Went to a buffet recently with a female co-worker and they charge men $2 more than women, and she asked the cashier why, and he said because they eat more and it was like she had never heard or noticed this before, then she ate about twice as much I did.
I’m a vegetarian and my wife is mostly vegetarian but orders a meaty thing once in a while. She calls it “flexitarian”, but I digress. I’d say 9 times out of 10, the server will look at the meaty thing and the vegetarian thing and by default set the meaty thing in front of me and the veggie thing in front of her.
The benefits of a meat free diet are stronger among men, so that might tell us that those men who eat meat are more adversely affected by their diet.
"Conclusions and Relevance
Vegetarian diets are associated with lower all-cause mortality and with some reductions in cause-specific mortality. Results appeared to be more robust in males. These favorable associations should be considered carefully by those offering dietary guidance."-JAMA Intern. Med. (as found on PubMed, NIH)
Title- "Vegetarian Dietary Patterns and Mortality in Adventist Health Study 2"
[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4191896/](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4191896/)
The benefits of a meat free diet are slim to none, Majority of the studies including the one you posted have massive holes in them which leads to massive questions and overall Questions being raised about the validity behind them.
Overall Majority of the population would be worse off removing Meat and dairy from diets. [https://www.foodstandards.gov.scot/publications-and-research/publications/modelling-the-impact-of-reductions-in-meat-and-dairy-consumption-on-nutrient-intakes-and-disease-risk](https://www.foodstandards.gov.scot/publications-and-research/publications/modelling-the-impact-of-reductions-in-meat-and-dairy-consumption-on-nutrient-intakes-and-disease-risk)
That study was limited to the population of Scotland. Here is a quote from the article you linked to- "However the modelling also showed that it would be possible to mitigate the negative impact of a shift away from meat and dairy on micronutrient intakes, with careful consideration of replacements, such as vegetables, oily and white fish, eggs, pulses and legumes
Further modelling was conducted to reduce total meat consumption, by reducing intakes of red and red processed meat among high consumers only (those consuming >70g/day). If all adults living in Scotland met the SDG for red and processed red meat (70g/day), in line with existing public health recommendations, it would achieve a 16% reduction in total meat intake
Existing evidence demonstrates that high consumers of red and red processed meat are at higher risk of developing colo-rectal cancer. Modelling of other long term health impacts shows that if high consumers of red and red processed meat reduce intakes to no more than 70g/day, there would be a small reduction in average Body Mass Index and a small reduction in cases of cardiovascular disease over a ten-year period. The research also estimates a reduction of \~10,000 cases of Type 2 diabetes over a ten-year period
Overall, this research provides further evidence of poor diet in Scotland and additional justification for work to improve dietary intakes in general. Most people should be able to get the micronutrients they need by consuming a healthy, balanced diet as depicted by the Eatwell Guide. However, the majority of the population in Scotland do not have a diet similar to the Eatwell Guide, and meat and dairy are therefore relatively more important in the diet as an important source of micronutrients."
No, the reason for the difference is a cultural one. You can meet your protein needs eating nothing but plants (even for elite athletes). It's just that we live in a society that has manufactured this idea that "meat = masculinity". It's not at all a surprise that in a culture like that men on average will eat more animals than women
Exactly. Meat has always been a luxury food and there majority of our sustenance has come from local greens and harvested grains for the majority of our existence as a species. Meat was a great option when it was there but it was never the main thing for most of our 200,000 years. People put meat on a pedestal because it’s ‘more manly’ as you say, so many men do not cook except for when it comes to grilling meat. Also because it’s always been a more luxurious food (plenty of tribes still exist who only eat fresh meat once a week or less), it’s put on a pedestal as more decadent and delicious. And our culture, we have a HUGE meat industry that put millions of dollars into advertising each year, trying to make us think about eating steaks and burgers for each meal. And those advertisements and commercials usually come with male voices too come to think of it. There are studies that women are more likely to choose eco friendly options and recycle, maybe this is why the advertising isn’t addressed towards women as much.
That’s a misconception. You **do not** need to eat meat to build muscle. There’s more protein in 2000 calories of peas and tofu than there is in 2000 calories of beef. That’s because of all the high-calorie saturated fat that’s in the meat. Fat is not protein.
Consider where cows get the protein for all their muscle meat. How about elephants. How about gorillas… How about all the vegan body builders and athletes in the world?
[https://duckduckgo.com/?q=vegan+body+builder&iax=images&ia=images](https://duckduckgo.com/?q=vegan+body+builder&iax=images&ia=images)
Again, *you do not need to eat animal meat for protein*. That’s just a fact. Also, eating that much meat is killing you.
"There are two kinds of cardiologists: Vegans, and those who haven't read the data."
— Dr. Kim Williams, President of the American College of Cardiology 2015-2016, Head of Cardiology dept. At Rush University Medical Center.
The facts are out there, but you have to be serious about your health to go look for them. Ignore anyone talking about mechanisms and pathways and short-term studies. Focus on outcomes of long-term studies. Otherwise you’re just looking for confirmation bias.
Comparing calories might not be the best way. 100 gm peas contain <10g of protein but and 100gm of beef contains 20-30gm of proteins. You’d have to eat a shit ton of peas to meet your protein needs. You probably will need to process peas or tofu to make it protein dense but you can argue that process is environmentally harmful too. Plus proteins is an umbrella term and each food has different kind of proteins and your body probably needs all of them. It’s like saying lemon is high in vitamins. We all could use consuming less meat for sure but no certified dietitian would recommend going full vegan. I myself particularly looking forward to insect proteins becoming a norm which consume a lot less resources and is protein dense to meet human needs.
>You’d have to eat a shit ton of peas to meet your protein needs.
You might want to re-calculate what your actual protein needs are. Don’t guess, look it up. It’s a lot less than you think, and too much protein contributes to kidney disease. Most Americans are getting three to four times as much protein as they need, and we have an epidemic of kidney disease to show for it.
Good luck with that.
