Should i eat meat

There is no doubt that human evolution has been linked to meat in many fundamental ways. Our digestive tract is not one of obligatory herbivores; our enzymes evolved to digest meat whose consumption aided higher encephalization and better physical growth. Cooperative hunting promoted the development of language and socialization; the evolution of Old World societies was, to a significant extent, based on domestication of animals; in traditional societies, meat eating, more than the consumption of any other category of foodstuffs, has led to fascinating preferences, bans and diverse foodways; and modern Western agricultures are obviously heavily meat-oriented.

In nutritional terms, the links range from satiety afforded by eating fatty megaherbivores to meat as a prestige food throughout the millennia of preindustrial history to high-quality protein supplied by mass-scale production of red meat and poultry in affluent economies. But is it possible to come up with a comprehensive appraisal in order to contrast the positive effects of meat consumption with the negative consequences of meat production and to answer a simple question: are the benefits health and otherwise of eating meat greater than the undesirable cost, multitude of environmental burdens in particular, of producing it?

Killing animals and eating meat have been significant components of human evolution that had a synergistic relationship with other key attributes that have made us human, with larger brains, smaller guts, bipedalism and language. Larger brains benefited from consuming high-quality proteins in meat-containing diets, and, in turn, hunting and killing of large animals, butchering of carcasses and sharing of meat have inevitably contributed to the evolution of human intelligence in general and to the development of language and of capacities for planning, cooperation and socializing in particular.

Even if the trade-off between smaller guts and larger brains has not been as strong as is claimed by the expensive-tissue hypothesis, there is no doubt that the human digestive tract has clearly evolved for omnivory, not for purely plant-based diets.

And the role of scavenging, and later hunting, in the evolution of bipedalism and the mastery of endurance running cannot be underestimated, and neither can the impact of planned, coordinated hunting on non-verbal communication and the evolution of language.

Homo sapiens is thus a perfect example of an omnivorous species with a high degree of natural preferences for meat consumption, and only later environmental constraints need to support relatively high densities of population by progressively more intensive versions of sedentary cropping accompanied by cultural adaptations meat-eating restrictions and taboos, usually embedded in religious commandments have turned meat into a relatively rare foodstuff for majorities of populations but not for their rulers in traditional agricultural societies.

Return to more frequent meat eating has been a key component of a worldwide dietary transition that began in Europe and North America with accelerating industrialization and urbanization during the latter half of the 19th century.

In affluent economies, this transition was accomplished during the post-WW II decades, at a time when it began to unfold, often very rapidly, in modernizing countries of Asia and Latin America.

This increased demand was met by a combination of expanded traditional meat production in mixed farming operations above all in the EU and China , extensive conversion of tropical forests to new pastures Brazil being the leader and the rise of concentrated animal feeding facilities for beef mostly in North America, for pork and chicken in all densely populated countries. This, in turn, led to a rise of modern mass-scale feed industry that relies primarily on grains mainly corn and legumes with soybeans dominant, fed as a meal after expressing edible oil combined with tubers, food-processing residues and many additives to produce a variety of balanced feedstuffs containing optimal shares of carbohydrates, proteins, lipids and micronutrients and added antibiotics.

But it has also led to a widespread adoption of practices that create unnatural and stressful conditions for animals and that have greatly impaired their welfare even as they raised their productivity to unprecedented levels with broilers ready for slaughter in just six to seven weeks and pigs killed less than six months after weaning.

Meat is undoubtedly an environmentally expensive food. Large animals have inherently low efficiency of converting feed to muscle, and only modern broilers can be produced with less than two units of feed per unit of meat. This translates into relatively large demands for cropland to grow concentrates and forages , water, fertilizers and other agrochemicals, and other major environmental impacts are created by gaseous emissions from livestock and its wastes; water pollution above all nitrates from fertilizers and manure is also a major factor in the intensifying human interference in the global nitrogen cycle.

Opportunities for higher efficiency can be found all along the meat production—consumption chain. Agronomic improvements — above all reduced tillage and varieties of precision cropping including optimized irrigation — can reduce both the overall demand for natural resources and energy inputs required for feed production while, at the same time, improving yields, reducing soil erosion, increasing biodiversity and minimizing nitrogen leakage Merrington et al.

