#Paleodiet

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.

A newly published article from the MIT Press Reader critically examines the long-held belief that humans must eat meat for optimal health, presenting recent research which dismantles the popular evolutionary argument justifying meat consumption. This in-depth analysis challenges the notion that our ancestors’ supposed dependence on meat has meaningful implications for modern dietary choices, with notable ramifications for public health discussions in Thailand and beyond (MIT Press Reader).

The evolutionary argument for meat eating, often used to advocate for high-protein diets like the “paleo” regimen, claims that humans evolved as obligatory meat eaters and thus must continue this pattern today. This narrative has gained traction in both Western and Thai health circles, influencing restaurant menus, consumer trends, and even government nutrition guidance. But the latest research reveals key flaws in this logic. Modern health records, large-scale dietary studies, and nutritional analyses of plant foods collectively call into question the necessity and safety of high meat intake in the 21st century.