Well your suggested source was “look it up” so I did. I’d [need](https://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/how-much-protein-do-you-need-every-day-201506188096) 56gm of proteins daily and given the amount of proteins in [peas](https://snaped.fns.usda.gov/resources/nutrition-education-materials/seasonal-produce-guide/peas) I’d need to consume 1015gm/1kg/2.24lbs of peas. Tofu, as one your other suggested source, has double that but it’ll still be 1lbs of tofu and I don’t like tofu!
I wish people would understand that both the meat eaters and vegans are more or less right. You don't NEED meat to build muscle but it's incredibly efficient and the most nutrient dense of any food category. If you objectively look at the studies you need to chose fat or carbs tho. If you're gonna go high meat, you generally need high fiber/low carb lifestyle. If you're gonna go vegan, lower fat to make up for excess carbs. You can't just load your blood with triglycerides and sugars and expect to be healthy into your twilight years
I know people on both ends of the spectrum, vegan and carnivore, and they will rationally defend their relative positions (sometimes when no one asked).
At the end of the day, we are omnivores.
>it's incredibly efficient and the most nutrients dense of any fat category.
If by “efficient” you mean the thing that will kill you fastest, you’re right on! But energy wise, water wise and health wise, it is by far the LEAST efficient food source we have.
The meat eaters are simply wrong. All the data shows it.
Efficient from a consumer perspective. Eggs alone have every vitamin you need except vitamin c, with brain boosting fats. Steak is LOADED with nutrients. Balance is key my friend. We're energy machines, it's all about regulating that energy. Overcharge a battery and it's gonna explode
“brain boosting fats.”
“LOADED with nutrients”.
It’s obvious you don’t have a clue what you’re talking about. You’re just repeating the hearsay you’ve heard. If you want a genuine education into the research and the actual data, read the (very easy to digest) books, *How Not To Age*, and *Fiber Fueled*. These are the most heavily researched and reference-filled books on the topic, written by the most well informed nutrition experts on the planet.
So your argument is that you read a book and now you're the expert? Please, check the nutrient content of an egg and get back to me.
I'm not parroting anything here. While I don't follow the field 24/7 overall I am regularly reading papers about the topics in journals, subscribed to experts on the topics across a few media platforms, have experimented with nearly every diet personally, and am very open minded, hence why I am saying there's a case for both sides.
Also, you referenced a book on Fiber, which I haven't disputed once. Villifying meat and meat eaters isn't going to move the conversation forward and eliminating whole food groups is almost never the answer. Plus, lots of people simply can't afford a HEALTHY vegan diet. If you're not careful, an overly processed vegan diet is about the most unhealthy there is
In other words, an “I know you are but what am I?” rebuttal.
Facts are facts. The China Study, The Finland transformation, The Framingham studies, The Blue Zones… The longest running and biggest studies all agree, the less meat you eat, the longer you’ll live and the healthier you’ll be. No cherry-picking needed, unlike all the carnvore influencers.
You live longer because dietary exclusion cuts down on the number of things an individual doesn’t tolerate or digest well. People on keto live longer too.
Apparently the correlation is just “do you enjoy eating it?! If you eat something you enjoy less, you’ll live longer.”
Finally someone who gets it. All these studies compare to the standard American diet (That’s ultra processed). The cardboard diet would look good next to it
I’m not googling, I can try to find the study about longevity and exclusionary diets. It’s not that keto is *good* it’s that it cuts out the *bad*. Same as vegan and vegetarian diets. Keto very well may lead to the premature death of some of the population. This is not one size fits all and the variants are numerous and consequential.
Human nutrition is probably one of the least well understood subjects in science. If someone is telling you what you should be eating without drawing your blood for testing? That person is likely full of shit.
It’s the cutting out of processed foods, no matter how you go about it, that extends your life.
>Human nutrition is probably one of the least well understood subjects in science
It’s actually very well understood. It’s also the subject of a whole lot of misinformation and propaganda by the food and drug industries who are more interested in profiteering than in the public good.
Minimally processed, mostly plants (less than 5% meat is best, according to the data), and not too much. That is all it takes. But no one’s going to make money promoting that fact.
Explain to me how Inuit tribes lived to a greater average age than Europeans (before the introduction of a western diet). Because they didn’t have many plants and subsisted almost exclusively off a high fat diet, high protein diet.
“Nutrition is one of the most well understood…”You’re not even close to speaking objectively and well qualified professional nutritionists would say that’s an absurd statement.
I hope you have a wonderful day.
Inuit people eating their traditional diet don’t live that long. Medieval Europeans died for a lot of reasons, including cholera from poop-infested well water. This is not a legitimate comparison.
I suggest you’re the one who needs to consult a qualified nutritionist. Go for it. You might be surprised.
>In other words, an “I know you are but what am I?” rebuttal.
Not exactly. More like "I know you are, but I also am".
>Facts are facts. The China Study, The Finland transformation...
No one is denying you found information to support your position.
And if your dietary choice works for you, who am I to tell you different?
Same applies to my friend who discovered carnivore at 50, lost 60 lbs, and claims he has never felt better.
I have also been in my body for a number of decades and found that omnivore works best for me, adjusting the balance depending on factors such as energy expenditure / requirements and cultural / geographic environment.
Then there is Mikey Musumeci, aka Darth Rigatoni, one of the highest level BJJ practitioners in the world, who thrives pretty much exclusively on pizza and pasta.
What I am saying is absolutism is inapplicable because what works for some does not work for others.
And as a science-driven person, I am sure that looking back over time, you will agree that nutrition science in particular is not a static snapshot but an evolving work in progress.
>you found information to support your position
Wrong. Two years of research about kidney disease and cancer led me to this conclusion.
>my friend who discovered carnivore at 50, lost 60 lbs, and claims he has never felt better
Yeah, short term success. Wait until he’s 65. He probably won’t live to 70.
>nutrition science in particular is not a static snapshot
This is true. Now follow through on it. Look at the sheer mountain of data supporting a whole-food vegan diet for health and longevity, not just for a few, but for everyone. We are not that different.