Many improvements can lower energy used in livestock operations Nguyen et al. Considerable energy savings can also be realized by using better slaughter and meat processing methods Fritzson and Berntsson We could produce globally several hundred millions of tons of meat without ever-larger confined animal feeding operations CAFOs , without turning any herbivores into cannibalistic carnivores, without devoting large shares of arable land to monocropping that produces animal feed and without subjecting many grasslands to damaging overgrazing — and a single hamburger patty does not have to contain meat from several countries, not just from several cows.

Meat consumption is a part of our evolutionary heritage; meat production has been a major component of modern food systems; carnivory should remain, within limits, an important component of a civilization that finally must learn how to maintain the integrity of its only biosphere. The most obvious path toward more rational meat production is to improve efficiencies of many of its constituent processes and hence reduce waste and minimize many undesirable environmental impacts.

As any large-scale human endeavor, meat production is accompanied by a great deal of waste and inefficiency, and while he have come close to optimizing some aspects of the modern meat industry, we have a long way to go before making the entire enterprise more acceptable.

And, unlike in other forms of food production, there is an added imperative: because meat production involves breeding, confinement, feeding, transportation and killing of highly evolved living organisms able to experience pain and fear, it is also accompanied by a great deal of unnecessary suffering that should be eliminated as much as possible. The two key components in the category of improvements are the effort to close yield gaps due to poor management rather than to inferior environmental limitations and to maximize the efficiency with which the key resources are used in agricultural production.

Claims regarding the closing of the yield gaps must be handled very carefully as there are simply too many technical, managerial, social and political obstacles in the way of replicating Iowa corn yield throughout Asia, to say nothing about most of sub-Saharan Africa, during the coming generations. Asian prospects for boosting the yields are better, but in many densely populated parts of that continent, such yields might be greatly reduced, even negated by the loss of arable land to continuing rapid urbanization and industrialization.

Over recent years, there has been a growing mountain of evidence in support of the health benefits of a vegetarian diet and the health risks of pounding too many burgers into our bodies.

Vegan diet conferred a significant reduced risk 15 percent of incidence from total cancer. Vegetarian diets are also tied to a lower risk of metabolic syndrome , diabetes , cancer again , and lower blood pressure , and they may fend off childhood obesity.

On this matter, at least, the jury is well and truly in. Today, however, protein is much easier to come by — in nuts and beans, for example. Vitamin B can be found adequately in cheese, eggs, milk, and artificially fortified products, and iron can be picked up from legumes, grains, nuts, and a range of vegetables. Red and processed meats are associated with colon cancer and heart disease.

The majority of studies conclude that eating more of this meat is a bad idea. But how much is too much, and what levels are safe, are harder to quantify. In contrast, there does not appear to be a measurable risk from eating red meat once or twice a week. So, should we be vegetarians? Well, when the burger hits the fan and the kebab lady sings, there will still be no clear answer.

Humans have eaten meat for a really long time, but a diet with minimal meat is much more healthful. A runner's diet should contain a healthy balance of macronutrients, adequate carbohydrates, and micronutrients from plant foods. Learn more. Learn why some people might need to follow a mechanical soft diet, the foods they can eat safely, and the foods they may wish to avoid here. Caffeine, fatty foods, and foods high in sugar can all negatively affect sleep and keep people awake.

People can often manage fatty liver disease by making dietary changes. Learn which foods to include and avoid in a diet for fatty liver disease. A vegan diet can be healthy and well-balanced as long as people ensure that they eat enough of each type of nutrient. Creating a vegan meal plan can…. Is vegetarianism the natural option? Share on Pinterest Fight, fight, fight! So, are we carnivores? Meat eating and human evolution.

While red meat cooked at high temperatures may increase cancer risk, white meat may not have the same effect, although data is still unclear. An earlier study found that poultry consumption was linked to a reduced risk of colon cancer — even when cooked to the point of charring 12 , While nitrate is generally harmless, your gut transforms some of the nitrate you eat into nitrite.

