Only meat diet has some very serious downsides, though. It’s very environmentally unfriendly and because of the high cost it’s available to a very few people. That makes it rather hard to recommend, regardless of potential health upsides.
some methods of meat production are
but you can focus on environmentally friendly methods instead
don't hate the product, hate the process
Greenhouse gas emissions per 100g protein https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/ghg-per-protein-poore?tab... Dark Chocolate 93.30 kg Beef (beef herd) 49.89 kg Coffee 35.66 kg Lamb & Mutton 19.85 kg Tomatoes 19.00 kg Oatmeal 1.91 kg
When the tomato is grown in an open field, the production emits an average of 80 kg CO2 per ton. If the tomatoes are grown in a greenhouse, they emit up to 700 kg CO2 per ton. In tomatoes there is 1.31% protein https://www.sdu.dk/en/om_sdu/fakulteterne/teknik/nyt_fra_det...
At least for us in Northern Europe, all tomatoes are grown in green houses.
Doesn't this link confirm that meat is indeed bad with respect to emissions?
With respect, focusing on tomatoes is a bit odd. I don't think anyone is eating tomatoes for their protein source, as it would take a lot of tomatoes to get to 100g of protein (and yes, that would create a lot of emissions).
If we're talking about non-meat protein, it's best to focus on vegetarian protein-dense sources like legumes, grains such as oats or quinoa, nuts, etc. All of these are much lower than the meat examples here, sometimes by a factor of 10 or more. Poultry and fish are the closest, with poultry being 2x "grains" (a broad category), and almost 3x tofu.
On the other hand, you don't mention it, but greenhouse emissions for 100g of beef protein are 25x the emissions for 100g of oatmeal protein. That's astounding if you care about CO2 from your food production.
To address the tomatoes way more than they deserve, tomatoes have 4 protein per pound, and locally here cost perhaps USD$2 (maybe half that in season on sale). So 100g tomato protein is $50 and requires you to consume 25 lb (!!!) tomatoes.
[Edit: sister comment posted while writing.]
What evidence have you got that animal products are "easier to digest"?
Vegetables have anti nutrients, a class of chemicals designed to make them less edible. It’s one of the main reasons you can’t eat the vegetation around you.
Things like gluten are perfect examples of anti nutrients.
Meat on the other hand has no anti nutrients.
Easiest poop was when I was carnivore(you poop very little amount). Being constipated means you didn't get enough fat. Having diarrhea means you got too much fat that your body couldn't absorb fast enough.
At start of carnivore you'll probably have diarrhea since your body/colon isn't yet used to so much fat/meat. But then you get get used to it (1-4 week).
Here’s a brief explanation from a member of Cornell faculty: http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/2004-10/1096814276.Zo.r...
You may want to take a look at this meta-study [0].
> “A meta-analysis of prospective epidemiologic studies showed that there is no significant evidence for concluding that dietary saturated fat is associated with an increased risk of CHD or CVD.”
Saying saturated fat intake doesn't correlate with CVD when ignoring serum cholesterol is entirely uninteresting, and not what anyone's claiming.
See also this[0] comment on that flawed meta-analysis.
Obviously, as science is what it is (and that's a good thing), those study are debatable and do have weak spots.
[0] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24723079/ [1] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26268692/ [2] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31791641/ [3] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30954077/