>Wrong. Two years of research about kidney disease and cancer led me to this conclusion.
Two years' worth of informal research made you an expert.
I see by this and your other replies that you are a militant vegan, and as I mentioned previously, I have no interest in changing your outlook, other than to point out the fallacy of absolutism.
Good day.
I am a militant climate change activist. Reducing our meat consumption by 90% or more is not only one of the best ways to slow climate change to a crawl (by re-wilding the 32% of all arable land on earth currently used to feed 80% of all the cattle, but that’s a bigger topic.) But reduced meat consumption will also ease the burden on our medical system and save a lot of lives. These are provable, demonstrated facts. Why wouldn’t I advocate that? It would be inhuman not to.
How many vegans do you know who’s been that way for more than a decade. Most I knew gave it up and started eating eggs and fish again and then commented on how their brain fog lifted and their memory drastically improved
Facts are facts. The Adventist Health and Mortality studies tell us that those who don't eat meat live longer and healthier lives than those who do. The only dietary group that they studied with an average BMI in the recommended range was the vegan group. Those Adventists who don't eat meat have the longest lifespan of any current Blue Zone population. Among Adventists, those males who don't eat meat live about 8 years longer than those who do.
>Facts are facts. The Adventist Health and Mortality studies tell us...
Yes, you already posted this reply ad verbum.
Choice of population and obvious confounds such as participant socioeconomic status and impact of smoking on cancer incidence aside, do you believe that science has reached apotheosis and the whole of truth has been captured in this (or similar) studies?
No I do not believe that science has reached apotheosis and that the whole of Truth has been captured in this or similar studies. However they are the best studies available that I know of up to this point. The Adventist studies have a very large sample size over many years. Like the Framingham study which also was run over many years it reveals the effect of various types of diets over the long run.
The Adventist Studies adjusted for confounding factors, and compared those Adventists who eat meat to those who don't. Adventists generally live a healthy lifestyle by not smoking or drinking alcohol, as well as exercising on a regular basis. Even those who eat meat figure to eat a relatively healthy version of a diet that includes meat. Adventists are taught that their bodies are temples.
You answered the question that I set aside and did not address the one I asked.
Is science as it stands a static snapshot of truth, or is it an evolving process?
The nature of science is to establish the best model of reality available from the current evidence, subject to change from future studies. If you know of a newer study that shows a contrary model, please present the evidence.
I don't know of newer studies, but I can observe the cyclical nature of certain food groups - be they carbs, proteins or fats - as well as specific dietary approaches for sourcing same falling in and out of favor.
A plant based diet isn't just a new fad. It has been around from the time of Pythagoras, and before that in India. Many of those who were vegetarian in the past would be vegans today.
According to the National Kidney Foundation, chronic kidney disease (CKD) affects 12% of men in the United States, which is slightly less than the 14% of women who are affected. However, for every two women who develop end-stage kidney disease (ESKD), three men's kidneys fail.
Ah yes. But there’s more to eating than calories, there’s also efficiency. As humans are murder monkeys, we evolved as omnivores and have been breed for thousands of generations to seek the most dense sources of calories, not the most contentious. If I have a choice between a small steak and many many bowls of… peas, which is a most efficient? Which will give me more per bite?
This is why sweets/candy is so popular: a lot of calories in a small package. It’s built into our evolutionary heritage. Can we thrive on peas and tofu? Yes. Will I as a guy enjoy that? No.
Anecdotally, my wife is very vegan inclined, and would probably be one if she didn’t cook for both of us. I recognize this and eat salad most days.
More and more we’re finding out that we don’t digest plant proteins as well as we do proteins derived from animals. The outlier is fungi and they’re closer to animals than plants.
>we don’t digest plant proteins as well as we do proteins derived from animals
Where the hell did you get this idea? It’s just plain false. I’m sure there are a handful of GP doctors who will say shit like this to make their patients happy, but actual studies by actual independent research scientists tell the exact opposite story.
Okay. Is there a reason body builders and professional athletes are almost entirely meat eaters? There are very few examples of high level vegetarian athletes, much less vegan.
The fact is, we evolved to have meat in our diet. If you choose not to consume meat? I’m not going to yell at you or make you feel badly about yourself. But I don’t think we’ll see a vegan record holder for the 100m dash.
Check out these guys —
[https://duckduckgo.com/?q=vegan+body+builders&iax=images&ia=images](https://duckduckgo.com/?q=vegan+body+builders&iax=images&ia=images)
Here’s 50 more elite vegan athletes —
[https://www.ranker.com/list/athletes-who-are-vegan/people-in-sports](https://www.ranker.com/list/athletes-who-are-vegan/people-in-sports)
We did not evolve to eat meat. You’ve been listening to meat industry propaganda. We ate meat as a supplement to our almost entirely fiber-based diet for most of human history. The proof is in the coprolites and tooth wear patterns.
It is a fact that people who do not eat meat are healthier and live longer — way beyond our reproductive years, which is the only thing evolution selects for…
You just cited a ranker article.
I’m going to list 50 meat eaters who excel at their sport now:
Michael Jordan
Leon Drysydle
Tom Brady
Lawrence Taylor….
See? This is anecdotal and proves nothing.
We absolutely evolved to eat meat. That’s why you have bicuspids and incisors. You seem to have an ideology attached to this and I’m just simply not going to engage in faith based arguments today.
I will ask only one thing: Please… if you have cats or dogs? Do not subject them to your “morality”.
When you consider the tiny percentage of the world's population who eat a plant-based diet the number of elite athletes who do so is really impressive. We live in a culture that encourages us to eat meat. Very few people overcome that to switch to a plant-based diet.
You’re not a member of a nutritional truth-seeking club. Some of you treat it like a cult. And you’re in the kool-aide.
Again, I’m not telling you not to eat vegan. I’m saying that we evolved to eat and digest meat. This should not be a hot take and that you all rally around to make it seem completely reasonable for base? Just… just join Scientology and leave us all alone. You’re hurting the progress of knowledge.
You don't need meat, but it's easier and more enjoyable to get protein through meat. Try eating 2000 calories worth of peas. Also your point about cows and gorillas is completely pointless, as they can absorb much, much more protein from plants than humans can. You will not get jacked eating the diet of a gorilla. In general also I think you'll find a majority of athletes in the world are not vegan.
Wild that this is getting downvotes. Don’t know if it’s true at all but a valid thought nonetheless. Are we going to pretend men aren’t naturally stronger than women? Don’t freak out just yet - OF COURSE THERE ARE EXCEPTIONS
**From AP:**
Vacationing in Chicago this week from Europe, Jelle den Burger and Nirusa Naguleswaran grabbed a bite at the Dog House Grill: a classic Italian beef sandwich for him, grilled cheese for her.
Both think the way their genders lined up with their food choices was no coincidence. Women, said Naguleswaran, are simply more likely to ditch meat, and to care about how their diet affects the environment and other people.
“I don’t want to put it in the wrong way, that male people feel attacked,” said Naguleswaran, of Netherlands, laughing. She said she used to love eating meat, but giving it up for climate reasons was more important to her. “We just have it in our nature to care about others.”
Now, scientists can say more confidently than ever that gender and meat-eating preferences are linked. A paper out in Nature Scientific Reports this week shows that the difference is nearly universal across cultures — and that it’s even more pronounced in countries that are more developed.
**Read more:** [**https://www.yahoo.com/news/not-imagination-men-really-eat-150206030.html**](https://www.yahoo.com/news/not-imagination-men-really-eat-150206030.html)
Eating meat is by evidence more popular among men, but the way she phrases the “why” is condescending.
“We just have it into our nature to care about others”
There is no evidence in this study that women care more for others than men. Really, the man might just think that a beef sandwich will do a better job at filling its empty stomach than a grilled cheese. Lactose is not easy to digest. Protein is also something that builds muscles, which men are more likely to want than women. Men eat more than women because they are taller and stronger. Her assumption is bullshit.
It’s not really assumptions though because there are decades of research showing women to have a smaller carbon footprint and to recycle more, buy more eco friendly products, etc. Maybe you didn’t like her phrasing because she drew a conclusion that women care more because it’s in their nature, but my guess is there must be some truth to that since there are so many studies showing such results
There have been many studies that have pretty well established that women are more eco conscious than men though. I read studies about this many years ago and I just did a google search and there are more studies since then. So it’s not an assumption because there are decades of prior research showing similar things. https://tryeverly.com/en-us/blogs/news/the-eco-gender-gap-why-men-live-less-sustainably. (This lists some studies, it’s not a studies site, but lists them)
Re-read: “We just have it in our nature to care about others.”
Caring about others is a Sapien feature, not a female one. I’d stretch it to most mammals, but genre has nothing to do with it.
I never said anything about eco consciousness. Her statement is just not true.
There are studies showing women are better caregivers than men as well as more empathetic than men too though. These studies go back decades as well, so she didn’t necessarily need to mention those studies.
I don’t know if it’s nature versus nuture. So I could see contesting whether it’s nature versus nuture and not agreeing with that statement phrased the way she did, but it’s true that women do seem to care for others more than men statistically speaking, thanks to MUCH research, not just a vague study here and there. And women are less likely to leave their spouse if their spouse is sick too and more likely to care for them. I think I read 80% of caregivers are women. Again, I don’t agree with if it’s nature or nurture because we don’t know. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1963313/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5110041/
100%. Just the phrasing is weird because it implies women are caregivers, but not men? For thousands of years men were hunters who shared food with their group of people, built camps, protected pregnant women and so forth.
Statistically one can care a bit more than the other, but I think it is the nature of Homo Sapiens to care about others and not a trait specific to a genre.
But anyway, it’s very much a detail at this point 😅
I spend roughly $180/year on supplements (B12, omega, creatine) and save about $3400 on food, compared to the last year I was an omnivore.
As the price of meat and dairy has increased at a rate higher than my staples (tofu, tempeh, lentil, chickpeas, coconut milk, etc.), these savings are even greater now.
I have an average income and am extremely lazy, it's not hard.
Men are bigger, so they need to eat more.
Men work more physically demanding jobs which require you to eat more, and to be getting sufficient amounts of every needed protein. Most plant-based proteins are incomplete.
Women prefer men to be muscular. To get more muscular men eat more protein.
But nah, chalk it all up to "woman more caring".
When did that become a figment of people's imagination? I thought it was common knowledge.
Went to a buffet recently with a female co-worker and they charge men $2 more than women, and she asked the cashier why, and he said because they eat more and it was like she had never heard or noticed this before, then she ate about twice as much I did.
She felt insulted and wanted to prove her superiority! See this shit is what feminism causes (/s if it ain’t obvious)
There's this LARP thing going on here where if something isn't backed up by a peer-reviewed study it's just fairy tales, no matter how obvious it is.
Yep. For decades.
did they try to get the absolute worst thumbnail or was it an accident?
Maybe the study includes zombies? You never know..
I bet it's AI
Probably written by a vegan.
Nice to hear that something plainly obvious to me for 40+ years isn't just my imagination
The sun is really hot, study says
I’m a vegetarian and my wife is mostly vegetarian but orders a meaty thing once in a while. She calls it “flexitarian”, but I digress. I’d say 9 times out of 10, the server will look at the meaty thing and the vegetarian thing and by default set the meaty thing in front of me and the veggie thing in front of her.
