Did you know that, when it comes to nutrition, when is the biggest debate? Not the weight loss regime, not the fat, protein or even the dangers of added sugar, which has been dubbed the ” White Death” of the new era.
The classic, and most persistent debate to date remains: Should humans eat meat? Not difficult to understand, food is divided by us into two origins: animals and plants. While humans have eaten meat before becoming humans (Homo sapien), vegetarian diets have taken the throne in recent years. Especially when the World Health Organization (WHO) states that red meats are generally linked to cancer.
Should you eat meat?
But health is also only one aspect to answer the question. While potentially carcinogenic, meat can provide many health benefits for the brain and muscles. The question is now repeated again “Should humans eat meat?”.
There are always such vicious circles, if you don’t have a bigger picture. David L. Katz, a Preventive Medicine expert with his 25 years of experience will show you different perspectives on eating meat. As it turns out, it’s not that simple when you buy meat from the market, take it home, cook it, and eat it. There’s a lot more to think about.
Our bodies have physiological adaptations to eating and digesting meat.
There is a frequent argument in favor of the idea that we should eat meat. It is evolution that has made humans, Homo sapiens, or even primate ancestors who lived 6 million years ago, become an omnivore.
That means we have the ability to absorb energy and nutrients from foods of both plant and animal origin. Our bodies have physiological adaptations to eating and digesting meat. Some scientists have also discovered characteristics specific to the consumption of cooked meat in particular.
But this argument immediately raises a series of counter-questions. Includes: How is the meat of today different from the meat of the Stone Age? How does the health of modern humans compare to prehistoric times?
In fact, we already know that our meat today is very different from the meat in prehistoric times, which the “Creator” has adapted us to eat. We also know that the life expectancy of people today is almost twice that of ancestors who lived in the Paleolithic. We also know that people do well on a vegetarian diet, a diet consisting entirely or largely of plants.
Thus, in the end human evolution into an omnivore only leaves us with a choice. These biological characteristics allow meat to be present in the human diet. But on the other hand, we don’t necessarily eat meat-based meals.
Meat today is very different from meat in the Stone Age.
What we know today about diet and health does not rule out the possibility that a diet similar to the Paleo diet could become the optimal diet for humans in the future. future.
This diet is characterized by the majority of food coming from meat. But did the cavemen go against the recommendations of the World Health Organization today about the link between red meat and cancer? The answer is no. As has been said, meat today is very different from meat in the Stone Age.
Now, if we are concerned with the epidemiology and health of a carnivorous and non-meat-eating community, consider the diets of those communities that are independent of our common world. Inuit, the indigenous people of the Arctic are a group of people who eat only meat. Research results show that the health, fitness and longevity of the Inuit are not really good.
On the other hand, there are quite a few vegetarian communities. We can tell for example the Kogi tribe in Colombia, where their average life expectancy is more than 100 years old.
Notably, the eating trend of independent communities leans more towards vegetables. Carnivorous tribes like the Inuit are really rare. And for them, it seems to be a necessity, not a choice. Vegetables in the North Pole would be something of a luxury.
As humans, we are omnivores, so we simply have the power to choose.
Vegetarian diets are often ridiculed by those who focus on muscle. They believe that a strong and healthy body can only be created with a diet of meat, even a lot of meat.
The truth is not so. Just to take a few typical animal examples, did you know that horses, or even gorillas, a species very closely related to humans, eat only plants. But surprisingly, they can still build muscle and possess remarkable physical strength.
The reason is simple, protein, the necessary element to build muscle, can be found in both plant and meat sources. So, what matters is the physiological cycle in your body, not your thoughts. Carnivores will satisfy their physical needs by eating meat, herbivores will eat plants. As for humans, we are omnivores, so we simply have the power to choose.
Nature has created carnivores, and they do not endanger the existence of the planet.
Nature has created carnivores, and they do not endanger the existence of the planet. No animal species has been able to completely disrupt the biological balance between animals on Earth.
But that’s only when we humans have not reached the population milestone in billions of people. To feed such a population, the need for meat in nature is not enough, even humans have to create livestock agriculture. Today, it contributes between 18-25% of total greenhouse gas emissions.
Experts predict that by 2050, if the safe limit of greenhouse gas emissions is 10, the livestock industry alone will emit more than 7 parts. It also accounts for almost 9/10 of the biomass safe level. These effects will lead to many irreversible destructive processes.
Homo sapiens eat meat, it seems like a nightmare for the planet.
We have been forced to use mass production of meat to feed ourselves.
If you’re calling meat eating itself immoral, this is pretty absurd. The ability to eat meat is a natural part of human nature. Therefore, to blame morality on “Nature” is a senseless and arrogant act.
Look at these carnivores, do we judge their morality? Moral conduct, if measured in terms of human cannibalism, only proves that we are unreasonably arrogant. You want to say that you are not an animal. But it is precisely we stand in the ranks of herbivores.
Agreed, it is possible that some ethical standards were “absent” in mass production and slaughter. But can you imagine what happens when all 7 billion people have to hunt and gather on their own? We were forced to use such mass production of meat to feed ourselves.
People should eat less meat.
Now, when you put all these perspectives together, you get a pretty big picture of how we’re eating animals. Should humans continue to eat meat? Turns out the answer isn’t that simple.
Suppose the population grows larger, if meat becomes “pure” and healthier, if our level of physical activity increases, if meat production becomes cleaner, humane and the planet’s resources are limitless, perhaps the answer would be: yes.
But look at the fact that none of these presumptions tend to come true, at least in our time. In terms of health, the environment and even moral judgments, the advice for us today is: People should eat less meat .