Are you eating less meat?

General question, are you eating less meat than you were 12 months ago? My wife has started eating less, which means I have as well. Noticed more of the weekly shop has been heading to veggies and less into meat, now its mainly a pack of chicken a week between us. No big ethical reasons, just eating less.

Curious if this is a wider trend in your house as well?

Poll Options expired

  • 414
  • 455
  • 10
    None of your business


  • Nah I recently discovered smoking so I'm putting away more ribs that my doctor should know about.

    • +15 votes

      You have to try sous vide for beef ribs on the bone.

      70c for 36 hours and finish it on a charcoal grill.

      Don't throw out the juice in the sous vide bag. Put it over a bed of ice or something cold to solidify the fat/oil and use the remaining for a reduction sauce.

      I'm sure there are better recipes but I'm a lazy dude. I came up with with this cause it is easy and good AF.

      • Don't have a sous vide yet but it's on my list.

        I'm mostly doing pork ribs twice cooked - either smoked first or broiled in stock and spices first, then basted/roasted in bbq sauce in a hot oven to finish. Effing amazing. It's mostly about the home made bbq sauce for me :D

        • Damn. I'm using Sweet Baby Ray's but I need to graduate to a proper home made smoked sauce. I have a Primo XXL on order :D

          • @tshow: There's heaps of good recipes out there, some are simpler than others. I've been experimenting a bit but mostly mine is apple cider vinegar, ketchup, brown sugar, dijon, smoked pimenton. Then from there you can do all sorts of things to make it more interesting. I get a quality smoked pimenton from spain. So worth it compared to your masterfoods "paprika" which has no flavour.

            Surprisingly I find sweet bay rays too sweet. :|

          • @tshow: I got some “Bone Suckin’ sauce” from Costco and it doesn’t seem overly sweet to me. I sous vide the ribs as well. They come out so tender but I still think they would be helped with a bit of smoking as well.

            • @try2bhelpful: I always smoke it but it's the lazy man's smoke.

              Currently using a Weber until my upgrade arrives and I can be bothered setting it up. (To be honest, I'd probably skip work to set it up so who am I kidding. I'm a slightly above average sized kid).

              I use charcoal (real charcoal) and I throw in a greenish log from the curing pile. The incompletely dried log generated a lot of smoke. I keep the fuel in one corner and the meat in the far corner and put a lid over with the vent holes open. Should be hovering at 120c. Briquettes don't work cause it's too hot.

              I leave it there for about 30 minutes, take it off, rearrange the fuel so it's in the middle, and sear the edges of the ribs.


              (If SBR isn't too sweet, you maam have a high sugar tolerance.)

              • @tshow: You and me on the “let’s play rather than work”.

                Yeah, you might be right on the SBR but I don’t use lots so it isn’t toooo sweet.

                I wouldn’t use briquettes because the flavour is all wrong, you need good Smokey wood.

                Have you looked into jerk spices? I do a good chicken and mushroom fettuccini dish using jerk spices and rum as the marinade then a bit more jerk spices when cooking the onion.

                • @try2bhelpful: Briquette smoke is okay, if it is tasting wrong, you're not burning the accelerant out before starting the cook.

                  Nothing beats smokey wood but it costs 3x as much. Potentially more because it doesn't burn as long either.

                  I don't really do chicken on the bbq with one exception, the Steggles Split Chicken from Costco. Fantastic stuff. Too expensive to fire up the bbq unless it's for the good stuff.

            • @try2bhelpful: I sous vide my ribs but finish on a charcoal weber with some hickory or raspberry jam timber (bbq galore). You get the consistent sous vide texture with the smoked flavour.

        • Never done ribs that way, I always do 3-2-1 or 2-2-1 method on the smoker, is it better doing it the twice cooked way?

          • @TEER3X: Sorry whats the 3-2-1 or 2-2-1?

            My method is fairly non-scientific and basic. Gentle first cook then finish in oven (or on grill). I am sure there are way better methods.

            • @Skramit: Cook at around 250F on the smoker for 2hrs, wrap in foil, cook for 2 more hours, then unwrap for one more hour. That's 3-2-1 for St Louis cut ribs

              For baby backs, do 2-2-1.

              You can try Johnny Trig ribs recipe, link below. I try to do them that way but use real butter in place of parkay. I've tried both, doesn't really make a difference and I doubt you can get parkay here.


