Eating meat is good for your health

My opponent did not find a way to escape fallacies and faulty science. 1. Meat provides innumerable health benefitsCon is wrong in saying that consumption of meat brings more negative than positive outcomes. In terms of what? He used weak studies to prove his point. That does not work. Beef liver is among the type of meat that contains more nutritions than many varieties of fruit. [1] Calf's liver contains incredible amounts of health benefits, among them cancer reduction. "Diets high in vitamin B12-rich foods, especially if they are low in fat, are also associated with a reduced risk of colon cancer. And, calf's liver is also an excellent source of zinc and a very good source of selenium. Selenium helps reduce the risk of colon cancer since it is needed for the proper function of glutathione peroxidase, an important internally produced antioxidant that not only protects the cells of the colon from free radicals and cancer-causing toxins, but has also been shown to reduce the severity of inflammatory conditions like asthma and rheumatoid arthritis." [2]"Studies consistently show red meat prevents iron and zinc deficiencies when requirements are high such as in babies, toddlers, teenage girls and young women." [3] It's obvious that meat in many forms comes with a plethora of health benefits. Fish alone can cover your Vitamin D needs.2. Right doses and preparation is necessary for all foodCon only attacks processed red meat and high consumption of it. Nowhere does the resolution refer to red meat only, nor does it specify the amount needed to make meat consumption unhealthy. He said, "Although this link was found at consumption levels above 300g per week (significantly less than general western average consumption; the report states that there is no safe level of consumption for processed meats." In the last round, he claimed that meat consumption should be compared to the alternative food sources.So how about vegetables, sir? "Lima beans have to be very well cooked before they are eaten because the raw beans contain a product called limarin. Just a handful can make someone violently ill so always ensure they have been cooked." [4] Obviously, everything can be harmful if not prepared well, and if produced in a wrong manner. Merely pointing out that processed meat and over 300g of it per weak means it is unhealthy per se is just rubbish. In contrast, lower doses of certain types of meat are very beneficial and often necessary. Lack of meat consumption has often been linked to a variety of diseases and nutrition deficiencies."Researchers have long known that a strict vegetarian diet -- one that excludes all animal products -- can lead to vitamin B-12 deficiency, and possibly heart disease. Now, new research suggests that even those who follow a more lenient vegetarian diet are also at risk." [5] "In a new study, researchers from the Harvard School of Public Health (HSPH) have found that eating processed meat, such as bacon, sausage or processed deli meats, was associated with a 42% higher risk of heart disease and a 19% higher risk of type 2 diabetes. In contrast, the researchers did not find any higher risk of heart disease or diabetes among individuals eating unprocessed red meat, such as from beef, pork, or lamb." [6]Clearly, both meat and its alternatives (vegetables, fruits, etc.) can be unhealthy if consumed in too large doses, and if prepared poorly. This is not a good argument against their health effects whatsoever. CounterargumentsC1: There is no sufficient evidence that links meat consumption with cancer and increased heart diseaseCon's case relies heavily on the myth that meat consumption increases the risk of cancer and cardiovascular disease. Pay attention to these studies; - All of them literally rely on correlation-data, something that should never be taken seriously. It's a logical fallacy, too. To claim that because A and B happen to be correlated, therefore one must have caused the other, is illogical. It could be, in the case of meat consumption, that those who eat meat prepare it wrongly, consume it alongside very unhealthy food, live a negative lifestyle, etc. In fact, according to plenty of research, this happens to be the case."The aim of this research was to analyse certain lifestyle parameters and health condition indices among people with traditional and vegetarian models of eating. The research conducted shows that vegetarians present a higher level of caring about their health, which is expressed on a scale of pro-health behaviours, than people with traditional model of eating. A higher percentage of them take up physical activity in their free time (80% vs. 70%), additionally, they more seldom drink alcohol and smoke cigarettes. Alcohol abstinence is declared by 75% of vegans, 25% of lacto-ovo vegetarians and only 8% of people with traditional model of eating. Tobacco non-smoking is declared by 94% of vegans, 74% of lacto-ovo vegetarians and 67% of traditional eating people. It has also been shown that some psychosomatic health indices, especially concerning digestive duct/system, remain varied in regard to the model of eating followed. The research has proven that vegetarian model of eating influences other--non-eating--pro-health behaviours and in this way it shapes healthy lifestyle of research subjects." [7]For studies to be sound and complete, they must compare people who live approximately same lifestyles, with the exclusion or inclusion of meat consumption. It is nonsensical to point out that meat consumers have increased risk of cancer, because all evidence points to the fact that there are far more factors involved than mere meat consumption. As per the study above, it is obvious that vegetarians are not more healthy only because they refrain from eating meat. It is because when people decide to become vegetarians, they break a norm; They shift from meat to alternative sources, from smoking to non-smoking, from alcohol consumption to no alcohol consumption, et cetera.A comparative study of people in Asia, who followed strict religious diets, found that there were no overall health differences between vegetarians and omnivores. [8] In addition: "When a vegetarian's main diet change is avoiding animal flesh rather than emphasizing fresh produce and moving away from refined foods, the health outcomes aren’t much different than those of standard omnivores (except for the added burden of higher homocysteine)." [9]C2: Mutagens in meat can be reducedCon claims that "more than 24 types of mutagens have been identified as constituents of cooked meat products." This is no problem. "Microwave heating eliminates the majority of the precursors for the formation of HCAs, and reduces their mutagenic activity by 95 percent. Other studies have shown microwave cooking is associated with a decreased risk for some cancers. For the best of both worlds, gently cook your meat in the microwave, in a low conventional oven, or sous vide, and finish it on the grill for flavor." [10]Feel free to consume meat. It's enjoyable and healthy. Don't be frightened by the pseudo-science we observe in this debate. [1] http://chriskresser.com...[2] http://www.whfoods.com...[3] http://www.themainmeal.com.au...[4] http://www.environmentalgraffiti.com...[5] http://www.webmd.com...[6] http://www.hsph.harvard.edu...[7] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...[8] http://rawfoodsos.com...[9] Ibid.[10] http://blog.zocdoc.com...