The text observes International Meatless Day, a tradition launched in 1985 to inspire a one-day shift away from meat. What began as a focus on red meat has broadened to encompass all animal products in some discussions. In various places, voices have urged reducing poultry consumption and even avoiding fish, all framed as efforts to safeguard the planet. Coincidentally, Earth Day is noted, suggesting a broader moment of reflection on animal agriculture and its environmental footprint. Some argue that livestock production contributes more to carbon emissions than other sources, prompting a reevaluation of dietary choices without assigning blame to any single group.
The author expresses support for a meatless day and personally aims to cut back on red meat, acknowledging that excessive consumption can impact both planetary health and individual wellbeing. The narrative highlights a range of concerns about health issues linked to high meat intake, including digestive conditions, and stresses the importance of informed, balanced decisions rather than blanket prescriptions about diet.
Historically, meat-heavy cuisines have faced debates about health-related risks, particularly related to gut health and related disorders.
There are personal memories of periods when meat was avoided for extended times. The storyteller recalls living in Europe where vegetarian options were more developed, though notes that complete substitution for meat’s amino acids is challenging. Returning to Russia revealed limited vegetarian substitutes outside major cities, leading to a stage of ovo-pescetarianism, where eggs and fish were consumed while red meat was avoided. Gradually, a transition back toward meat occurred as dietary needs and lifestyle shifted.
A few years later, a move to a larger city again changed dietary patterns. Exposure to gym training and fitness routines increased the appeal of meat for strength and recovery. The experience suggested that dietary choices interact with physical activity in ways that meat can support muscle-building, though the notion of substitution or overreliance on any single food remains contentious.
There is mention of a period after completing education when meat was avoided for a long time, including a pregnancy. Personal anecdotes describe visiting a steakhouse during the early pregnancy and continuing to eat meat thereafter, choosing not to dwell on debates about the environmental impact of livestock. The narrative also recounts postponing red meat during extended breastfeeding and early years of a child, while later returning to meat preparation and sharing memories of cooking and handling game foods with practical skill and no hesitation about their culinary role.
There is a moment described where meat was not appealing, followed by a renewed craving for lamb, which led to a steady pattern of moderated meat consumption. The author uses these experiences to suggest that giving up meat is not a guaranteed path to better health and environmental outcomes, and cautions against universal endorsement of vegetarianism. Skepticism is voiced toward propagandists who frame moral or health benefits as absolute guarantees.
The text critiques the commercialization of vegetarianism, especially in the mid-2010s in St. Petersburg, where new shops offered trendy vegetarian dishes at premium prices. It notes the emergence of vegan education industries, cookbooks, magazines, and shows designed to attract a paying audience. The rise and subsequent decline of certain raw food movements are described, along with warnings about dubious claims by some practitioners. The broader point is that dietary trends can become lucrative markets, sometimes detached from sound science or practical experience.
There is a reflection on veganism and its reception in various climates, with observations about India’s population and dietary patterns. The narrative suggests that vegetarianism and veganism do not uniformly align with regional climates or cultural contexts, and that real-world dietary choices are often shaped by availability and tradition rather than ideology alone. The discussion touches on how some populations rely on dairy, meat, and mixed diets to meet nutritional needs rather than adhering strictly to plant-only regimes.
Historical references surface, including Tolstoy and literary anecdotes about meat in daily life, illustrating that dietary debates have long been part of cultural discourse. The piece notes that vegetarianism has inspired movements and communities, but also questions whether such movements become entrenched as dogma. The closing thought invites readers to consider a simple premise: a day without meat could be a feasible experiment for some, while for others it may not deliver the promised planetary benefits when viewed through personal experience and scientific nuance.
Overall, the piece presents a personal stance that may diverge from editors or mainstream advocacy, inviting readers to weigh evidence, reflect on health and environment, and decide what works best in their own lives.