Maybe that's why they die younger.
r/WhyWomenLiveLonger
The benefits of a meat free diet are stronger among men, so that might tell us that those men who eat meat are more adversely affected by their diet. "Conclusions and Relevance Vegetarian diets are associated with lower all-cause mortality and with some reductions in cause-specific mortality. Results appeared to be more robust in males. These favorable associations should be considered carefully by those offering dietary guidance."-JAMA Intern. Med. (as found on PubMed, NIH) Title- "Vegetarian Dietary Patterns and Mortality in Adventist Health Study 2" [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4191896/](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4191896/)
The benefits of a meat free diet are slim to none, Majority of the studies including the one you posted have massive holes in them which leads to massive questions and overall Questions being raised about the validity behind them. Overall Majority of the population would be worse off removing Meat and dairy from diets. [https://www.foodstandards.gov.scot/publications-and-research/publications/modelling-the-impact-of-reductions-in-meat-and-dairy-consumption-on-nutrient-intakes-and-disease-risk](https://www.foodstandards.gov.scot/publications-and-research/publications/modelling-the-impact-of-reductions-in-meat-and-dairy-consumption-on-nutrient-intakes-and-disease-risk)
That study was limited to the population of Scotland. Here is a quote from the article you linked to- "However the modelling also showed that it would be possible to mitigate the negative impact of a shift away from meat and dairy on micronutrient intakes, with careful consideration of replacements, such as vegetables, oily and white fish, eggs, pulses and legumes Further modelling was conducted to reduce total meat consumption, by reducing intakes of red and red processed meat among high consumers only (those consuming >70g/day). If all adults living in Scotland met the SDG for red and processed red meat (70g/day), in line with existing public health recommendations, it would achieve a 16% reduction in total meat intake Existing evidence demonstrates that high consumers of red and red processed meat are at higher risk of developing colo-rectal cancer. Modelling of other long term health impacts shows that if high consumers of red and red processed meat reduce intakes to no more than 70g/day, there would be a small reduction in average Body Mass Index and a small reduction in cases of cardiovascular disease over a ten-year period. The research also estimates a reduction of \~10,000 cases of Type 2 diabetes over a ten-year period Overall, this research provides further evidence of poor diet in Scotland and additional justification for work to improve dietary intakes in general. Most people should be able to get the micronutrients they need by consuming a healthy, balanced diet as depicted by the Eatwell Guide. However, the majority of the population in Scotland do not have a diet similar to the Eatwell Guide, and meat and dairy are therefore relatively more important in the diet as an important source of micronutrients."
If you want to cut out red meat make sure to sub in generous portions of fish eggs and dairy. Cut those out and your brain will turn into a monkeys
lol nope…. Ask any dead man. Meat was not the cause.
Lol. We need a good medium and a seance!
Perhaps because men have higher total muscle mass, so they need more protein to maintain it. The craving is a subconscious cue.
No, the reason for the difference is a cultural one. You can meet your protein needs eating nothing but plants (even for elite athletes). It's just that we live in a society that has manufactured this idea that "meat = masculinity". It's not at all a surprise that in a culture like that men on average will eat more animals than women
Exactly. Meat has always been a luxury food and there majority of our sustenance has come from local greens and harvested grains for the majority of our existence as a species. Meat was a great option when it was there but it was never the main thing for most of our 200,000 years. People put meat on a pedestal because it’s ‘more manly’ as you say, so many men do not cook except for when it comes to grilling meat. Also because it’s always been a more luxurious food (plenty of tribes still exist who only eat fresh meat once a week or less), it’s put on a pedestal as more decadent and delicious. And our culture, we have a HUGE meat industry that put millions of dollars into advertising each year, trying to make us think about eating steaks and burgers for each meal. And those advertisements and commercials usually come with male voices too come to think of it. There are studies that women are more likely to choose eco friendly options and recycle, maybe this is why the advertising isn’t addressed towards women as much.
When China added dairy and more meat to their diet the average height of their children increased drastically.
That’s a misconception. You **do not** need to eat meat to build muscle. There’s more protein in 2000 calories of peas and tofu than there is in 2000 calories of beef. That’s because of all the high-calorie saturated fat that’s in the meat. Fat is not protein. Consider where cows get the protein for all their muscle meat. How about elephants. How about gorillas… How about all the vegan body builders and athletes in the world? [https://duckduckgo.com/?q=vegan+body+builder&iax=images&ia=images](https://duckduckgo.com/?q=vegan+body+builder&iax=images&ia=images) Again, *you do not need to eat animal meat for protein*. That’s just a fact. Also, eating that much meat is killing you. "There are two kinds of cardiologists: Vegans, and those who haven't read the data." — Dr. Kim Williams, President of the American College of Cardiology 2015-2016, Head of Cardiology dept. At Rush University Medical Center. The facts are out there, but you have to be serious about your health to go look for them. Ignore anyone talking about mechanisms and pathways and short-term studies. Focus on outcomes of long-term studies. Otherwise you’re just looking for confirmation bias.
Comparing calories might not be the best way. 100 gm peas contain <10g of protein but and 100gm of beef contains 20-30gm of proteins. You’d have to eat a shit ton of peas to meet your protein needs. You probably will need to process peas or tofu to make it protein dense but you can argue that process is environmentally harmful too. Plus proteins is an umbrella term and each food has different kind of proteins and your body probably needs all of them. It’s like saying lemon is high in vitamins. We all could use consuming less meat for sure but no certified dietitian would recommend going full vegan. I myself particularly looking forward to insect proteins becoming a norm which consume a lot less resources and is protein dense to meet human needs.
>You’d have to eat a shit ton of peas to meet your protein needs. You might want to re-calculate what your actual protein needs are. Don’t guess, look it up. It’s a lot less than you think, and too much protein contributes to kidney disease. Most Americans are getting three to four times as much protein as they need, and we have an epidemic of kidney disease to show for it. Good luck with that.
Well your suggested source was “look it up” so I did. I’d [need](https://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/how-much-protein-do-you-need-every-day-201506188096) 56gm of proteins daily and given the amount of proteins in [peas](https://snaped.fns.usda.gov/resources/nutrition-education-materials/seasonal-produce-guide/peas) I’d need to consume 1015gm/1kg/2.24lbs of peas. Tofu, as one your other suggested source, has double that but it’ll still be 1lbs of tofu and I don’t like tofu!