          • @TEER3X: 3-2-1 is for pork ribs not beef ribs. Our pork ribs are generally too lean for 3-2-1 unless you get some thick Costco bois. Beef ribs should be done till they reach 192-205f internal or really till they just probe like butter. You cant really put a time on them, they are done when theyre done and that depends on many factors.

            • @ruddiger7: Yeah I missed the part where they said beef lol. Haven't really made beef ribs much, except beef short ribs in a cast iron dutch oven. Over mash potato, amazing stuff… I loosely follow the pioneer womans recipe if anyone's interested.

              Otherwise, I pretty much only buy meat from Costco for smoking. My favorite bbq sauce are the bourbon based ones. You can try adding a little bit of orange juice to existing ones and cook them a bit to enhance the flavour.

      • What do you use for the marinade?

        • Sweet Baby Ray's and some Bourbon.

          As Skramit says, it is very sweet so I don't really use all that much.

      • Where do you guys get your beef ribs?

        I'm in Melbourne and I find the Costco ones good for low and slow but ridiculously expensive.

        On the smoker for 3-4 hours, then wrapped until around 200F is my preferred method…

        I do not understand why beef ribs here in Australia are so expensive. I've tried some Asian butchers but did not like the results.

        • Costco.

          I find it cheap for the quality. I used to drive over an hour to a boutique butcher for that sort of quality, and it costs me about 25% more too.

          Beef in Asian butchers are sourced based purely on price as beef isn't a staple in Asia. The beef dishes are predominantly broths, stirfry and stews so the quality doesn't matter. The ribs are typically not fatty enough so you end up with sinew on bone.

          As far as my travels have taken me, good beef ribs have always commanded a premium price.

    • +42 votes

      Had to read this twice - first time I thought "why would cigarettes make you want to eat ribs"?

  • Beef has been expensive (relative to other proteins) for a couple years now, so I've cut my consumption back a lot.

    Still eat a lot of chicken & seafood.

  • Notice any changes on well being ?

  • lol it's just you

  • +3 votes

    Partnerships are all about compromises

    Yes, we don't usually eat much red meat at all.

  • I eat more varieties now compared to a year ago. I used to only eat lamb, chicken, beef and pork, but now have added a few types of fish (thanks to the dietician who did the AMA) and kangaroo steak (because I’ve been watching skippy a lot and wanted to know what she tasted like).

  • I'm eating a lot more meat, as part of a low-carb easy-Keto diet.

    I feel so much more healthier and energetic.

    Eating meat is what enabled our ancestors to evolve intelligence.

    I'll stop eating meat the day the Greenies manage to convince all the cats and lions and crocodiles and sharks to also stop eating meat.

    • +31 votes

      Too much protein is bad for your liver. I used to do that diet and felt better reducing protein and upping it with water heavy veggies, ie cucumbers.

      Not as tasty but felt much better.

      • Is eating liver(s) bad for the liver? Or is it kidney(s) the other way around (From large animals-grass fed).

        • Too much liver is definitely bad, kidneys might be too - mostly because they contain complex molecules and things which are harder to break down which stresses the liver (which is why they're in the liver). I think one famous example is dying from Vit. A poisoning in Arctic / Antarctic explorers from eating husky livers in emergencies.

          • @HighAndDry: It was eating Polar Bear livers, if it was the huskys they would have been fine :P

            Bear liver stores the ingredients for their hibernation in up to 100x the concentration of any other type of liver ;)


      • With increased protein intake, you need to up your water intake significantly.

        From 2015, I started to eat about 30-35% of protein out of my total daily energy intake. Never felt better in my life. Good for muscle building too.

        • No doubt, ear protein if you're training just be mindful, many people people who train consume too much protein.

          It's also when protein is consumed. The body doesn't store protein, it must be converted to energy if it isn't used up.

          If you want to continue consuming high ratios of protein, you have to graze. Every 2-3 hours tops.

          You may even want to keep a hard-boiled eggs handy for that midnight snack.

    • Not so much; including, apparently, the intelligence. If you actually look at the studies, rather than listening to people like Pete Evans, you will see that the best diets are those based around a small amount of low fat meats and more vegetables, fruits, whole grains and some dairy.

      The average life span of paleo humans was 35 years.

      • +12 votes

        The average life span of paleo humans was 35 years.

