Der folgende Auszug dürfte für dich interessant sein. Kopiert aus
Nestle, M. (1999). Animal v. plant foods in human diets and health: is the historical record unequivocal?. Proceedings of the Nutrition Society, 58(2), 211-218.
(http://journals.cambridge.org/download.php?file=%2FPNS%2FPNS58_02%2FS0029665199000300a.pdf&code=f17e603dce127b6d74f024857fd4885c)
The Arctic exception
The one exception to this predominance of plant foods occurs among indigenous people who live in Arctic North America, the extreme of human (and plant) habitation. In the 1920s, Arctic Eskimos were reported to rely completely on hunting for their food, but to do little or no gathering (Balikci, 1968), particularly at latitudes above 49° (Hayden, 1981). Instead, the population depended on marine and land mammals and fish for 80–100 % of food intake and, therefore, on a diet based almost entirely on animal protein and animal fat (Harris & Ross, 1987). If such observations are correct, the population must have been able to survive to reproductive age on a diet containing only minimal amounts of nutrients for which plants are main sources. Since vitamin C is found almost exclusively in plant foods, a source of vitamin C must have been available to prevent scurvy. Analyses of the nutrient content of raw game meats indicate that raw bison (Bison bison), caribou (Rangifer tarandus), moose (Alces alces), and variety meats contain 5–15 mg vitamin C/kg portions (US Department of Agriculture, 1989), an amount that should be sufficient to prevent scurvy in most people. Whale skin, organ meats, and the stomach contents of animals also would be expected to contain vitamin C. No information is available, however, on life expectancies, infant mortality rates, and other health indices of pre-contact indigenous peoples (HV Kuhnlein, personal communication). Despite the short growing season, plant gathering is quite possible in the Arctic. Kuhnlein & Turner (1991) have identified more than 1000 edible plant species in Arctic areas, and found evidence for consumption of at least 550 of them (seaweeds, lichens, fungi, ferns, conifers and flower- ing plants). Their observations of present-day indiginous populations reveals considerable gathering, processing and preservation of edible plants. Thus, it seems likely that pre- contact indigenous people consumed enough plant foods to provide needed nutrients, and gathered and stored plant foods for use during seasons when they were not available. Despite their almost exclusive dependence on meat, indigenous Arctic people have less atherosclerosis (New- man et al . 1993) and lower rates of CHD than are found among non-natives, even though they display higher rates of cigarette smoking, obesity (among women) and hyper- tension (among young men), have lower levels of blood cholesterol and triacylglycerols (Young et al. 1993), and have more alcoholism (Kuhnlein, 1991). This ‘Eskimo paradox’ has been attributed to high levels of beneficial fatty acids in marine mammals and fish (Kuhnlein et al. 1991; Kuhnlein & Soueida, 1992; Young et al. 1993). As market foods replace traditional foods in Arctic diets, however, rates of heart disease, cancer, diabetes and tooth decay are increasing, suggesting that additional intake of fruits and vegetables would convey substantial health benefits (Nobmann et al. 1992; Kuhnlein & Receveur, 1996).
Man mag eine rein fleischliche Ernährung sicher etliche Jahre lang aushalten, generell ist sich die Wissenschaft aber weitestgehend einig darin, dass hoher Fleischkonsum zu einem erhöhten Risiko für eine Reihe von Erkrankungen und damit einhergehend zu einem kürzeren Leben führt.
Außerdem ist es unökonomisch, so viel Fleisch zu essen: Um ein Kilo Fleisch zu produzieren, muss ein Schlachttier das Dutzend-fache an pflanzlicher Nahrung aufnehmen. Dann gibt es natürlich das Problem der Massentierhaltung, was nicht nur naheliegenderweise für die darunter leidenden Tiere furchtbar ist, sondern am Ende auch für den Konsumenten, da die Qualität des Fleisches schlecht ist, Hormone enthält, Antibiotika enthält (welche dann begünstigt durch die geringen Konzentrationen im Konsumenten resistente Keime evolvieren lassen), etc.
Ich esse lieber teures, aber gutes Fleisch von Biobauern, bei denen die Tiere noch ein anständiges Leben haben können, und dafür halt nur einmal pro Woche. Das Fleisch schmeckt dann auch hundertmal so gut.