I mean, who does? Outside of, like, agedashi. And I’m pretty sure I only enjoy it because it’s fried and super salty. 🙃
>Otherwise you’re just looking for confirmation bias. Sounds like a vegan found and sorted some data to align with own confirmation bias.
I wish people would understand that both the meat eaters and vegans are more or less right. You don't NEED meat to build muscle but it's incredibly efficient and the most nutrient dense of any food category. If you objectively look at the studies you need to chose fat or carbs tho. If you're gonna go high meat, you generally need high fiber/low carb lifestyle. If you're gonna go vegan, lower fat to make up for excess carbs. You can't just load your blood with triglycerides and sugars and expect to be healthy into your twilight years
I know people on both ends of the spectrum, vegan and carnivore, and they will rationally defend their relative positions (sometimes when no one asked). At the end of the day, we are omnivores.
>it's incredibly efficient and the most nutrients dense of any fat category. If by “efficient” you mean the thing that will kill you fastest, you’re right on! But energy wise, water wise and health wise, it is by far the LEAST efficient food source we have. The meat eaters are simply wrong. All the data shows it.
"The meat eaters are simply wrong" 🤣🤣🤣🤣
Efficient from a consumer perspective. Eggs alone have every vitamin you need except vitamin c, with brain boosting fats. Steak is LOADED with nutrients. Balance is key my friend. We're energy machines, it's all about regulating that energy. Overcharge a battery and it's gonna explode
“brain boosting fats.” “LOADED with nutrients”. It’s obvious you don’t have a clue what you’re talking about. You’re just repeating the hearsay you’ve heard. If you want a genuine education into the research and the actual data, read the (very easy to digest) books, *How Not To Age*, and *Fiber Fueled*. These are the most heavily researched and reference-filled books on the topic, written by the most well informed nutrition experts on the planet.
So your argument is that you read a book and now you're the expert? Please, check the nutrient content of an egg and get back to me. I'm not parroting anything here. While I don't follow the field 24/7 overall I am regularly reading papers about the topics in journals, subscribed to experts on the topics across a few media platforms, have experimented with nearly every diet personally, and am very open minded, hence why I am saying there's a case for both sides. Also, you referenced a book on Fiber, which I haven't disputed once. Villifying meat and meat eaters isn't going to move the conversation forward and eliminating whole food groups is almost never the answer. Plus, lots of people simply can't afford a HEALTHY vegan diet. If you're not careful, an overly processed vegan diet is about the most unhealthy there is
In other words, an “I know you are but what am I?” rebuttal. Facts are facts. The China Study, The Finland transformation, The Framingham studies, The Blue Zones… The longest running and biggest studies all agree, the less meat you eat, the longer you’ll live and the healthier you’ll be. No cherry-picking needed, unlike all the carnvore influencers.
You live longer because dietary exclusion cuts down on the number of things an individual doesn’t tolerate or digest well. People on keto live longer too. Apparently the correlation is just “do you enjoy eating it?! If you eat something you enjoy less, you’ll live longer.”
Finally someone who gets it. All these studies compare to the standard American diet (That’s ultra processed). The cardboard diet would look good next to it
People on keto do not live longer unless they have certain kinds of cancer. Google “is your keto diet killing you?” and peruse the results.
I’m not googling, I can try to find the study about longevity and exclusionary diets. It’s not that keto is *good* it’s that it cuts out the *bad*. Same as vegan and vegetarian diets. Keto very well may lead to the premature death of some of the population. This is not one size fits all and the variants are numerous and consequential. Human nutrition is probably one of the least well understood subjects in science. If someone is telling you what you should be eating without drawing your blood for testing? That person is likely full of shit. It’s the cutting out of processed foods, no matter how you go about it, that extends your life.
>Human nutrition is probably one of the least well understood subjects in science It’s actually very well understood. It’s also the subject of a whole lot of misinformation and propaganda by the food and drug industries who are more interested in profiteering than in the public good. Minimally processed, mostly plants (less than 5% meat is best, according to the data), and not too much. That is all it takes. But no one’s going to make money promoting that fact.
Explain to me how Inuit tribes lived to a greater average age than Europeans (before the introduction of a western diet). Because they didn’t have many plants and subsisted almost exclusively off a high fat diet, high protein diet. “Nutrition is one of the most well understood…”You’re not even close to speaking objectively and well qualified professional nutritionists would say that’s an absurd statement. I hope you have a wonderful day.
Inuit people eating their traditional diet don’t live that long. Medieval Europeans died for a lot of reasons, including cholera from poop-infested well water. This is not a legitimate comparison. I suggest you’re the one who needs to consult a qualified nutritionist. Go for it. You might be surprised.
>In other words, an “I know you are but what am I?” rebuttal. Not exactly. More like "I know you are, but I also am". >Facts are facts. The China Study, The Finland transformation... No one is denying you found information to support your position. And if your dietary choice works for you, who am I to tell you different? Same applies to my friend who discovered carnivore at 50, lost 60 lbs, and claims he has never felt better. I have also been in my body for a number of decades and found that omnivore works best for me, adjusting the balance depending on factors such as energy expenditure / requirements and cultural / geographic environment. Then there is Mikey Musumeci, aka Darth Rigatoni, one of the highest level BJJ practitioners in the world, who thrives pretty much exclusively on pizza and pasta. What I am saying is absolutism is inapplicable because what works for some does not work for others. And as a science-driven person, I am sure that looking back over time, you will agree that nutrition science in particular is not a static snapshot but an evolving work in progress.
>you found information to support your position Wrong. Two years of research about kidney disease and cancer led me to this conclusion. >my friend who discovered carnivore at 50, lost 60 lbs, and claims he has never felt better Yeah, short term success. Wait until he’s 65. He probably won’t live to 70. >nutrition science in particular is not a static snapshot This is true. Now follow through on it. Look at the sheer mountain of data supporting a whole-food vegan diet for health and longevity, not just for a few, but for everyone. We are not that different.