        Not that I am in anyway in agreement with the Paleo diet but I think part of the lifespan had to do with being eaten by the things they were trying to eat.

        • Actually it was a bit of a throw away line. It is a complex mix of nutrition, food source availability, hygiene, health care, not dying in child birth, medical treatment, etc. However, the cultures that, on average, live a long time and have better health in old age, have diets that are relatively low in red meat. If you look at Asian diets or mediterranian diets they are pretty well balanced with low fat meats, good fats, low in simple carbohydrates, like sugar and lots of vegetables and fruit.

          • @try2bhelpful: Here's a list of countries by life expectancy.

            Majority are from countries that consume above average proportions of red meat.

            • @tshow: Would like to see the corresponding red meat chart. I would not put Japan on that list, probably not Singapore, Italy and Spain fall under mediterannian diets. The United States is a long way down the list and I would hazard a guess their meat consumption is high. I would also hazard that many of the "don't eat a lot of red meat" places that have low life expectancy have other health issues they have to contend with. Personally I'm an ominvore - I do eat meat. My personal downfall is chocolate.

              • +14 votes

                @try2bhelpful: Many of the countries lower down are dying from reasons other than diet.

                Many of the reasons why the countries higher on the list is because they're not involved in major wars and have access to reasonable level of healthcare and basic safety equipment.

                • @tshow: I think we are in agreement on that. The improvement in sanitation has been one of the big leaps forward in human longevity, especially in the larger cities. I watched a great program where they were plotting deaths in a city relative to the pumps the populace were using to get their water. They found clusters where it turned out the water had been contaminated with water borne diseases. In Elizabethan times the main waterways were hellishly polluted and everyone drank beer, including young children. Improve the water supply and the draw backs of drinking beer, all the time, outweigh any benefits.

        • And extremely high death rates for infant and mothers at birth ;)

          It doesn't take too many zero year olds to drastically affect "the average"!


          • @7ekn00: If memory serves me right, infants under a certain age are not included in the WHO life expectancy average.

            • @tshow: Didn't know the WHO had stats for pre-historic humans and that they had a policy what to count back then ;)

              Eliminating infant deaths from modern statistics just biases the scale towards modern humans! Anthropologists use skulls for death age, so a mother with an unborn child that died would have been counted as two death (with two skulls) - no matter what the WHO policy might be :P

              Is this the same WHO that advocated a vegan diet for "all stages of life", but has silently changed that stance since the handful of vegan baby deaths around the world? - sounds like an organisation we should all reference when we setup an appeal to authority fallacy ;)

              • @7ekn00: I don't really know much about WHO. Even thought they have word "Health" in it, it really is just a compendium of statistics. I haven't read any WHO journal in years.

              • @7ekn00: Can you give me a citation on WHO advocating veganism for all stages of life?

                • @try2bhelpful: Nope, they have recently retracted it (just like they did with red meat and cancer) ;)

                  But the WHO heavily based it on the 2009 paper from the ADA:

                  Position of the American Dietetic Association: vegetarian diets.
                  Craig WJ, et al. J Am Diet Assoc. 2009 Jul;109(7):1266-82.

                  While you are researching, have a look at the "Randall Cycle", which is one of the main energy production biochemical cycles within a cell - it becomes blatantly clear as to why a "balanced" dietary approach just leads to excessive oxidative stress (ie inflamation)

                • @try2bhelpful:

                  Can you give me a citation on WHO advocating veganism for all stages of life?

                  AFAIK the WHO has never advocated that - it would be prejudicial against various groups that do not have ready access to food the same way we do. They have advocated for diminishing animal agriculture generally as they have identified it as a major contributor to climate change - google "WHO Livestock's Long Shadow" for that.

                  The "all stages of life" take is the position of all the major dietetics and health organizations in the world who agree that vegan and vegetarian diets are just as healthy as, and probably healthier than omnivorous diets. Here are links to what some of them have to say on the subject:

                  Harvard Medical School

                  Traditionally, research into vegetarianism (see context) focused mainly on potential nutritional deficiencies, but in recent years, the pendulum has swung the other way, and studies are confirming the health benefits of meat-free eating. Nowadays, plant-based eating is recognized as not only nutritionally sufficient but also as a way to reduce the risk for many chronic illnesses.