The conversion to nitrite — and its digestion — is linked to harmful side effects. On the other hand, some studies suggest that the nitrate conversion process also produces nitric oxide. This compound may help regulate blood pressure and promote heart health More research is needed to determine how the nitrates or nitrates in meat products affect human health.

Meat cooked at high temperatures has been linked to cancer-causing compounds. Some people insist that eating meat raises cancer risk. However, that probably depends on the type of meat you eat. There is convincing evidence that eating processed meat leads to cancer, especially colorectal cancer. The IARC reviewed epidemiological research linking cancer in humans with eating processed meats Furthermore, there is strong — but limited — evidence linking red meat consumption to colorectal cancer.

Pancreatic and prostate cancers have likewise been connected. Other research links a high intake of red meat to cancers of the digestive tract, kidney, and bladder 15 , 16 , Although no definite link between eating meat and breast cancer has been established, diet may significantly influence breast cancer prognosis.

Eating a healthy diet high in fruits, vegetables, and whole grains and low in meat may improve outcomes of early-stage breast cancer A recent review of observational and experimental studies suggests that eating meat may induce direct DNA damage, which is known as genotoxicity.

However, the researchers acknowledged that some of the studies in the review were flawed Of all cancers, colon cancer has the strongest association with processed and red meat intake, with dozens of studies documenting a link.

Overall, more high quality research is needed to further explore the relationships between meat and cancer. In addition to potentially harmful compounds generated during high heat cooking, the heme iron present in red meat has been linked to colon cancer development 20 , Furthermore, some scientists believe that processed meat may provoke inflammation in the colon, which raises cancer risk Adding dried red wine, pomegranate extract, and vitamin E to cured meat reduced levels of toxic end products in the urine and feces of rats.

Observational studies are used to develop theories, and intervention trials are utilized to evaluate them. Observational research only suggests connections; after that comes the phase of an intervention study to confirm or reject those observations. It is, however, a good idea to limit how much processed meat you eat. If you consume red meat, cook it more gently and avoid burning it. Processed meats are linked to cancer, with the strongest evidence linking it to colorectal cancer.

Red meat is probably carcinogenic. A significant number of large observational studies have linked meat consumption to a higher chance of developing heart disease 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , Recent research including 43, men found that eating unprocessed or processed red meat was linked to a slightly increased risk of heart disease In an older review of 20 studies among more than 1.

One study found that people who ate a diet high in red meat had three times the amount of trimethylamine N-oxide TMAO — a compound linked to heart disease — compared with those who ate a diet heavy in white meat or plant-based protein They only show an association. Additionally, some controlled studies and older research have found that frequent meat consumption, including high fat varieties, has a neutral or beneficial effect on heart disease risk factors 31 , Large studies have linked the consumption of processed or unprocessed meat to heart disease.

Some controlled studies have shown that meat may have a neutral or beneficial effect. Several large studies have shown an association between processed or red meat and type 2 diabetes 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , Dietary behaviors may have also played a role, including eating too many refined carbs, consuming insufficient vegetables, or consistently overeating.

Some observational studies show a relationship between red and processed meats and increased diabetes risk. However, this may also depend on other dietary factors. Several observational studies, including a review of 39 studies including over 1. For example, the results from individual studies vary greatly In other words, high meat availability may be associated with an increased prevalence of obesity.

Another study in people with prediabetes found that weight loss and body composition improvements were similar among those who consumed diets based on animal or plant protein Either way, it appears that consuming a plant-heavy or plant-based diet supports healthy weights, regardless of whether meat is consumed.

A plant-heavy diet should be rich in whole foods, which are minimally or not at all processed, especially fresh fruits and vegetables. For example, a recent meta-analysis revealed that the Paleolithic paleo diet — which centers whole foods, includes meat, and excludes grains and processed foods — might help people lose weight, reduce their waist circumference, and help manage chronic disease The paleo diet is a subset of diets that follow what many proponents believe to be the eating patterns of people during the Paleolithic era.

It comprises lean meats, fish, fruits, vegetables, nuts, and seeds — foods that may have been hunted or foraged in the past.