Fat and protein are the essential macro-nutrients for optimal health and wellness. By essential, I mean they are absolutely necessary--we can live without carbohydrate (thrive, in fact) but if we do not get enough fat and protein, we cannot maintain proper cellular function and the result is certain disease and eventual death.
So a diet that uses meat as a fat and protein source is close to being optimal and, certainly, our paleolithic ancestors subsisted on bursts of feeding upon the fat and protein of wild game, interspersed with periods of gathering nuts and berries.
That being said, we can't just turn a blind eye to the fact that meat and animal fat also present health risks. We now know that dietary fat does not build up in the arteries the way we once thought; once we no longer have to worry about where our next meal is coming from, a grain-based diet, low in essential fatty acids creates an inflammatory state that puts one at higher risk of heart disease. However, the Archives of Internal Medicine recently published a study that shows a small increased risk of coronary artery disease (CAD) in those who report frequent meat eating. The question is: why? This is what we call a correlational study. It demonstrates a relationship but does little to analyze cause and effect. Here are several possible hypotheses that have yet to be thoroughly studied:
- It could be something inherent to meat, in any form
- It could be something inherent to cooking the meat (see prior post on grilling)
- It could be due to the widespread use of antibiotics and growth hormones in commercial meat industries
- It could be due to the pro-inflammatory grain (ie, corn) diet we force on these animals in place of their natural diet (grass, clover, etc.)
The last two are interesting to me in terms of health and medicine but also in terms of philosophy and ethics. When animals are "factory farmed" and treated inhumanely, the nutritional value of their meat is compromised. When fed, for instance, the instantly fattening, cheaply produced corn and grain-based diet, it increases the ratio of saturated fat to oleic acid and increases the inflammatory properties of meat. So the question is, would these findings have been different if these were either a.) wild game animals or b.) pastured, humanely treated, domesticated animals?
Though these are still only working hypotheses my family and I have been slowly converting to the "locavore" philosophy of eating, focusing on locally grown produce, wild caught fish, locally raised, free-range poultry, eggs, and grass-fed beef. It is certainly difficult and costly to make these switches--but as our friend Rebecca is fond of saying, we vote with our dollars, so it is something we continue to work on, making small changes in our choices of food and where we buy it.
While the evidence remains to be gathered and tested, it certainly seems rather poetic that being good stewards of the earth, and treating animals humanely, would have broad-ranging health benefits for those who make those choices. It has a kind of symmetry that makes this nutritional philosophy intuitively the best choice for those seeking optimal health and wellness for themselves and compassionate living for the good of their community. And in the meantime, I'm working out the details of dietary choices for those who wish to entirely opt out of animal protein for the ethical reasons stated here. It's difficult because animal protein and fat are optimal sources of our essential macro-nutrients--but there is likely a way that vegetarians and even vegans can eat the low-carbohydrate way, receive optimal nutrition, and live in harmony with their ethical choices.
Comments