                  British Dietetic Association

                  Well planned vegetarian diets (see context) can be nutritious and healthy. They are associated with lower risks of heart disease, high blood pressure, Type 2 diabetes, obesity, certain cancers and lower cholesterol levels. This could be because such diets are lower in saturated fat, contain fewer calories and more fiber and phytonutrients/phytochemicals (these can have protective properties) than non-vegetarian diets. (...) Well-planned vegetarian diets are appropriate for *all stages of life** and have many benefits.*

                  Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics

                  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.

                  Dietitians of Canada

                  A healthy vegan diet can meet all your nutrient needs at any stage of life including when you are pregnant, breastfeeding or for older adults.

                  The British National Health Service

                  With good planning and an understanding of what makes up a healthy, balanced vegan diet, you can get all the nutrients your body needs.

                  The British Nutrition Foundation

                  Well planned vegetarian and vegan diets can be nutritious and healthy ... Studies of UK vegetarian and vegan children have revealed that their growth and development are within the normal range.

                  The Dietitians Association of Australia

                  Vegan diets are a type of vegetarian diet, where only plant-based foods are eaten. With good planning, those following a vegan diet can cover all their nutrient bases, but there are some extra things to consider.

                  The United States Department of Agriculture

                  Vegetarian diets (see context) can meet all the recommendations for nutrients. The key is to consume a variety of foods and the right amount of foods to meet your calorie needs. Follow the food group recommendations for your age, sex, and activity level to get the right amount of food and the variety of foods needed for nutrient adequacy. Nutrients that vegetarians may need to focus on include protein, iron, calcium, zinc, and vitamin B12.

                  The National Health and Medical Research Council

                  Appropriately planned vegetarian diets, including total vegetarian or vegan diets, are healthy and nutritionally adequate. Well-planned vegetarian diets are appropriate for individuals during all stages of the lifecycle. Those following a strict vegetarian or vegan diet can meet nutrient requirements as long as energy needs are met and an appropriate variety of plant foods are eaten throughout the day

                  The Mayo Clinic

                  A well-planned vegetarian diet (see context) can meet the needs of people of all ages, including children, teenagers, and pregnant or breast-feeding women. The key is to be aware of your nutritional needs so that you plan a diet that meets them.

                  The Heart and Stroke Foundation of Canada

                  Vegetarian diets (see context) can provide all the nutrients you need at *any age,** as well as some additional health benefits.*
                  • @afoveht: I doubt anyone will bother with this. Heads in sand and all.

                    Everyone wants to do something about climate change or improving their health, but only if it’s not them having to make a sacrifice or change to their lives.

                    Anyways, great post and thanks for putting this up with references. I’m gonna keep this.

      • Sources!

        A key brain-trophic element in meat is vitamin B3 / nicotinamide. The supply of meat and nicotinamide steadily increased from the Cambrian origin of animal predators ratcheting ever larger brains. This culminated in the 3-million-year evolution of Homo sapiens and our overall demographic success.

        But yeah I don't think anyone needs the level of meat intake modern (Western developed nation) humans have these days.

        • I think we are in agreement. A balanced diet based on a little meat, fruit, vegetables, complex carbohydrates, good fats, clean water, moderate alcohol, is the best way to go.

          If meat eating was an indicator of higher brain function then T-Rexs would’ve used tools. I think we are a complex animal with various inputs.:)

          The other issue with flesh is that the food animal can concentrate toxins from the environment. This has shown up with Shellfish, fish, even cows. We all have to stop metaphorically “pissing” in our pantries.

          My personal take is I eat meat but I seek out sources that treat the animal humanely.

          • @try2bhelpful:

            If meat eating was an indicator of higher brain function then T-Rexs would’ve used tools.

            LOL! Maybe they did… and meat is why they could do it with stumpy T-rex arms and only 2 fingers on each hand……

            My personal take is I eat meat but I seek out sources that treat the animal humanely.

            When it comes to first world countries I think this is fine and not unreasonable. The problem exists when talking about developing countries and especially newly-risen middle classes of those countries who are now able to afford more meat based foodstuffs for the first time - and the fact that imposing higher requirements on our protein production methods is going to take that out of their reach again, or keep it out of their reach.

            And that isn't just a quality of living issue, in the worst case we're talking about children being malnourished from birth (due to not being able to afford meat), leading to lifelong developmental issues.

            THAT is a topic I don't want to touch because I can't see a solution at all.

