Thread by @TyRBeal

The case for animal source foods

Animal source foods are evolutionarily appropriate

Micronutrient deficiencies are common in populations with low animal source food intake

Iron deficiency is common even in high-income countries

The best sources of iron and other commonly lacking nutrients are animal sources foods

Plant source foods contain far lower amounts of commonly lacking nutrients

But there are also some reasons for concern

In general, I think the evidence suggests that moderate consumption of minimally processed animal source foods in the context of a healthy diet is compatible with optimal health for most people.

But high amounts of endocrine disrupters and carcinogenic or mutagenic compounds in processed red meat are not good for anyone. And there are certain people for whom high amounts of saturated fat, cholesterol, heme iron, and lactose can be problematic.

But I think nutritionism may not be the best approach

Because it tends to give a pass to ultra-processed foods and fails to take into account overall diets and the food compounds we don’t know much about

This summarizes my perspective of the evidence

To clarify, endocrine disrupters can accumulate in animal source foods from administration of hormones but also from the food, water, and environment in which animals live.

Fish increases TMAO 50 times more than meat and eggs, so I doubt it is problematic.

To clarify, I think on average processed red meat is likely a net negative. But there is a large range of types of processed red meat, and there are likely processed red meats that are neutral or even a net positive.