During the pandemic, plant-based meat consumption and media coverage exploded. Now, a host of trend pieces decry its demise. That shift is no organic accident.
TL;DR: the meat industry’s misleading messaging campaign + lobbying
It’s more complicated IMO. While I was initially pro-plant based diets, I noticed that a disproportionate number of vegans suffer from loss of skin elasticity, a pallid complexion, and sunken eyes. Yes, it’s superficial, but it’s a sign that vegan diets are missing an important part of our required dietary intake. It reminds me of the debacle around infant formula, where researchers didn’t know that DHA was necessary for human development until 2003, which meant that formula-fed children born before 2003 were stunted. I simply don’t feel comfortable sacrificing my well-being for the well-being of other animals, at least until lab-grown meats become available.
Anecdotes aren’t really a great way to look at things. Looking at statements from nutrition bodies is likely more helpful here:
It is the position of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics that appropriately planned vegetarian, including vegan, diets are healthful, nutritionally adequate, and may provide health benefits for the prevention and treatment of certain diseases. These diets are appropriate for all stages of the life cycle, including pregnancy, lactation, infancy, childhood, adolescence, older adulthood, and for athletes. Plant-based diets are more environmentally sustainable than diets rich in animal products because they use fewer natural resources and are associated with much less environmental damage. Vegetarians and vegans are at reduced risk of certain health conditions, including ischemic heart disease, type 2 diabetes, hypertension, certain types of cancer, and obesity. Low intake of saturated fat and high intakes of vegetables, fruits, whole grains, legumes, soy products, nuts, and seeds (all rich in fiber and phytochemicals) are characteristics of vegetarian and vegan diets that produce lower total and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels and better serum glucose control. These factors contribute to reduction of chronic disease
You can also just as easily find widespread deficiencies in important things mainly or only found in plant-based foods like fiber
Populations that consume more dietary fiber have less chronic disease. Higher intakes of dietary fiber reduce the risk of developing several chronic diseases, including cardiovascular disease, type 2 diabetes, and some cancers, and have been associated with lower body weights. The Adequate Intake for fiber is 14 g total fiber per 1,000 kcal, or 25 g for adult women and 38 g for adult men, based on research demonstrating protection against coronary heart disease. Properties of dietary fiber, such as fermentability and viscosity, are thought to be important parameters influencing the risk of disease. Plant components associated with dietary fiber may also contribute to reduced disease risk. The mean intake of dietary fiber in the United States is 17 g/day with only 5% of the population meeting the Adequate Intake. Healthy adults and children can achieve adequate dietary fiber intakes by increasing their intake of plant foods while concurrently decreasing energy from foods high in added sugar and fat, and low in fiber. Dietary messages to increase consumption of whole grains, legumes, vegetables, fruits, and nuts should be broadly supported by food and nutrition practitioners.
Let’s also realize that foods like red meat have a known cancer risk and negative health outcomes. The common claim is that the studies are only correlational, but there are Randomized Controlled Trials looking at that. For instance, one such study (that was even beef industry funded) found that:
Substituting red meat with high-quality plant protein sources, but not with fish or low-quality carbohydrates, leads to more favorable changes in blood lipids and lipoproteins.
If you want to look at unknown risks, look at things like microplastics that are going to be more concentrated the higher up the food chain you go. For instance looking at fish:
A significant presence of MPs [microplastics particles] was found: 692 ± 120 MPs/100 g of tuna in water and 442 ± 84 MPs/100 g of tuna in oil
Low intake of saturated fat and high intakes of vegetables, fruits, whole grains, legumes, soy products, nuts, and seeds (all rich in fiber and phytochemicals) are characteristics of vegetarian and vegan diets that produce lower total and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels and better serum glucose control.
Compared to what though? If you only eat properly selected (fat to protein ratio) meat products (fatty meat, eggs, hard naturally maturing cheese) with a proper selection of vegetables, so that they contain all the micronutrients you need in good quantities, fiber and are low on carbs, the amounts of carbohydrates you 'll be getting will definitely be low enough to have perfect serum glucose -most of your energy will be coming from ketone bodies. You can’t have elevated serum glucose if you don’t rely on carbs for energy. It’s pretty tough to mess up the metabolic pathways related to carbohydrates too with that approach. Which is pretty easy to do if your focus is to just eliminate animal products, since most plant foods are loaded with carbohydrates. When the objective is health, the focus should be proper selection of foods for the body first and then everything else.
Of course vegetables (fiber), fruits (water & fiber), whole grains (fiber), legumes (fiber), soy products (debatable, tofu, tofu skins, tempeh all have low to zero amount of carbs), nuts/seeds (fiber) are handled better as far as their carbohydrate content goes since they are metabolized at a slower pace than white rice or flour products. But it’s not the meat in the burger that messes up your glucose levels, its the potatoes and the bread. And if you don’t match your activity levels with the quantities of -easier-for-your-body- carbohydrate sources from plant foods, you will start having issues too, quantity matters as much as quality in this aspect of nutrition.
