Eating patterns determine the well-being of the population and, consequently, can be viewed as one of the factors which can be used for analyzing people’s health and other areas of life. From this perspective, both vegetarianism and meat-eating have their benefits and drawbacks, which should be examined to allow one to make a well-informed decision in this respect. Even though there is a controversy concerning the health outcomes of these two approaches, they are equal in the provision of vitamins, whereas meat eaters tend to suffer less from mental issues.
The contradicting evidence about the physical well-being of individuals preferring meat and their vegetarian counterparts’ preferences does not allow claiming the feasibility of eating habits of these categories of citizens. According to some sources, the advantages of the latter way include lower cholesterol levels, blood pressure, and a more optimal body mass (Kerr). Nevertheless, research claims that eating meat correlates with fewer risks of chronic diseases and allergies (Kerr). From this standpoint, the lack of clarity indicates the presence of risks in both approaches until the opposite is confirmed.
Another circumstance is the nutritious value of foods consumed by vegetarians and meat-eaters, and, in this case, the former offers greater potential for imbalances and deficiencies. As per the studies, people who adhere to a plant-based diet are reported to be at risk of lacking numerous substances, such as protein, calcium, or iron (Kerr). In this situation, their problem is the need for more careful planning compared to other citizens, who do not limit their eating habits in a similar manner. In contrast to vegetarians, they receive more vitamins due to the availability of a more significant variety of options (Kerr). Therefore, both approaches can be equally beneficial for maintaining the balance of substances in one’s body. Meanwhile, the refusal to eat meat leads to spending more time and effort on ensuring the correspondence of eating habits to healthy norms.
The final consideration when determining the reasonability of the specified diets is their influence on the mental conditions of individuals, and vegetarianism seems more detrimental to this aspect than the consumption of meat. This conclusion is conditional upon the fact that the former representatives suffer from the corresponding conditions more frequently than others without limitations to their eating patterns (Kerr). Thus, they are known for having higher rates of depression, and this fact is connected to the potential deficiencies in minerals and vitamins (Kerr). Compared to them, meat-eaters are reported to have a better mood and overall mental health (Kerr). In this way, vegetarianism can bring harm to this area of life.
To summarize, this approach is worse than unrestricted eating despite the advantages of refusing to consume meat, which include fewer risks connected to blood pressure or cholesterol levels. This stance is underpinned by its complexity in planning and mental health concerns. In turn, the people preferring an inclusive diet appear to have easier access to vitamins and, therefore, are generally more stable in their condition.
Work Cited
Kerr, Gord. “The Statistics of Vegetarians Vs. Meat-Eaters.” Live Strong, 2019, Web.