4 ms·
I'll bite. Meat, and red meat in general, has got a bad rap because of various studies linking it with poor health (i.e. cancer and cardiovascular issues). Pe
by HorizonXP 14y ago
I'll bite.
Meat, and red meat in general, has got a bad rap because of various studies linking it with poor health (i.e. cancer and cardiovascular issues).
Personally, I would argue against it. We know from anthropology studies that humans only evolved to our current state because we started to eat larger quantities of meat. Fact is, there is no better source of nutrition and calories when you're looking at foods obtainable from the environment.
In the 20th century, we're in a different situation. Food and calories are easy to come by, to the point that many Westerners are gluttonous and we eat too much. We don't need to eat meat to obtain more calories, removing it as a requirement from our diets.
Vegetarians will argue that their diets have less of an impact on the planet, and that they're healthier overall. You can argue that point either way, but anecdotally, I've met few vegetarians that are actually "healthy." Many do not understand that if you remove meat as a source of protein, you need to supplement it with another source. Vegetarian sources of protein are not very protein-dense, so you need to eat a lot of food to get your daily requirement. Moreover, you need to ensure that you're obtaining all of your essential amino acids, which many plant-products don't provide. That's why Indians, a predominantly vegetarian society, will eat rice with daal. Rice lacks lysine, which daal contains. Together, they are a whole source of protein.
I've personally tried the vegetarian diet, and it's not for me. It's not for everyone. I found that to hit my protein requirements, I had to eat a lot of carbohydrates along with it, which meant a lot of calories.
Right now, I'm overweight, so I'm trying to hack my diet and lose weight in a completely different way. I eat absolutely no carbohydrates. All I eat is lamb (I'm Hindu, so no beef or pork), fish, and poultry. I also eat lots of green vegetables, nuts, mushrooms, and cheeses. Oh, butter and heavy cream too. It's called the ketogenic diet if you're interested.
I've never felt better. No intestinal issues or bloating. I'm losing weight steadily. And I get to eat awesome, healthy meals that taste amazing. And I would bet that my environmental impact isn't all that high. My grocery list is very simple, sticking to the outer corridors of the store.
It's not for everyone. But it works for me. I would bet that most studies that say red meat is bad, didn't control for carbohydrates. The biochemical processes that occur in the body in reaction to carbohydrate intake is likely what contributes to the issues surrounding red meat. Of course, few studies have been done to confirm this because of a general disposition that high-fat diets are bad.
In summary, people are against meat because they keep hearing that it's bad. They don't seek out alternate opinions, and would rather be ignorant than educate themselves.
- bendmorris 14y agoI'm on keto too. But people do have valid, non-health reasons for avoiding meat, including ethical and sustainability concerns. Keto is great for your own personal health, but in some ways people who choose to incorporate large amounts of meat into their diets (like you and I) are basically choosing these personal benefits over the greater good for everyone else.
- HorizonXP 14y agoDepends on how you look at it though. If you keep your view narrow (not meant as an insult), you're right, our impact on the environment and economy via agriculture is probably higher. Fact is, an animal requires more nutrients and care to raise than a plant. That takes a lot of energy and resources. If you expand your view, you can actually begin to argue that we might have a reduced impact in comparison to others. There is anecdotal and limited empirical evidence that suggests that people that strictly follow a low-carb diet actually have better blood chemistry that those on a low-fat diet. Lower LDL cholesterol and triglycerides, and higher HDL cholesterol levels usually lead to a reduced risk of cardiovascular disease. Not to mention that it's practically impossible to have diabetes. Those on a low-carb diet are usually trying to lose weight, so that helps too, since maintaining a "normal" weight has wider health implications. My point is that being overweight likely has a larger impact than simply eating meat. Being overweight, you're more likely to have higher healthcare costs, eat more, and require more energy and resources to sustain. If you're lighter, most of these negatives go away. Whether you achieve your lower weight by low-carb or low-fat doesn't really matter. But there are plenty of people that eat low-carb as an actual lifestyle, and their blood chemistry generally indicates that they're healthier overall. Anyway, to each their own. But this fallacy that meat-eaters are creating an unethical and unsustainable environment is specious. You really need to look at the big picture. (I wish I had actual sources to cite.)
- luser001 14y ago> (I'm Hindu, so no beef or pork) Minor nit: I don't think Hindus are prohibited from eating pork. AFAIK. > And I would bet that my environmental impact isn't all that high. Ironically this page claims that lamb is the worst of all meats wrt CO2 footprint. http://ewg.org/meateatersguide/eat-smart/ http://ewg.org/meateatersguide/eat-smart/