This is not a comment to support animal products, just to point out that what messes up serum glucose is improper selection of plant based foods, not saturated fat or meat products in general (probably with the exception of many dairy products).
You can also just as easily find widespread deficiencies in important things mainly or only found in plant-based foods like fiber
There are other deficiencies too if you don’t eat proper plant based foods (again like the ones mentioned in the first quote of my comment), which can be equally important. Easiest example is magnesium. All the greatest sources of it are plant based foods. This metal is also a good reason why legumes/beans are important (apart from the obvious abundance of potassium). Seeds and nuts are a great source too, but cost more (not just to buy them, they take up much more resources from the environment to produce them).
People who rely heavily on meat, thinking this is easy access to full of essential amino-acids protein (which it is, muscle tissue is something of a protein storage for most of animal bodies), won’t be getting magnesium in good quantities unless they start eating proper plants or buying supplements (created from plant matter), since most of magnesium (and many other micronutrients like it) is stored in the bones of the animals (which we don’t eat, and bone broths don’t do much either). It’s pretty funny that many people think they can’t get proper protein from plants, which is untrue, but in fact it’s the other way around, as far as deficiencies go, once you start looking at micronutrients.
It’s more complicated IMO. While I was initially pro-plant based diets, I noticed that a disproportionate number of vegans suffer from loss of skin elasticity, a pallid complexion, and sunken eyes. Yes, it’s superficial, but it’s a sign that vegan diets are missing an important part of our required dietary intake. It reminds me of the debacle around infant formula, where researchers didn’t know that DHA was necessary for human development until 2003, which meant that formula-fed children born before 2003 were stunted. I simply don’t feel comfortable sacrificing my well-being for the well-being of other animals, at least until lab-grown meats become available.
Anecdotes aren’t really a great way to look at things. Looking at statements from nutrition bodies is likely more helpful here:
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27886704/
You can also just as easily find widespread deficiencies in important things mainly or only found in plant-based foods like fiber
https://www.jandonline.org/article/S2212-2672(15)01386-6/fulltext
Let’s also realize that foods like red meat have a known cancer risk and negative health outcomes. The common claim is that the studies are only correlational, but there are Randomized Controlled Trials looking at that. For instance, one such study (that was even beef industry funded) found that:
https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.118.035225#d3646671e1
If you want to look at unknown risks, look at things like microplastics that are going to be more concentrated the higher up the food chain you go. For instance looking at fish:
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35305437/
Compared to what though? If you only eat properly selected (fat to protein ratio) meat products (fatty meat, eggs, hard naturally maturing cheese) with a proper selection of vegetables, so that they contain all the micronutrients you need in good quantities, fiber and are low on carbs, the amounts of carbohydrates you 'll be getting will definitely be low enough to have perfect serum glucose -most of your energy will be coming from ketone bodies. You can’t have elevated serum glucose if you don’t rely on carbs for energy. It’s pretty tough to mess up the metabolic pathways related to carbohydrates too with that approach. Which is pretty easy to do if your focus is to just eliminate animal products, since most plant foods are loaded with carbohydrates. When the objective is health, the focus should be proper selection of foods for the body first and then everything else.
Of course vegetables (fiber), fruits (water & fiber), whole grains (fiber), legumes (fiber), soy products (debatable, tofu, tofu skins, tempeh all have low to zero amount of carbs), nuts/seeds (fiber) are handled better as far as their carbohydrate content goes since they are metabolized at a slower pace than white rice or flour products. But it’s not the meat in the burger that messes up your glucose levels, its the potatoes and the bread. And if you don’t match your activity levels with the quantities of -easier-for-your-body- carbohydrate sources from plant foods, you will start having issues too, quantity matters as much as quality in this aspect of nutrition.
This is not a comment to support animal products, just to point out that what messes up serum glucose is improper selection of plant based foods, not saturated fat or meat products in general (probably with the exception of many dairy products).
There are other deficiencies too if you don’t eat proper plant based foods (again like the ones mentioned in the first quote of my comment), which can be equally important. Easiest example is magnesium. All the greatest sources of it are plant based foods. This metal is also a good reason why legumes/beans are important (apart from the obvious abundance of potassium). Seeds and nuts are a great source too, but cost more (not just to buy them, they take up much more resources from the environment to produce them).
People who rely heavily on meat, thinking this is easy access to full of essential amino-acids protein (which it is, muscle tissue is something of a protein storage for most of animal bodies), won’t be getting magnesium in good quantities unless they start eating proper plants or buying supplements (created from plant matter), since most of magnesium (and many other micronutrients like it) is stored in the bones of the animals (which we don’t eat, and bone broths don’t do much either). It’s pretty funny that many people think they can’t get proper protein from plants, which is untrue, but in fact it’s the other way around, as far as deficiencies go, once you start looking at micronutrients.