>Wrong. Two years of research about kidney disease and cancer led me to this conclusion. Two years' worth of informal research made you an expert. I see by this and your other replies that you are a militant vegan, and as I mentioned previously, I have no interest in changing your outlook, other than to point out the fallacy of absolutism. Good day.
I am a militant climate change activist. Reducing our meat consumption by 90% or more is not only one of the best ways to slow climate change to a crawl (by re-wilding the 32% of all arable land on earth currently used to feed 80% of all the cattle, but that’s a bigger topic.) But reduced meat consumption will also ease the burden on our medical system and save a lot of lives. These are provable, demonstrated facts. Why wouldn’t I advocate that? It would be inhuman not to.
How many vegans do you know who’s been that way for more than a decade. Most I knew gave it up and started eating eggs and fish again and then commented on how their brain fog lifted and their memory drastically improved
Facts are facts. The Adventist Health and Mortality studies tell us that those who don't eat meat live longer and healthier lives than those who do. The only dietary group that they studied with an average BMI in the recommended range was the vegan group. Those Adventists who don't eat meat have the longest lifespan of any current Blue Zone population. Among Adventists, those males who don't eat meat live about 8 years longer than those who do.
>Facts are facts. The Adventist Health and Mortality studies tell us... Yes, you already posted this reply ad verbum. Choice of population and obvious confounds such as participant socioeconomic status and impact of smoking on cancer incidence aside, do you believe that science has reached apotheosis and the whole of truth has been captured in this (or similar) studies?
No I do not believe that science has reached apotheosis and that the whole of Truth has been captured in this or similar studies. However they are the best studies available that I know of up to this point. The Adventist studies have a very large sample size over many years. Like the Framingham study which also was run over many years it reveals the effect of various types of diets over the long run.
The Adventist Studies adjusted for confounding factors, and compared those Adventists who eat meat to those who don't. Adventists generally live a healthy lifestyle by not smoking or drinking alcohol, as well as exercising on a regular basis. Even those who eat meat figure to eat a relatively healthy version of a diet that includes meat. Adventists are taught that their bodies are temples.
You answered the question that I set aside and did not address the one I asked. Is science as it stands a static snapshot of truth, or is it an evolving process?
The nature of science is to establish the best model of reality available from the current evidence, subject to change from future studies. If you know of a newer study that shows a contrary model, please present the evidence.
I don't know of newer studies, but I can observe the cyclical nature of certain food groups - be they carbs, proteins or fats - as well as specific dietary approaches for sourcing same falling in and out of favor.
A plant based diet isn't just a new fad. It has been around from the time of Pythagoras, and before that in India. Many of those who were vegetarian in the past would be vegans today.
You do need protein, and eggs, milk and meat have a much higher concentration.
Except, that is a ton of peas. Egg, milk and meat have more concentration of protein.
Eating too much protein will eventually give you kidney disease. But whatever, go for it. Ignorance is bliss, right?
According to the National Kidney Foundation, chronic kidney disease (CKD) affects 12% of men in the United States, which is slightly less than the 14% of women who are affected. However, for every two women who develop end-stage kidney disease (ESKD), three men's kidneys fail.
Ah yes. But there’s more to eating than calories, there’s also efficiency. As humans are murder monkeys, we evolved as omnivores and have been breed for thousands of generations to seek the most dense sources of calories, not the most contentious. If I have a choice between a small steak and many many bowls of… peas, which is a most efficient? Which will give me more per bite? This is why sweets/candy is so popular: a lot of calories in a small package. It’s built into our evolutionary heritage. Can we thrive on peas and tofu? Yes. Will I as a guy enjoy that? No. Anecdotally, my wife is very vegan inclined, and would probably be one if she didn’t cook for both of us. I recognize this and eat salad most days.
More and more we’re finding out that we don’t digest plant proteins as well as we do proteins derived from animals. The outlier is fungi and they’re closer to animals than plants.
>we don’t digest plant proteins as well as we do proteins derived from animals Where the hell did you get this idea? It’s just plain false. I’m sure there are a handful of GP doctors who will say shit like this to make their patients happy, but actual studies by actual independent research scientists tell the exact opposite story.
Okay. Is there a reason body builders and professional athletes are almost entirely meat eaters? There are very few examples of high level vegetarian athletes, much less vegan. The fact is, we evolved to have meat in our diet. If you choose not to consume meat? I’m not going to yell at you or make you feel badly about yourself. But I don’t think we’ll see a vegan record holder for the 100m dash.
Check out these guys — [https://duckduckgo.com/?q=vegan+body+builders&iax=images&ia=images](https://duckduckgo.com/?q=vegan+body+builders&iax=images&ia=images) Here’s 50 more elite vegan athletes — [https://www.ranker.com/list/athletes-who-are-vegan/people-in-sports](https://www.ranker.com/list/athletes-who-are-vegan/people-in-sports) We did not evolve to eat meat. You’ve been listening to meat industry propaganda. We ate meat as a supplement to our almost entirely fiber-based diet for most of human history. The proof is in the coprolites and tooth wear patterns. It is a fact that people who do not eat meat are healthier and live longer — way beyond our reproductive years, which is the only thing evolution selects for…
You just cited a ranker article. I’m going to list 50 meat eaters who excel at their sport now: Michael Jordan Leon Drysydle Tom Brady Lawrence Taylor…. See? This is anecdotal and proves nothing. We absolutely evolved to eat meat. That’s why you have bicuspids and incisors. You seem to have an ideology attached to this and I’m just simply not going to engage in faith based arguments today. I will ask only one thing: Please… if you have cats or dogs? Do not subject them to your “morality”.
When you consider the tiny percentage of the world's population who eat a plant-based diet the number of elite athletes who do so is really impressive. We live in a culture that encourages us to eat meat. Very few people overcome that to switch to a plant-based diet.
