[alimhaq]

This is probably an unpopular opinion here but I don't think these meat substitutes are sustainable for long term health in humans...our bodies are clearly designed to consume meat (especially apparent when you compare our bodies to those of our mostly herbivore relatives) and by extension we need these nutrients to thrive (not just survive, mind you). I understand the incentive for people to go vegan but people should tread very carefully since it's completely contraire to their evolutionary makeup and that doesn't come without consequences.

[keeganjw]

You can choose to eat whatever you like but meat absolutely isn't essential. It seems like a lot of people frame the debate as if the only two options are eating meat with every meal or being vegan when there is so much room in between. You can still get plenty of animal protein in eggs and dairy. It's also the case that the typical American eats way too much meat and not nearly enough vegetables. For most people, eating more vegetables and less meat will only be a benefit to their health.

[ergothus]

Lots of things are contrary to my evolutionary makeup. My job (I sit on my butt - plenty of articles of late about THAT), my house (we've seen lots about the perils of modern houses in regards to sunlight, particulates, etc), my diet (beyond vegetarianism - modern diets are NOT paleo or any other "whole grains & meats") - pretty much all of it.

Now you make a very good point that these decisions aren't free - there are lots of concerns to care about and you are 100% correct. But saying there are impacts does not mean (1) that we shouldn't consider the change and (2) that NOT doing the change is somehow free of impacts.

[tashoecraft]

Human societies have survived on all different levels on meat intake, from near 100% to 0. Nutrients can be obtained through many different ways, and these meatless meat products often advertise that they are more nutrient dense then their meat counterparts.

I also don’t believe the intention of these products to make everyone vegan, that’s not sustainable by current output. However, our modern society consumes more much then we ever have as it’s so easily obtained and so cheap. So we clearly don’t need this much meat to be healthy. So I happily welcome an decrease in my meat consumption and for society to greatly decrease theirs.

[tlholaday]

> ... our bodies are clearly designed ...

Grant for the sake of discussion that your body is the work of a designer. The designer's design for childbirth is clearly abysmal: fifty thousand American women yearly suffer severe maternal morbidity. https://www.npr.org/2018/05/10/607782992/for-every-woman-who.... A designer who flunks childbirth should not be trusted with carnivory.

You contradict your first sentence with your second, when you refer to "evolutionary makeup." Do you have a robust definition of "evolutionary makeup" ?

[geogra4]

What kind of comparison are you referring to? Are there studies of some kind that you're referencing?

Most of the scientific research[0] points towards plant based diets being the best thing for us.

[0]: https://www.pcrm.org/clinical-research

[jversd673]

Most scientific research made by Neal D. Barnard proponent of Vegan/plant-based diet and founder of the said Committee.

[Forge36]

I don't know if any evidence to suggest a vegan diet is worse than a meat diet. Provided all nutrient needs are met.

[randomsearch]

Yep. Like a meat diet, a vegan diet will indeed be perfectly healthy provided it is reasonably balanced. You need to watch a few things, such as B12 intake.

OTOH, there is plenty of evidence as to the negative effects of meat on health - the higher fat intake, for instance, and the increased cancer risk.

[sridca]

> there is plenty of evidence as to the negative effects of meat on health - the higher fat intake, for instance, and the increased cancer risk.

Please stop mindlessly spreading this nonsense. Meat is perfectly healthy. http://www.diagnosisdiet.com/food/meats/

[randomsearch]

"Processed meat was classified as Group 1, carcinogenic to humans"

"Red meat was classified as Group 2A, probably carcinogenic to humans"

World Health Organisation: https://www.who.int/features/qa/cancer-red-meat/en/

[sridca]

If meat is so carcinogenic, why was cancer so uncommon until the last century or so? We are not eating any more meat now than we did a hundred years ago, yet cancer incidence is skyrocketing. So, why do we believe that meat causes cancer?

There have been numerous research studies claiming to tie red meat to cancer (particularly colon cancer), however, these were weak epidemiological studies, and are not representative of results in the field as a whole. The fact is that studies of meat and cancer yield very mixed results. Many studies show no connection at all between meat and cancer, and some studies even show a protective benefit. There is simply no solid scientific evidence to support the belief that red meat increases cancer risk.

This did not stop the World Health Organization (WHO) from proclaiming to the planet in October 2015 that red and processed meats cause cancer. Unfortunately, the WHO report is all smoke and mirrors. To see what I mean, please read my detailed analysis of the WHO report: WHO Says Meat Causes Cancer? http://www.diagnosisdiet.com/meat-and-cancer/

(That's a copy-paste from the originally article that you patently did not care to read)

[slouch]

What other herbivores cook meat before eating it? How do you feel about the amount of kale that goes into one kale smoothie? Were our bodies designed for all these radio waves? The ship has sailed. Evolution will figure it out.

[firethief]

You would like the way they did science in ancient Greece. All abstract, reasoning everything from first principles, lofty concepts uncontaminated by earthly experience

[cageface]

We are capable of eating meat, but our entire digestive system is much more optimized for eating and digesting plants. Much like our primate cousins which eat very little or no meat.