And don't forget the cultural indoctrination in the West that meat is manliness. In the northern parts of the hemisphere when Spring rolls around the airwaves are inundated with advertisements for barbecues and beer. Meat from one source or another is the center piece for nearly every meal. And the restaurants, fast or otherwise, are only catering to this obsession with over-indulging in meat.

The only thing that seems to turn people off it are cholesterol and heart surgery.

Don't get me wrong a good steak is fucking delicious. But for me it's like cake. I can't and don't want to have it often. A good burger is good but to borrow a cliché: too much of a good thing...

Can we ever eat insects? Well... can you make it look and taste like a classic cheeseburger? Will I still get my Sunday bacon?

Meat is inherently manly.

Consuming meat at the scale that Americans (for instance) do is not manly, it's extremely irresponsible.

Steak as cake. I like that. I'm genetically susceptible to cholesterol more so than others. I like this way of thinking about it.

Now, I would probably eat steak more often than cake, I don't really eat cake that much.

Probably because it's not a myth that high protein diets are healthful. High protein diets typically result in better maintenance of lean mass (muscle) and better health markers if compared with one that replaces protein with carbs (http://examine.com/faq/how-does-protein-affect-weight-loss/)

Many studies have shown that replacing fat or carbs 1:1 (by calories) with protein leads to better body composition and (sometimes) slight weight reduction. (http://authoritynutrition.com/how-protein-can-help-you-lose-...)

That's not to say that everyone should be eating bodybuilder levels of protein, but the evidence seems to support that focusing on it ahead of fat/carbs is probably a wise move.

Please check the citations carefully.

The very first one I opened said,

> Funding sources: Illinois Council on Food and Agricultural Research, National Cattlemen’s Beef Association, The Beef Board, Kraft Foods, National Science Foundation (PI: Layman). Dr Layman has participated in speaker bureaus for the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association and the National Dairy Council.

Another reported,

> Supported by a Medical Research grant from Meat and Livestock Australia.

Another said,

> Supported by the Dairy Farmers of Canada, The Dairy Research Institute

I am horrified some authors are brazen enough to report the following, and still be taken seriously,

> AA acts as consultant or member of advisory boards for The Global Dairy Platform, USA; McCain, USA; Pathway Genomics, USA; Dutch Beer Knowledge Institute, Netherlands; McCain, USA; McDonalds, USA.

Or how about,

> DP-J, EW, RDM, RRW, AA, and MW-P have received compensation for speaking/consulting engagements with The Beef Checkoff through the National Cattlemen's Beef Association. DP-J has received compensation for speaking engagements with the National Dairy Council. AA has received speaker's fees and/or research grants form the Danish Meat Council and Arla Foods and Campina. RDM has received speaker's fees from the National Dairy Council.

These disclosures of competing interests do not inspire confidence in the works.

Conflicts of interest are almost always present with something as fiercely debated as nutrition. On the low-protein side, much of the research is performed or reported by biased organizations like Center for Science in the Public Interest. Even if a moral case can be made for not eating animals, it shouldn't be allowed to influence nutritional science.

Attacking conflicts of interest is an easy out (ad hominem); do you have some actual citations refuting the science in some of those references?

I propose the following - nutrition is only perceived to be "fiercely debated" because of research with conflict of interest.

Could you cite any examples of purportedly biased "low-protein" researched funded by that group you've mentioned? I'd like to take a look.

The high-protein diet fads are not new. You can find a lot of information discrediting their authors and methodology. Here is just one example,

> There are two kinds of high-protein diets popular today: Those that limit calorie intake by causing the body to develop a metabolic state known as ketosis; and those that make stringent rules which limit the dieter’s intake of food.

> The “ketogenic diets” cause the body to produce ketones by severe restriction of carbohydrate intake while allowing unlimited fat and protein intake. With insufficient intake of the body’s primary fuel, carbohydrate, the body turns to fats from foods and from body fat for fuel. Byproducts of this metabolism are acidic substances called ketones (acetacetic acid, B-hydroxybuteric acid, and acetone). The metabolic condition is known as ketosis. Ketosis is associated with loss of appetite, nausea, fatigue, and hypotension (lower blood pressure). The result is a decrease in food (calorie) intake. Ketosis is the key to the diet’s success, by allowing the body to starve while reducing the suffering of severe hunger pangs.

> This same condition, ketosis, occurs naturally when people are literally starving to death or seriously ill. During starvation this metabolic state is a kindness of nature allowing the victim to suffer much reduced pains of hunger while dying. During illness the suppression of the appetite frees the person to rest and recuperate, rather then be forced by hunger to gather and prepare food. Because ketogenic diets simulate this metabolic state seen with serious illness, I refer to them as “the make yourself sick diets.” As we will see below, another reason low-carbohydrate, high-protein diets deserve this title is they contain significant amounts of the very foods — the meats — that the American Cancer Society and the Heart Association tell us contribute to our most common causes of death and disability.

https://www.drmcdougall.com/health/education/health-science/...

Interesting cite, because Dr. McDougall would be a perfect example of someone who lets his dogmatism influence his research. Even from Wikipedia:

"Reviewing McDougall's book, The McDougall Program for Maximum Weight Loss, nutritionist Frederick J. Stare and epidemiologist Elizabeth Whelan criticized its restrictive regime and "poor advice", concluding that the diet's concepts were "extreme and out of keeping with nutritional reality".

The quotes you referenced were specifically talking about a ketogenic diet; not a high protein one per se. Ketogenic diets typically try to keep protein low-moderate, as protein is anti-ketogenic. Even still, or perhaps as a direct result of the protein, high protein keto diets still fare better: http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/87/1/44.abstract

Only because no one wants to fund nutrition study, "respectable" organizations only fund studying disease.

You're sound like a conspiracy theorist.

Attack the data if you have a problem.

Is it really so ridiculous to think for-profit groups care not for interests of my health? The evidence was simply unconvincing to me - mostly cohort and case control studies with small sample sizes, done by researchers I have never heard of (one lead author's credential was a degree in exercise physiology, for example). Compounded by the fact these individuals were paid money to seek out certain results, I simply find the whole of "evidence" to be laughable. If high-protein diets are truly so magical, why is it the World Health Organization recommends just 10% or fewer calories be derived from protein, and the majority from carbohydrates (fruit, vegetables, etc.)? Is there any recognized nutritional authority or respectable medical group which supports these sponsored, high-protein diet findings?

Vegans may not be deficient but they certainly aren't anywhere close to optimal. That's why very few strength and power athletes are vegans or vegetarians.

People who concern themselves with building lean muscle mass, like me, do not seriously entertain the thought of plant-based diets, let alone high-carb ones. All of the data says otherwise: if you want to build lean muscle, eat quality protein that the human body will use most effectively. That means animals.

If you are a non-athletic, sedentary person then I imagine a vegan diet would work, though I question the use of the word "thrive".

> ll of the data says otherwise: if you want to build lean muscle, eat quality protein that the human body will use most effectively. That means animals.

Which data, exactly? You can get sufficient amount of protein to build muscle on a vegan diet.

Check out Patrik Baboumian. It doesn't appear he has any trouble building muscle on a plant based diet.

It's still important to get complete protein in your diet (which isn't that hard, and there are some plant sources of complete protein, like quinoa). Not to mention that it appear that high-protein diets (especially from animal sources) lead to a variety of health risks[1].

1: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1550413114...

You don't need to get a "complete protein" in every meal. If you're eating a varied diet, the "complete protein" requirement is trivially fulfilled.