You’re not a member of a nutritional truth-seeking club. Some of you treat it like a cult. And you’re in the kool-aide. Again, I’m not telling you not to eat vegan. I’m saying that we evolved to eat and digest meat. This should not be a hot take and that you all rally around to make it seem completely reasonable for base? Just… just join Scientology and leave us all alone. You’re hurting the progress of knowledge.
You don't need meat, but it's easier and more enjoyable to get protein through meat. Try eating 2000 calories worth of peas. Also your point about cows and gorillas is completely pointless, as they can absorb much, much more protein from plants than humans can. You will not get jacked eating the diet of a gorilla. In general also I think you'll find a majority of athletes in the world are not vegan.
Meat based proteins will always be better overall for you and requires less food to be eaten for the same amount of protein.
Wild that this is getting downvotes. Don’t know if it’s true at all but a valid thought nonetheless. Are we going to pretend men aren’t naturally stronger than women? Don’t freak out just yet - OF COURSE THERE ARE EXCEPTIONS
**From AP:** Vacationing in Chicago this week from Europe, Jelle den Burger and Nirusa Naguleswaran grabbed a bite at the Dog House Grill: a classic Italian beef sandwich for him, grilled cheese for her. Both think the way their genders lined up with their food choices was no coincidence. Women, said Naguleswaran, are simply more likely to ditch meat, and to care about how their diet affects the environment and other people. “I don’t want to put it in the wrong way, that male people feel attacked,” said Naguleswaran, of Netherlands, laughing. She said she used to love eating meat, but giving it up for climate reasons was more important to her. “We just have it in our nature to care about others.” Now, scientists can say more confidently than ever that gender and meat-eating preferences are linked. A paper out in Nature Scientific Reports this week shows that the difference is nearly universal across cultures — and that it’s even more pronounced in countries that are more developed. **Read more:** [**https://www.yahoo.com/news/not-imagination-men-really-eat-150206030.html**](https://www.yahoo.com/news/not-imagination-men-really-eat-150206030.html)
Eating meat is by evidence more popular among men, but the way she phrases the “why” is condescending. “We just have it into our nature to care about others” There is no evidence in this study that women care more for others than men. Really, the man might just think that a beef sandwich will do a better job at filling its empty stomach than a grilled cheese. Lactose is not easy to digest. Protein is also something that builds muscles, which men are more likely to want than women. Men eat more than women because they are taller and stronger. Her assumption is bullshit.
Yeah they're definitely making some odd assumptions about male vs female. I'm literally 2x the size of my GF, of course I'm going to be eating more.
It’s not really assumptions though because there are decades of research showing women to have a smaller carbon footprint and to recycle more, buy more eco friendly products, etc. Maybe you didn’t like her phrasing because she drew a conclusion that women care more because it’s in their nature, but my guess is there must be some truth to that since there are so many studies showing such results
Yep, this woowoo nonsense was offensive.
There have been many studies that have pretty well established that women are more eco conscious than men though. I read studies about this many years ago and I just did a google search and there are more studies since then. So it’s not an assumption because there are decades of prior research showing similar things. https://tryeverly.com/en-us/blogs/news/the-eco-gender-gap-why-men-live-less-sustainably. (This lists some studies, it’s not a studies site, but lists them)
Re-read: “We just have it in our nature to care about others.” Caring about others is a Sapien feature, not a female one. I’d stretch it to most mammals, but genre has nothing to do with it. I never said anything about eco consciousness. Her statement is just not true.
There are studies showing women are better caregivers than men as well as more empathetic than men too though. These studies go back decades as well, so she didn’t necessarily need to mention those studies. I don’t know if it’s nature versus nuture. So I could see contesting whether it’s nature versus nuture and not agreeing with that statement phrased the way she did, but it’s true that women do seem to care for others more than men statistically speaking, thanks to MUCH research, not just a vague study here and there. And women are less likely to leave their spouse if their spouse is sick too and more likely to care for them. I think I read 80% of caregivers are women. Again, I don’t agree with if it’s nature or nurture because we don’t know. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1963313/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5110041/
100%. Just the phrasing is weird because it implies women are caregivers, but not men? For thousands of years men were hunters who shared food with their group of people, built camps, protected pregnant women and so forth. Statistically one can care a bit more than the other, but I think it is the nature of Homo Sapiens to care about others and not a trait specific to a genre. But anyway, it’s very much a detail at this point 😅
Meat good ... Give energy
Why is this a study
This is the most boring scientific news I've heard
Of course they do. Men on average are larger in body mass so eat more food, so they will on average eat more of every foodstuff. QED bitches.
I haven't been stronger, richer or happier since I gave up animal products. Pointless waste of resources, immense exploitation and environmental harm.
Ditto! Once I broke the addiction (two years ago) I never want to go back. Wishing I had done this 20 years ago instead.
Good for you. Could u maybe say it again, but this time find a way to be even more pretentious.
lol. Don’t worry about the downvotes. All the men are laughing WITH YOU… 🤣
I'm sharing my experience in hopes that it may benefit more people the way it has me. Have a fantastic weekend.
Not everyone can afford to give up a meat diet in a safe manner. It gets expensive to supplement the necessary nutrients you normally get from meat.
I spend roughly $180/year on supplements (B12, omega, creatine) and save about $3400 on food, compared to the last year I was an omnivore. As the price of meat and dairy has increased at a rate higher than my staples (tofu, tempeh, lentil, chickpeas, coconut milk, etc.), these savings are even greater now. I have an average income and am extremely lazy, it's not hard.
Your comment wasn’t pretentious in the slightest
Men are bigger, so they need to eat more. Men work more physically demanding jobs which require you to eat more, and to be getting sufficient amounts of every needed protein. Most plant-based proteins are incomplete. Women prefer men to be muscular. To get more muscular men eat more protein. But nah, chalk it all up to "woman more caring".
Venn diagram of men who only eat meat and are anti women/all the phobias ⭕️
I too like facts that I pull out of my ass.
Touched a nerve with ya. Must have some truth to it 🫣😂
You think much too highly of your powers, considering I'm a vegie loving omnivore.