business news in context, analysis with attitude

The New Yorker has a piece about the research and questions surrounding a nutrition philosophy that says we are "mismatched with the modern world and that many of our problems can be solved by reconnecting with long-lost ways."

One of those ways:  an all-meat diet.

It isn't a new thought.  It has a long history.  But it appears that, propelled by social media, it is gaining some level of traction.

One version of the philosophy maintains that "humans evolved to kill animals similar in size and constitution to domesticated cattle, to devour their organs (often raw), and to eat vegetables only in the most desperate of circumstances."  

One tagline for the movement:  "Why eat vegetables when you can eat testicles?"

You can read the entire story here.

KC's View:

Spoiler alert - The New Yorker points out that these are fad diets, and that "no controlled studies have been published that validate the extravagant health claims made for the carnivore diet."

But what really interests me about the story is how it actually connects the hyper-carnivory movement to men who feel aggrieved about their lives.  In other words, toxic masculinity.

"Men, we read more and more, are falling behind," The New Yorker writes.  "Just seventy-four men finish college for every hundred women. The model of a provider who supports a family through mostly physical labor is a diminishing prospect. Because meat is linked to manhood, carnivory promises a way to pump up a shrivelled birthright."

I think they're more worried about something other then their birthrights being shriveled.

In the end, perhaps it makes more sense to try to be smart rather than angry, loving rather than dismissive, compassionate rather than intolerant, and listen more than talk.  And maybe even mix some greens, carbs, fish and chicken into their diets.