A new wave of scientific analysis is dismantling one of the most popular defenses of meat consumption: the argument that humans are biologically obligated to eat meat because our ancestors did so. According to the latest findings reported in the recent article “The ‘We Evolved to Eat Meat’ Argument Doesn’t Hold Up” published by Nautilus and adapted from MIT Press, both the nutritional and evolutionary cases for compulsory meat eating fail to stand up to scientific scrutiny—and the environmental and health rationales are even less convincing.
For many Thai readers, this debate is not just theoretical. As plant-based trends take root in restaurants across Bangkok and Chiang Mai, and with rising concerns about non-communicable diseases linked to red and processed meat consumption, the implications extend beyond personal dietary choices to public health, environmental sustainability, and food security. The article challenges a narrative frequently cited by proponents of eating red meat and the so-called “paleo diet,” who claim human evolution makes animal proteins a dietary necessity. It also examines how this assumption shapes debates about Thai cuisine, which is renowned for its harmonious blend of meats, seafood, and an abundance of plant-based ingredients.
The crux of the evolutionary argument pivots on the idea that as early humans evolved, their brains grew larger while their digestive systems shrank, supposedly reflecting a transition to a high-meat diet and establishing meat as the “fuel” for brain development. However, recent research now indicates that these anatomical changes could just as easily be supported by plant-based, high-protein, high-energy foods such as nuts, seeds, and legumes, many of which feature prominently in Thai diets. The article compares the caloric and protein densities of different food sources, noting that staples like almonds, kidney beans, lentils, peanuts, and soy can meet or even exceed the nutritional density of beef—sometimes requiring less than a kilogram of these plant foods to match the calories and protein content found in a kilogram of beef.
For example, the author highlights that of 59 plant foods compared to beef, seven—including peanuts and lentils, both integral to Thai home cooking—are more energy- and protein-dense than beef. An additional six, such as barley and oats, closely match beef in nutritional value. These findings suggest that early humans could have achieved adequate nutrition by gathering such plant foods, avoiding the risks associated with hunting large game. Such analysis undercuts the foundational claim of the paleo diet and similar trends that position meat as an evolutionary requirement.
Moreover, the article draws attention to the health consequences of modern meat-heavy diets. Data from four and a half million patients reveal a stark relationship between red meat and cardiovascular disease: increasing daily unprocessed red meat intake by 100 grams raises cardiovascular risk by 5% to 16%, and doubling red meat intake roughly doubles the risk of death. The author contextualizes this by observing that the physiological realities faced by our ancestors—short, dangerous lives with sporadic food access and predator threats—are fundamentally different from those of sedentary, long-living modern populations with calorie-rich diets. Thus, reasoning about ancestral eating patterns is unlikely to offer practical guidance for contemporary Thais, especially as the country faces rising rates of heart disease, diabetes, and obesity, according to data from the Thai Ministry of Public Health (moph.go.th).
Further complicating matters is the inaccessibility of true “paleo” foods in the modern world. The article notes dramatic differences between today’s highly bred and cultivated crops and the wild foods consumed by our ancestors. For example, supermarket strawberries bear little resemblance to their wild counterparts, just as domesticated beef is vastly fattier than wild game. Even organic produce, often regarded as closest to “natural,” is far removed from the wild plants and animals that once sustained early humans.
Research also suggests that the so-called paleo diet is not only nutritionally questionable but also expensive and associated with a high carbon footprint. One report described this diet as “an expensive and not nutritionally adequate diet with a high carbon footprint.” For Thailand, where beef farming is less common than poultry and seafood, and where concerns about global warming and PM2.5 pollution from agriculture are prominent (Bangkok Post), these findings resonate in the context of national and Southeast Asian environmental policies. The environmental impact of beef production, a centerpiece of meat-heavy diets, raises questions about sustainability—a point echoed by the United Nations and local conservationists urging a shift to more plant-based eating (UNEP Food Systems and Agriculture).
Expert perspectives reinforce the case for dietary change. Academic researchers and nutritionists interviewed in similar studies, such as those published in The Lancet and by the World Health Organization, repeatedly warn against overconsumption of red meat. The lead researcher from a Thai university’s public health faculty recently commented that, “Shifting even part of our protein intake from beef to plant sources can significantly reduce both disease risk and national greenhouse gas emissions,” aligning with the article’s stance (The Lancet). Likewise, plant-forward diets rich in beans, soy, and nuts are fully compatible with traditional Thai cuisine as found in legendary dishes like tom yum hed (mushroom soup) and massaman tofu curry.
Thai history also offers perspective on current debates. Ancient Thai civilizations, from the Dvaravati period to the Ayutthaya kingdom, traditionally consumed diets high in rice, vegetables, and fish, with red meat a rare luxury reserved for special occasions. The widespread availability of beef and processed meats only became commonplace in the 20th century, paralleling Westernization and urbanization. As a result, the notion that Thais are genetically programmed to eat meat has little archaeological or cultural basis.
Looking ahead, the implications of these findings are significant. As Thailand grapples with the dual imperatives of public health improvement and environmental protection—embodied in nationwide campaigns such as the “Reduce Meat, Save Life” program and Bangkok Metropolitan Administration’s push to promote plant-based school lunches—public understanding of nutrition must move beyond evolutionary myths. Policies supporting greater production and accessibility of affordable legumes, nuts, and other plant-based proteins could help balance Thais’ nutrient intake while curbing chronic disease rates and agricultural emissions.
For the Thai public, doctors, policymakers, and chefs alike, the message is clear: nutritional adequacy, health, and environmental impact—not imagined ancestral diets—should guide food choices. Practically, this means exploring more meatless days, incorporating local high-protein plant sources such as soy and mung beans, and championing the rich tapestry of traditional Thai vegetable dishes. While meat can remain part of the Thai culinary landscape, moderation, diversification, and respect for local agricultural ecology are key to ensuring a sustainable food future.
In summary, the belief that humans evolved to eat meat, and therefore must do so today, does not withstand critical scientific examination. Thais seeking both tradition and health would do well to remember the plant-forward roots of their cuisine and heed modern nutritional and environmental science. For a brighter, healthier Thailand, embracing a varied, plant-centric diet is both heritage and hope.
Sources: