land to grow a bunch of legumes - one buffalo would be enough to feed a small village and some more. You're right in that white meat is superior, but white meat in the US has a much higher chance of being factory farmed than white meat. The carcinogenicity of red meat largely comes from the use of chemical preservatives used in cleaning before freezing the meat - something fresh grass fed beef doesn't have to contend with. Fish and seafood is another good source of protein, unfortunately they might be as carcinogenic as frozen red meat due to the amount of toxic chemicals we dump into our seas.

_w1tm 2y ago

Why are you treating vegetarianism as the alternative to red meat? You can drastically reduce the “redness” of your diet by eating chicken and fish. Even pork is less “red” though I’m not sure if it counts as red meat for this study.

fakedang 2y ago
The issue is that chicken in the US (even the "free-range" ones) are often factory-farmed, else I would have gladly recommended it. I was extremely astounded by the (high) quality of free-range chicken and eggs one can get in the UK. In the US, it's more likely for your grassfed beef to be free-range than it is for your chicken. Coming from a heavily pescetarian culture, I wouldn't recommend a lot of seafood today. Fish are loaded with oceanic carcinogens, not to mention you have even little control over how they're sourced (it's nearly always a factory ship).

adrian_b 2y ago

You can get some energy quickly from proteins like meat, but you cannot get enough energy for a day of work. Humans need to get most of the energy either from fat or from carbohydrates like starch, otherwise they die. Even for the speed of obtaining energy from food, nothing beats a mixture of glucose with fructose, like long-distance runners or cyclists have to consume, if they want to win. Red meat may be very tasty, but it is not the best for any criterion. As a source of proteins, lean white meat is superior, e.g. turkey breast, chicken breast or fillet from various kinds of fish with white meat, e.g. cod or zander. As a source of energy, any food rich in starch or in oil is superior and also many times cheaper. During the last few tens of thousands of years, the humans have evolved to be much better at digesting starch than their ancestors and than most other apes or monkeys, by increasing the ability to synthesize the enzymes used in starch digestion. So our body physiology has already shifted somewhat from being best adapted to a hunter lifestyle to one where the plant seeds can satisfy most of the energy requirements. Meat still remains one of the best choices as a source of proteins, but not as a source of energy.

fakedang 2y ago
> You can get some energy quickly from proteins like meat, but you cannot get enough energy for a day of work. Humans need to get most of the energy either from fat or from carbohydrates like starch, otherwise they die. That itself is a fallacious notion. Mammals can get energy from a multitude of sources, including carbs, proteins and fats. True, carbs are the fastest source and are prioritized first by the body, and any surplus is converted to fat, which is then stored as lipids. But fats are slower than proteins to digest, which take the second order in priority. The body breaks down protein to generate energy in the absence of carbs. You could make do with eating a much lower portion of carbs and still cover your energy intake needs, as the world has moved on from an active lifestyle to a sedentary lifestyle. But you can't forgo the protein you get from meat and adequately substitute it, unless you eat exorbitant amounts of legumes. On a societal scale, it's much simpler to just have cattle around and eat on some grass, instead of allocating land to grow a bunch of legumes - one buffalo would be enough to feed a small village and some more. You're right in that white meat is superior, but white meat in the US has a much higher chance of being factory farmed than white meat. The carcinogenicity of red meat largely comes from the use of chemical preservatives used in cleaning before freezing the meat - something fresh grass fed beef doesn't have to contend with. Fish and seafood is another good source of protein, unfortunately they might be as carcinogenic as frozen red meat due to the amount of toxic chemicals we dump into our seas.