            • @HighAndDry: Difficult situation but I think that humane production can still be achieved in those places. Personally I’m rooting for developing the technology to grow flesh in the labs. Nutrition without the cruelty. However, it does have a touch of the Star Trek “replicator” about it. :)

              • @try2bhelpful: Oh yeah - lab-grown protein would solve everything. People would get over the 'ick' factor really fast when it's half the price of naturally grown meat, which would then become a luxury good.

                • @HighAndDry: Soylent Green is people.

                  Seriously, though, I think we do need to get more serious on creating food that isn’t dependent on animal husbandry, or even on the weather. Drought causes widespread malnutrition. Food sources are too unreliable, too many mouths to feed, conditions are unsanitary, disease runs rife. We are getting closer to a pandemic every day.

                  • @try2bhelpful: I honestly would've thought this would be a bigger priority for governments, seeing as just like manufacturing capacity or heavy fuels, food security is (or should be) a strategic consideration in the worst case scenarios of war/etc.

                    • @HighAndDry: I think their heads are strategically placed where the sun doesn’t shine.

                      It does show how short sighted we are as a species. I wonder if getting some people a dictionary might help them to understand what words like sustainable mean. I also, sometimes, wonder what planet they intend to head to when they make this one unliveable.

      • The average life span of paleo humans was 35 years.

        infant mortality skews that number

    • I'll stop eating meat the day the Greenies manage to convince all the cats and lions and crocodiles and sharks to also stop eating meat.

      Animals will continue to be animals.

    • Same.

      I'm meat only for lunch atm, also feel way more healthier and energetic.

      No more afternoon food comas either which is amazing at work lol

    • Eating meat is what enabled our ancestors to evolve intelligence.


    • +2 votes

      Eating meat is what enabled our ancestors to evolve intelligence.

      Our ancestors did things like living in caves and hunting impala by running after them all day long too…

    • “Eating meat is what enabled our ancestors to evolve intelligence.”

      …. over time

      I’m not sure you understand how evolution works. It took many many many generations to develop our high level executive function. Our early early ancestors also didn’t have the option to not eat meat (as we do) or had such easy access to balanced diets. You eating meat now won’t magically make you smarter.

      It will, however, increase your risk of diabetes, dyslipidaemia, cancer (colorectal in particular), heart attack/stroke, etc.

      It’s terrible for the environment and difficult to argue for ethically.

      You do you but don’t use stupid excuses like this.

      There are dozens of studies showing the above.

      • Most of the studies demonising meat seem to sneak in cured/processed meats which obviously taint the results, it's almost dishonest really.

        Also any arguments regarding the environmental impact could also be made for any other luxury, including most vegetables. (we could conceivably all survive eating some lab grown algal slime after all)

        I mean think of the environmental impact of all the other luxuries in your life. Why is meat singled out as 'unnecessary' but you still get to renovate the kitchen which is perfectly functional as it is.

        • Can you quote me where most studies have utilized cured or any processed meats? I have not read that at all.

          And no, meat production has a direct impact on the environment. From methane from cows to land clearing for animal grazing, the negative impact is clearly mostly animal husbandry. When you specifically have an industry that requires significant environmental destruction and more energy put in than you get out (from crops required to feed the animals to the land needed for grazing, let alone antibiotics overuse and damage to environment by their hoofs), it’s not hard to specifically point to that as a major cause. And the solution is simple - consume less. You don’t have to stop entirely, just stop having it in every meal which is what most Aussie diets seem to consist of.

          I fear you are using your own biases to justify your stance. Have a read of the studies into health and environmental impact and you’ll see what I’m saying.

          • @blergmonkeys: The first study you linked says it right in the introduction "Red and processed meats have been shown to …"

            • @trapper: So…. one study.


              • @blergmonkeys: lol… this is the study you yourself provided which talks about processed meats in the flippin introduction and you state that "I have not read that at all".

                So why do you post links to studies that you have 'not read at all' (not even the introduction it seams) hahah my God there is no helping some people.

                • @trapper: I provided multiple studies. Have a look on google scholar. It is not limited to processed meats. Go on, educate yourself.

                  You’re the one stating it relates to ‘most’ studies. It does not. Objectively so.

                  • @blergmonkeys: Oh come on the first of your 'studies' directly contradicted you in the first flipping sentence, admit that you never even read it. You have zero integrity.